Chomsky: US failed state, Look to NWO

by **NewKid** » Wed Apr 05, 2006 11:36 pm

Starman made a good point about people wanting "one stop shopping for truth" and looking to people like Chomsky for it. It just doesn't exist with anybody. So people like Chomsky have to be taken with that in mind. He's done some great work, but is also somewhat one dimensional and flawed in a lot of ways in my view too. I don't pretend to know what motivates him; I just know he's taken some strange positions on major events that call into question his authority as a commentator on political events. Whether he's doing this for tactical or prudential reasons or he's so aligned with a particular school of thought that it blinds his judgment or whether he was deliberately inserted into the political arena as phony dissent back in the 50s by the global elites in the 1001 club or the Order of the Dragon Court, I don't know. Is he worth listening to -- sure, otherwise we wouldn't be talking about him and his ideas would have been long ago remanded to oblivion. But there are so many commentators out there right now who I think are much more accurate observers of the state of affairs that I think it's well past time to stop looking to him as some great beacon of truth.

by **Qutb** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 9:30 am

I find Xymphora's one-track mind and his/her obsessive anti-Zionism rather tiring.

by **yablonsky** » Sun Apr 09, 2006 4:48 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Does anyone else have to choke back a bit of puke each time some 9/11 'researcher' blames Chomsky for denying gov't complicity. Or calls him a coward or gatekeeper?<hr></blockquote> i do. thanks for the reminder. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=yablonsky>yablonsky</A> at: 4/9/06 3:30 am

by **yablonsky** » Sun Apr 09, 2006 5:11 am

and what StarmanSkye said (4/3 4:56) Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=yablonsky>yablonsky</A> at: 4/9/06 3:50 am

by **yablonsky** » Sun Apr 09, 2006 5:20 am

<a href="http://ranprieur.com/essays/dropout.html">ranprieur.com/essays/dropout.html</a> Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=yablonsky>yablonsky</A> at: 4/9/06 4:00 am

by **James Redford** » Sun Apr 09, 2006 8:23 am

Qutb wrote: <blockquote>Quote:<hr> He doesn't think CFR, TLC and Bilderberg is such a big deal, and I tend to agree. These institutions are informal venues where the internationalist elite comes together, but the elite exists independently of these institutions, however much they've been the bogeymen of right-wing conspiratology for several decades. <hr></blockquote> That's not in conformance to reality. The Bilderberg group sets policy, and that policy comes to pass. They also groom politicians, and the politicians they groom get into the offices they were groomed for. The Bilderberg group is the top-tier of the globalist ruling elite. The Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission are the Bilderberg groups' more public organizational branches which help to enact the agenda of the Bilderberg group. Reuters acknowledges that the Bilderberg group of European royalty and international central bankers groomed Bill Clinton and Tony Blair for the U.S. Presidency and British Prime Ministry, respectively: "Secretive Bilderberg group to meet in Sweden," Peter Starck, Reuters, May 23, 2001: <a href="http://www.propagandamatrix.com/reuters_bilderberg.html">www.propagandamatrix.com/...rberg.html</a> For more information on the Bilderberg group, see the below news archives: <a href="http://www.prisonplanet.com/archive_bilderberg.html">www.prisonplanet.com/arch...rberg.html</a> <a href="http://www.propagandamatrix.com/archive_bilderberg.html">www.propagandamatrix.com/...rberg.html</a> See also: "Elite power brokers' secret talks," Emma Jane Kirby, BBC News, May 15, 2003: <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3031717.stm">news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world...031717.stm</a> "World government in action," Joseph Farah, WorldNetDaily.com, May 16, 2003: <a href="http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32606">worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...E_ID=32606</a> "The masters of the universe," Pepe Escobar, Asia Times, May 22, 2003: <a href="http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EE22Ak03.html">www.atimes.com/atimes/Mid...2Ak03.html</a> And as the below BBC Radio report reveals, the European Union and the euro European Union single-currency were both secretly planned since the first Bilderberg meeting in 1954: <a href="http://www.propagandamatrix.com/archive_bilderberg.html">www.propagandamatrix.com/...rberg.html</a> BBC Bilderberg Report: European Union, Single Currency Planned Since 50's BBC uncovered incredible archived Bilderberg documents which confirmed that both the EU and the Euro were the brainchild of Bilderberg. "Club Class," Simon Cox, BBC Radio, July 3, 2003: <a href="http://www.propagandamatrix.com/bbc_radio_4_bilderberg.mp3">www.propagandamatrix.com/...erberg.mp3</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr> I disagree with the popular idea that the CFR etc - or the group of elites that are said to control them - have "one world government" as their "final" aim. Why would they? The state system works just fine for them. The state system allows for offshore tax havens/money laundering paradises, for the most extreme inequality in income etc which can be exploited for corporate/financial gains, for a "race to the bottom" competition between countries, and so on. What they want is a one world global marketplace, with no central government to govern it, and with the United States military as a world police force to punish those who won't play the game. To anyone who reads the CFR's "Foreign Affairs", it's evident that no consensus reigns among CFR members on most of the issues they discuss. What they do, rather, is establish the boundaries of "respectable" debate. Debate is fine, as long as it's within certain limits and there's consensus on certain core assumptions. For instance, there's a (largely unspoken) consensus that the US must play an "active" role on the world stage. A "non-interventionist" (aka "isolationist") à la Gore Vidal or Chomsky would never get invited to join the CFR in the first place. <hr></blockquote> The Council on Foreign Relations is a statist organization that is committed to ending any national soveriegnty. Its agenda is big government, and a one-world government. "We are not going to achieve a new world order without paying for it in blood as well as in words and money."--Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., "Back to the Womb? Isolationsm's Renewed Threat," Foreign Affairs (a Council on Foreign Relations publication), July/August 1995: <a href="http://www.foreignaffairs.org/19950701facomment5047/arthur-m-schlesinger-jr/back-to-the-womb-isolationsm-s-renewed-threat.html">www.foreignaffairs.org/19...hreat.html</a> "In short, the 'house of world order' will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down. It will look like a great 'booming, buzzing confusion,' to use William James' famous description of reality, but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault."--Richard N. Gardner, "The Hard Road to World Order," Foreign Affairs, April 1974: <a href="http://www.foreignaffairs.org/19740401faessay10106/richard-n-gardner/the-hard-road-to-world-order.html">www.foreignaffairs.org/19...order.html</a> , <a href="http://www.thepowerhour.com/articles/HardRoadtoWorldOrder.pdf">www.thepowerhour.com/arti...dOrder.pdf</a> For more such quotes, see the below webpage by me: "Quotes on the New World Order": <a href="http://stateterror.web1000.com/nwo-quotes.html">stateterror.web1000.com/nwo-quotes.html</a> Concerning Noam Chomsky, he's a big phoney and a statist. Below is a quote of him from "Who runs America?--Forty minutes with Noam Chomsky," interview by Adrian Zupp, Boston Phoenix, April 1-8, 1999 ( <a href="http://www.bostonphoenix.com/archive/features/99/04/01/NOAM_CHOMSKY.html">www.bostonphoenix.com/arc...OMSKY.html</a> ): "" "Government" is a kind of interesting term in American political mythology. The government is presented as some enemy that's outside, something coming from outer space. So when the IRS comes to collect your taxes, it's this enemy coming to steal your money. That's driven into your head from infancy, almost. There's another way of looking at it, which is that the IRS is the instrument by which you and I decide how to spend our resources for schools and roads and so on. Whatever faults the government has, and there are plenty, it's the one institution in which people can, at least in principle and sometimes in fact, make a difference. So government's shrinking, meaning the public role is shrinking. And business -- that is, unaccountable private power -- has to take its place. That's the dominant ideology. Why should we accept that? Suppose someone said, "Look, you've got to have a king or a slave owner." Should we accept it? I mean, yes, there are much better systems. Democracy would be a better system. And there are a lot of ways for the country to become way more democratic. "" For a genuine anti-statist political philosopher and economist, study Murray N. Rothbard's writings. Below are some excellent articles concerning the nature of government, of liberty, and the free-market production of defense: "The Anatomy of the State," Prof. Murray N. Rothbard, Rampart Journal of Individualist Thought, Summer 1965, pp. 1-24. Reprinted in a collection of some of Rothbard's articles, Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature and Other Essays (Washington, D.C.: Libertarian Review Press, 1974): <a href="http://www.mises.org/easaran/chap3.asp">www.mises.org/easaran/chap3.asp</a> "Defense Services on the Free Market," Prof. Murray N. Rothbard, Chapter 1 from Power and Market: Government and the Economy (Kansas City, Kansas: Sheed Andrews and McMeel, Inc., 1977; originally published 1970): <a href="http://www.geocities.com/vonchloride/marketdefense.html">www.geocities.com/vonchlo...fense.html</a> <a href="http://www.mises.org/rothbard/power&market.pdf">www.mises.org/rothbard/power&market.pdf</a> "The Private Production of Defense," Prof. Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 14, No. 1 (Winter 1998-1999), pp. 27-52: <a href="http://www.mises.net/journals/jls/14_1/14_1_2.pdf">www.mises.net/journals/jl...14_1_2.pdf</a> <a href="http://www.mises.org/journals/scholar/Hoppe.pdf">www.mises.org/journals/scholar/Hoppe.pdf</a> "Fallacies of the Public Goods Theory and the Production of Security," Prof. Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 9, No. 1 (Winter 1989), pp. 27-46: <a href="http://www.mises.net/journals/jls/9_1/9_1_2.pdf">www.mises.net/journals/jls/9_1/9_1_2.pdf</a> "Police, Courts, and Laws--On the Market," Chapter 29 from The Machinery of Freedom: Guide to a Radical Capitalism, Prof. David D. Friedman (La Salle, Illinois: Open Court Publishing Co., 1989; originally published 1971): <a href="http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freedom/MofF_Chapter_29.html">www.daviddfriedman.com/Li...er_29.html</a> Concerning the ethics of human rights, the below book is the best book on the subject: The Ethics of Liberty, Prof. Murray N. Rothbard (New York, New York: New York University Press, 1998; originally published 1982): <a href="http://www.mises.org/rothbard/ethics/ethics.asp">www.mises.org/rothbard/ethics/ethics.asp</a> If one desires a solid grounding in economics then one can do no better than with the below texts: Economic Science and the Austrian Method, Prof. Hans-Hermann Hoppe (Auburn, Alabama: The Ludwig von Mises Institute, 1995): <a href="http://www.mises.org/esandtam.asp">www.mises.org/esandtam.asp</a> "Toward a Reconstruction of Utility and Welfare Economics," Prof. Murray N. Rothbard, On Freedom and Free Enterprise: The Economics of Free Enterprise, Mary Sennholz, editor (Princeton, New Jersey: D. Van Nostrand, 1956), pp. 224-262. Reprinted in The Logic of Action One: Method, Money, and the Austrian School, Murray N. Rothbard (London, England: Edward Elgar, 1997), pp. 211-255: <a href="http://www.mises.org/rothbard/toward.pdf">www.mises.org/rothbard/toward.pdf</a> Man, Economy, and State, Prof. Murray N. Rothbard (Auburn, Alabama: The Ludwig von Mises Institute, second edition, 2004; originally published 1962): <a href="http://www.mises.org/rothbard/mes.asp">www.mises.org/rothbard/mes.asp</a> Power and Market: Government and the Economy, Prof. Murray N. Rothbard (Kansas City, Kansas: Sheed Andrews and McMeel, Inc., 1977; originally published 1970): <a href="http://www.mises.org/rothbard/power&market.pdf">www.mises.org/rothbard/power&market.pdf</a> These texts ought to be read in the order listed above. I would also add to the above list the below book: America's Great Depression, Prof. Murray N. Rothbard (Auburn, Alabama: The Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2000; originally published 1963): <a href="http://www.mises.org/rothbard/agd.pdf">www.mises.org/rothbard/agd.pdf</a> The above book concerns the how governments create depressions (i.e., nowadays called recessions) through credit expansion. The small book Economic Science and the Austrian Method by Prof. Hans-Hermann Hoppe doesn't get into political theory, but only concerns the methodological basis of economics (i.e., the epistemology of economics). I would recommend that everyone read this article *first* if they're at all interested in economics. There exists much confusion as to what economics is and what it is not. This article is truly great in elucidating the nature of what economics is and what it is not. If one were to read no other texts on economics, then this ought to be the one economic text that one reads. Plus is doesn't take all that long to read it. ------- "Documentation on Government-Staged Terrorism," September 30, 2005: <a href="http://www.armleg.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2&mforum=libertyandtruth">www.armleg.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2&mforum=libertyandtruth</a> "Jesus Is an Anarchist," James Redford, revised and expanded edition, November 9, 2005 (originally published on December 19, 2001): <a href="http://www.geocities.com/vonchloride/anarchist-jesus.pdf">www.geocities.com/vonchloride/anarchist-jesus.pdf</a>

by **sunny** » Sun Apr 09, 2006 8:39 am

Just posted this in the DU thread, but it seems relevant here- ~snip~ The remarkable thing about Erwin Knoll, Noam Chomsky, Alexander Cockburn, and others on the Left who attack the Kennedy conspiracy findings is they remain invincibly ignorant of the critical investigations that have been carried out. I have repeatedly pointed this out in exchanges with them and they never deny it. They have not read any of the many studies by independent researchers who implicate the CIA in a conspiracy to kill the president and in the even more protracted and extensive conspiracy to cover up the murder. But this does not prevent them from dismissing the conspiracy charge in the most general and unsubstantiated terms. ~snip~ Sorry, forgot the link- <a href="http://www.questionsquestions.net/documents2/conspiracyphobia.html">www.questionsquestions.ne...hobia.html</a> Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=sunny@rigorousintuition>sunny</A> at: 4/9/06 7:12 am

by **James Redford** » Sun Apr 09, 2006 9:01 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> Just posted this in the DU thread, but it seems relevant here- ~snip~ The remarkable thing about Erwin Knoll, Noam Chomsky, Alexander Cockburn, and others on the Left who attack the Kennedy conspiracy findings is they remain invincibly ignorant of the critical investigations that have been carried out. I have repeatedly pointed this out in exchanges with them and they never deny it. They have not read any of the many studies by independent researchers who implicate the CIA in a conspiracy to kill the president and in the even more protracted and extensive conspiracy to cover up the murder. But this does not prevent them from dismissing the conspiracy charge in the most general and unsubstantiated terms. ~snip~ <hr></blockquote> As Prof. Murray N. Rothbard wrote concerning so-called "conspiracy theories": "" It is also important for the State to inculcate in its subjects an aversion to any "conspiracy theory of history"; for a search for "conspiracies" means a search for motives and an attribution of responsibility for historical misdeeds. If, however, any tyranny imposed by the State, or venality, or aggressive war, was caused not by the State rulers but by mysterious and arcane "social forces," or by the imperfect state of the world or, if in some way, everyone was responsible ("We Are All Murderers," proclaims one slogan), then there is no point to the people becoming indignant or rising up against such misdeeds. Furthermore, an attack on "conspiracy theories" means that the subjects will become more gullible in believing the "general welfare" reasons that are always put forth by the State for engaging in any of its despotic actions. A "conspiracy theory" can unsettle the system by causing the public to doubt the State's ideological propaganda. "" --from the article "The Anatomy of the State," Prof. Murray N. Rothbard, Rampart Journal of Individualist Thought, Summer 1965, pp. 1-24. Reprinted in a collection of some of Rothbard's articles, Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature and Other Essays (Washington, D.C.: Libertarian Review Press, 1974): <a href="http://www.mises.org/easaran/chap3.asp">www.mises.org/easaran/chap3.asp</a> You also might be interested in Rothbard's below article: "Sudden Deaths in Office," Prof. Murray N. Rothbard, first published in The Rothbard-Rockwell Report (August 1991) as "Exhume, Exhume, Or, Who Put the Arsenic in Rough and Ready's Cherries?": <a href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard116.html">www.lewrockwell.com/rothb...rd116.html</a> ------- "Documentation on Government-Staged Terrorism," September 30, 2005: <a href="http://www.armleg.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2&mforum=libertyandtruth">www.armleg.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2&mforum=libertyandtruth</a> "Jesus Is an Anarchist," James Redford, revised and expanded edition, November 9, 2005 (originally published on December 19, 2001): <a href="http://www.geocities.com/vonchloride/anarchist-jesus.pdf">www.geocities.com/vonchloride/anarchist-jesus.pdf</a>

by **AlicetheCurious** » Sun Apr 09, 2006 9:44 am

I think it's telling that those who accuse Chomsky of promoting nefarious secret agenda, of being a "Left Gatekeeper", almost always refer to his "slavish", "cult-like" "followers". Yet, their own anger seems like the fury of child upon discovering that a previously-worshipped parent is less than godlike. Well, boys and girls, welcome to adulthood. There are no perfect gurus, no divine Messiahs that will allow us to blindly follow them to the promised land. Chomsky is what he is, and that's pretty incredible. He is a brilliant academic, a painstakingly meticulous researcher, and someone who has worked tirelessly over the past 3 or 4 decades to expose the hypocritical and brutal nature of America and Israel's role(s) in world affairs. With voluminous and detailed footnotes and documentation. The fact that I disagree with Chomsky about 9/11 being an inside job, is irrelevant to my respect for the man's work. Which would not be the case if, say, he decided to become a debunker, and used methods, data and logic well below his usual standard in order to support the official story. If he did that, then he would be prostituting his well-earned reputation and destroying his own credibility. But he hasn't done that. His record stands, his research is out there, to be examined and reviewed. As for his views about 9/11, well, he's presented them as opinions, not facts. You all may feel free to agree or disagree, and still respect and value the man's substantial contributions.

by **darkbeforedawn** » Sun Apr 09, 2006 9:45 am

Thanks for this post James, I am going to look into these articles. I am interested in your opinion on why there is so much left gatekeeping at places like DU over 911. It just seems like this is something "Democrats" would be interested in exposing and would really hurt "Republicans". Obviously, there are other forces at work. Do you think they may be afraid of implications of Israeli involvement? There have been allegations that zionism and "Israeli firsters" are at the heart of the media shut down when discussing 911. When I bring this up it causes a hurricane of outrage. This makes me think there is something to it....

by **darkbeforedawn** » Sun Apr 09, 2006 9:55 am

<a href="http://www.antiwar.com/scheuer/?articleid=8827">www.antiwar.com/scheuer/?articleid=8827</a> Does Israel Conduct Covert Action in America? You bet it does by Michael Scheuer Covert action is much talked about and little understood. At its most basic level, covert action is a set of intelligence operations undertaken by a specific state's intelligence agencies to advance its national interests. They are executed in a manner that limits the visibility of that state's hand in whatever is done. Ideally, covert actions cannot be traced back to their sponsor. Most people take the term covert action to mean violent actions of one kind or another: kidnapping, assassination, support for insurgents, etc. While violence can certainly be part of a covert-action campaign, the more insidious – and often more effective – arm of covert action is called "political action," whereby one state seeks to influence the public opinion of another by speaking through the mouths of that country's citizens. And let me stress, there is nothing wrong or immoral about covert political action. America used political action worldwide in the Cold War; Britain used it in the United States to accelerate neutral America's entry into both world wars; the Saudis pay untold amounts to retired senior U.S. officials to speak admiringly of the anti-American desert tyranny; and Israel uses it today against America to ensure unlimited and unquestioning U.S. support. It is a legitimate foreign affairs tool, and the leaders of any nation who choose not to engage in such activity are certifiably negligent fools. For years – even decades – U.S. citizens have been the subject of a political action campaign designed and executed by Israel. Currently, Israel's campaign is part steady-as-she-goes and part improvisation to neutralize an unexpected and – for Israel – worrying development. So far, Israel's covert political action is succeeding hands down. Americans are gradually being indoctrinated to believe Islamists are today's Nazis and that there is no "Israeli lobby" in America. Simply put, Israel is conducting a brilliant covert political action campaign in the United States, a campaign any intelligence service in the world would rightly be proud of. Part one of Israeli's political action consists simply of using that old standby debate-suppressor, the four-letter word "Nazi." Newspapers in Israel, of course, have long used the word to describe Israel's Muslim enemies. Recently, for example, the Jerusalem Post ran an article in which al-Qaeda is described as "yet another Nazi knockoff." This sort of language is the stuff of Israeli journalism, and not of much concern to Americans. If the Israeli press wants to teach their readers to underestimate the Islamist threat, so be it. But now the word "Nazi" is being gradually fed to Americans as a scientific definition of our Islamist enemies. Headlines such as "Hamas Uber Alles," "Hitler's Heirs in Damascus," and "The Nazi Correction to Islamic Terror" are increasingly common in U.S. media publications found in the news files Googled daily by Americans. U.S. politicians, too, are eager to jump on the call-them-Nazis bandwagon, with Secretary Rumsfeld recently saying that leaving Iraq early would be like returning postwar Germany to the Nazis, and Sen. George Allen (R-Va.) comparing the attack on the Shia shrine in Samarra to the burning of the Reichstag by the Nazis. The goal of using the Nazi analogy is to suppress any realistic debate about the pluses and minuses of the U.S.-Israel relationship, and to make sure any American raising questions about U.S. support for Israel is seen as siding with the "Islamofascists," the heirs of Nazism. Any person who knows the least bit about Islam – and the Israelis know a great deal – knows it is not Nazism, yet the Internet is rife with such titles as "A Manifesto Against Islamofascism" and "Islamofascism's Creeping Coup in Turkey." The best capsule description of the threat posed by Islamofascists is provided by Frank Gaffney in a recent issue of The Intelligencer, the journal of the Association of Former Intelligence Officers. Listen to Mr. Gaffney, and you will almost hear Muslim jackboots striking the pavement. "We are engaged in nothing less than a War for the Free World. This is a fight to the death with Islamofascists, Muslim extremists driven by a totalitarian political ideology that, like Nazism and Communism before it, is determined to destroy freedom and the people who love it." The drive to make Islamofascist the term of choice in describing America's Muslim enemies is meant to still U.S. debate about Israel and, indeed, to limit questions about any aspect of U.S. foreign policy toward the Islamic world. After all, why would anyone in their right mind care what people think, unless they are blindly and unthinkingly opposed to Islamofascism? The second part of any nation's covert political action plan is to be ready to exploit or redress unexpected developments within the target society. Last month, Professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt provided such an environment when they published a lengthy study showing the strong influence the Israeli lobby has on the crafting and application of U.S. foreign policy toward the Islamic world. If American society had its head screwed on right, the collective response of the citizenry would have been, "DUH!" – signifying that the near-determinative nature of Israeli influence is so clear that no academic analysis of that fact is necessary. Instead, the reaction from American elites has been that of Captain Renault in Casablanca – they are shocked, shocked, that anyone could even think that there is such a thing as an Israeli lobby. The elites demand that Americans believe there are no such things as Israel-suborned American-citizen spies stealing U.S. national security secrets, pro-Israel U.S. media publications routinely savaging any American questioning the perfect and eternal mesh of U.S. and Israeli interests, and U.S. politicians from Pelosi to McCain to DeLay to Rice groveling at AIPAC's annual conference, each willing to compromise U.S. security if they can garner pro-Israel votes and pockets stuffed with cash from pro-Israel contributions. In the specific case of the Mearsheimer-Walt paper, prominent pro-Israel Americans have been quick off the mark to limit the damage caused to Israel's interests caused by the paper's candor and truthfulness. From Marvin Kalb to David Gergen to Max Boot to Alan Dershowitz, these folks have brazenly defied reality by insisting there is no "Israeli Lobby" and that Mearsheimer and Walt are dead wrong, poor scholars, paranoid conspiracy peddlers, or reborn Elders of Zion. Eliot Cohen's essay in the Washington Post epitomizes the Israel-Firsters' goal of defaming Mearsheimer and Walt to convince the citizenry that they are crazy and ranting anti-Semites. The attacks on Walt and Mearsheimer are the stuff that the dreams of political action planners are made of: The apparently spontaneous response by target-country citizens voicing all-out support for the covert-action-sponsoring country. Such a response deep-sixes any chance for a substantive debate on the issue at hand, and submerges it in a blizzard of hate speech directed at the authors from prominent Israel-Firsters, those paragons of virtue who are the chief proponents of First-Amendment-destroying laws against hate speech. So at day's end, one can only say: Astoundingly well done, Israel, good for you! The impact of your covert political action activities in America are all that you could have hoped for: Truth is negated, dissent is suppressed, and opponents are intimidated and defamed, and all this is done by prominent U.S. citizens. The only competitor you have is the Saudi lobby, an organization just as damaging as yours to genuine U.S. national interests, a reality you and we would see if the bloodied but hopefully unbowed Mearsheimer-Walt team decides to analyze the corrupt and corrupting Saudi lobby. Finally, I forgot to mention at the start that covert political action campaigns are almost always directed by one nation against another nation that it considers an enemy or whose leaders it judges to be gullible, venal, none too bright, unreliable, or all four. That surely gives one pause for thought, but it truly is the way the world works. <a href="http://www.antiwar.com/scheuer/?articleid=8827">www.antiwar.com/scheuer/?articleid=8827</a>

by **James Redford** » Sun Apr 09, 2006 11:51 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> Thanks for this post James, I am going to look into these articles. I am interested in your opinion on why there is so much left gatekeeping at places like DU over 911. It just seems like this is something "Democrats" would be interested in exposing and would really hurt "Republicans". Obviously, there are other forces at work. Do you think they may be afraid of implications of Israeli involvement? There have been allegations that zionism and "Israeli firsters" are at the heart of the media shut down when discussing 911. When I bring this up it causes a hurricane of outrage. This makes me think there is something to it.... <hr></blockquote> Concerning Noam Chomsky, he knows which side his bread is buttered on, and he knows who's doing the buttering: the U.S. Department of Defense, as well as a number of other U.S. government agencies, which give a great deal of funding to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. MIT is the number one non-profit Department of Defense contractor in the U.S. For more on that, see: "MIT research heavily dependent on defense department funding," Daniel J. Glenn, The Tech, Vol. 109, No. 7, February 28, 1989, pg. 5: <a href="http://www-tech.mit.edu/V109/N7/glenn.07o.html">www-tech.mit.edu/V109/N7/glenn.07o.html</a> As to your question on Zionism, Benjamin Merhav ( <a href="http://www.geocities.com/bmerhav/">www.geocities.com/bmerhav/</a> ), an Israeli Jew, analyzes Noam Chomsky's motivations in that regard, in addition to the MIT funding issue: "More on the Treachery of Noam Chomsky," Benjamin Merhav, Double Standards, September 27, 2005: <a href="http://www.doublestandards.org/merhav1.html">www.doublestandards.org/merhav1.html</a> See also: "Noam Chomsky vs. Noam Chomsky," Frank Speiser, LewRockwell.com, March 30, 2005: <a href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/speiser1.html">www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/speiser1.html</a> Frank Speiser's above article references the below article by Noam Chomsky: "The Draft," Noam Chomsky, ZNet Blogs, December 17, 2004: <a href="http://blogs.zmag.org/ee_links/the_draft">blogs.zmag.org/ee_links/the_draft</a> ------- "Documentation on Government-Staged Terrorism," September 30, 2005: <a href="http://www.armleg.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2&mforum=libertyandtruth">www.armleg.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2&mforum=libertyandtruth</a> "Jesus Is an Anarchist," James Redford, revised and expanded edition, November 9, 2005 (originally published on December 19, 2001): <a href="http://www.geocities.com/vonchloride/anarchist-jesus.pdf">www.geocities.com/vonchloride/anarchist-jesus.pdf</a>

by **AlicetheCurious** » Sun Apr 09, 2006 3:08 pm

That smear piece by Benjamin Merhav was somewhat less than impressive -- lots of innuendo and guilt by association, lots of distortions. I would recommend to anybody who wants to judge the thinking and writings of Chomsky, that they should go straight to the horse's mouth, and evaluate the quality of his analysis and arguments for themselves. This is a good place to start: <a href="http://blogs.zmag.org/blog/13">blogs.zmag.org/blog/13</a>

by **NewKid** » Sun Apr 09, 2006 5:28 pm

Xymphora continues to have a similar discussion. <a href="http://xymphora.blogspot.com/2006/04/conspiracy-theory-versus-institutional.html" target="top">xymphora.blogspot.com/2006/04/conspiracy-theory-versus-institutional.html</a> This is kind of interesting too: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>According to a Probe article by Ray Marcus, back 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. <hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.rtis.com/reg/bcs/pol/touchstone/february97/worsham.htm" target="top">www.rtis.com/reg/bcs/pol/touchstone/february97/worsham.htm</a>

by **James Redford** » Sun Apr 09, 2006 7:22 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> That smear piece by Benjamin Merhav was somewhat less than impressive -- lots of innuendo and guilt by association, lots of distortions. I would recommend to anybody who wants to judge the thinking and writings of Chomsky, that they should go straight to the horse's mouth, and evaluate the quality of his analysis and arguments for themselves. This is a good place to start: <a href="http://blogs.zmag.org/blog/13">blogs.zmag.org/blog/13</a> <hr></blockquote> I can "smear" Noam Chomsky just fine using his own words. The guy is a bootlicking statist; a real flimflam man. The guy wouldn't have the slightest notion of what liberty is if it bit him on the ass. Here's a guy that who states that the horror, dehumanization and slavery of conscription is a good thing and that it hurts the state! Indeed, that's why dispotic, warmongering governments throughout history have used conscription: because it hurts them! Well, not actually. In actuality it gives the government more power to thow away individuals' lives like they were used toilet paper. It massively increases the usurpations, brutality, and rapine of the government against its own subjects, and devalues human life by making the masses into cannon fodder for the state, to be used and abused as the state sees fit. It's a massive violation of an individual's right to own his own body. But then, if you were trying to sell the so-called "left" on the idea of not fighting against conscription, then one way to do that would be to use supposed "leftist" ideologues like Noam Chomsky and Congressman Charlie Rangel (with his conscription bill, HR 163) to promote the fallacious notion that conscription makes it less likely that governments will conduct unjust wars. It's as if Noam Chomsky and Charlie Rangel got the same Department of Defense talking points on how to sell the so-called "left" in the U.S. on the draft. Hosanna! Enact the draft: that will really show the ruling elite! That will really stick it to them! It's like Brer Rabbit telling Brer Fox, "for the Lord's sake, don't fling me in that briar patch." ------- "Documentation on Government-Staged Terrorism," September 30, 2005: <a href="http://www.armleg.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2&mforum=libertyandtruth">www.armleg.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2&mforum=libertyandtruth</a> "Jesus Is an Anarchist," James Redford, revised and expanded edition, November 9, 2005 (originally published on December 19, 2001): <a href="http://www.geocities.com/vonchloride/anarchist-jesus.pdf">www.geocities.com/vonchloride/anarchist-jesus.pdf</a>

Chomsky: US failed state, Look to NWO

Re: New Kid

Re: New Kid

Re: links to gatekeepers

Re: Chomsky: US failed state, Look to NWO

Re: bizz men are always cartoonish

Re: bizz men are always cartoonish

Re: bizz men are always cartoonish

Re: bizz men are always cartoonish

Re: Chomsky

why the left gatekeeping

you may find some answers here

Re: why the left gatekeeping

Re: Chomsky

Re: Chomsky

Re: Chomsky

Who is online