Chomsky: US failed state, Look to NWO

by **dbeach** » Tue Apr 04, 2006 3:57 am

"Truth is, he's on the payroll. It has become obvious, just like it has for the other left gatekeepers. And, why should it be any surprise? The slush fund that drives this kind of thing is boundless. The elites are no fools, and they consider their manipulation of our reality an art form. I can just imagine the low, guttural laughter over bourbon and scotch at a big table. We've been suckers for far too long." the ole Jollywood romanticized type gangsters would knock over a bank or own sections of a city..and have some connections in foreign lands..as they bribed extorted pushed murdered and blackmailed their way to notoreity. But these Ivy league gangsters in 3 piece suits knock over whole nations .. Iraq Panama Afi Grenada Bosnia..Maybe Iran Venazuela their next targets... own cities and towns DC NYC Hollwood LA Chitown London and in the USA have seized control of 3 branches of a once semi-functioning govt.. the dark ages ain't seen nothing yet!

by **chillin** » Tue Apr 04, 2006 9:59 am

I agree that Chomsky isn't the be-all/end-all when it comes to dissident ideas, but anyone looking for that embodied in a single human being is likely to be disappointed. If the lefties have taken some of his ideas and put him on a pedastle that's THEIR fault, not his. Politically I see Chomsky as more of an anarchist than anything else. All these assumptions and speculations about who pays his bills would be easier to digest if they were based on anything other than conjecture. The way I see it he's brought several crimes and methodologies out of the shadows and into the light of day and should be applauded for his efforts, not maligned as some kind of enemy. The real enemy is fear and stupidity. For plenty of this you can go to PrisonPlanet.com IMHO.

by **Qutb** » Tue Apr 04, 2006 10:49 am

"The real enemy is fear and stupidity. For plenty of this you can go to PrisonPlanet.com IMHO." I agree. That's what much of the 9/11 "Truth" community is peddling too, along with a good dose of magical thinking. If I've understood correctly, the theory seems to be that all the energy Chomsky puts into what he does, even at his now advanced age, is actually motivated by a desire to cover up the Kennedy assassination, 9/11 and the real power and influence of the Bilderbergergers/Illuminati/whoever. Or by monetary reward from the PTB for rendering them this service. And that the PTB/Illuminati/reptilian overlords are happy with Chomsky raising public awareness about all the things he talks about - which, as he says, and I agree, are more important than the perceived anomalies surrounding 9/11 - just as long as he keeps quiet about an assassination that happened 40 years ago and doesn't join Charlie Sheen in musing about phantom planes and controlled demolitions. That's the "limited hangout" theory, in all its brilliance. Another theory seems to be that Chomsky's role is to herd unsuspecting naive leftists into embracing a totalitarian "NWO" and welcoming the blue helmets when they arrive. I think the definition of a conspiracy theorist should perhaps be someone who can't disagree with someone on some point without suspecting the other person of being a NWO deep-cover limited hangout disinfo agent. I never paid much attention to Chomsky, but what I've read has mostly been good stuff. His book on the Balkans wars of the 1990s and the real role of the United States then was very good. I recommend it. You can't accuse the man of being partisan, he was as opposed to Clinton's "internationalist" foreign policy as he is of Bush's "unilateralist" adventures. Or more precisely, he emphasizes the continuity between them. 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.

by **CyberChrist** » Tue Apr 04, 2006 11:12 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Well despite the heroic efforts of others, I'd wager that he's done more in his lifetime to promote human decency than either of you detractors.<hr></blockquote> Yes, let's attack people personally instead of their ideas. That's a real good tactic! I think you need to stick to the facts instead of assuming things about people that you know nothing about and then attacking those assumptions. -- CyberChrist http://www.hackerjournal.org My brain is hung like a horse.

by **chillin** » Tue Apr 04, 2006 11:34 am

I wasn't attacking anybody. Especially someone who both blasphemes and evokes the image of a horse's genetalia in every post. My point was made a couple of posts up from this one. Apologies for any perceived slight.

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Tue Apr 04, 2006 11:22 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>He doesn't think CFR, TLC and Bilderberg is such a big deal, and I tend to agree.<hr></blockquote> The Council on Foreign Relations has a long history of being a big deal. Most of the 'mainstream media' moguls are members. And they are intertwined with CIA, too. Have you noticed that the CFR is where Rumsfeld is trying out his latest propaganda efforts to say the war is just fine? He's performing for the unofficial court that oversees national foreign policy. Have you noticed that CFR members are more often than not the 'experts' that NPR gets commentary from? The CFR is far more pervasive and influential than Chomsky makes them out to be.

by **NewKid** » Tue Apr 04, 2006 11:45 pm

The usual dismissive line about the influence of the CFR is something like "I fell asleep at the last meeting" or "it's too boring to be a conspiracy." To some extent, that's quite right, but in another sense it misses the point of the organization's purpose. I think Kupferberg has it about right in this discussion: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Many look upon the Council On Foreign Relations (CFR) as one likely agent of a possible elitist conspiracy. Yet with a membership consisting of thousands, it would be too unwieldly to manage such a group of individuals with such varying interests and outlooks. In any case, that is not how the CFR is structured. Members of the CFR are invited into the ranks - particularly where they have already achieved some measure of prominence in politics, finance, or the media. The CFR, rather, exists as an organ to manage these "second-tier" elites - to ensure a consensus of sorts simply through the technique of "mainstreaming" their thoughts and beliefs, as these are folk who are unduly preoccupied with preserving their status in the ranking order. No need to "rock the boat" with foolish notions that could only serve to discredit oneself in the eyes of one's peers. Standing over and above the CFR is a more manageable and, on the whole, more powerful group of elites who do, in fact, perceive it as their duty and entitlement to determine the mores and values, lifestyles and fate of the rest of us. Where the rank and file members of the CFR are largely motivated by a self-interested careerism, these higher elites see it as their moral duty to guide the "ship of state", as it were. To them, a unified world government is the most logical way to manage the affairs of the world. After all, these global elites have more in common with one another than they do with the bulk of their respective countrymen.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.attackonamerica.net/themysterysurroundingthedeathofjohnoneill.htm" target="top">www.attackonamerica.net/themysterysurroundingthedeathofjohnoneill.htm</a>

by **tigre63** » Wed Apr 05, 2006 3:56 am

From zmag sustainers: (I don't know what film he refers to). Appreciate the kind remarks, but I can't comment on the film; haven't seen it, and don't intend to, for a variety of reasons. I couldn't agree more with your assessment of the state of activism: "there are scores of groups out there, many with the same or related interests and goals, but that these groups are splintered, scattered, and seemingly just not as generally effective as they could be if some sort of solidarity between them could occur." That's true. I see it all over the place, travelling and speaking (usually at the invitation of some array of such groups). The genius of US democracy has been to isolate and atomize people, turn them into individual atoms of consumption, prevent them from acting together. It's by design. Labor laws, for example, are designed to prevent solidarity among workers, and the huge PR industry devotes massive efforts to these ends. It's no big surprise. What else would one expect, on the most elementary assumptions? It often works, and one main task of serious activists is to overcome it -- as has often been done, often quite dramatically. "Are there organizations "out there" that focus solely on promoting dialog between activist groups?" I don't know of any that focus "solely" on that, but in just about every place I know, there are sort of "umbrella organizations" that try to overcome the divisiveness and atomization, with greater or lesser success. "How does mass organization, mass awakening happen?" Only one answer to that question is known, after thousands of years of historical evidence, and it's a good one: it happens when people like you make it happen. Not easy, not impossible; frustrating and gratifying. It's a choice. We make our own. Noam Chomsky ************************* Like him or not this is pretty good advice.

by **Qutb** » Wed Apr 05, 2006 9:12 am

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. The CFR is perhaps more than anything an avenue where media pundits and government officials receive input from the real power centers, ie industry. Predominantly the energy, weapons and financial corporations. These corporations and their big shareholders share certain common interests with regards to foreign policy, and that's what they use the CFR and such organizations to promote. Same thing with the Trilateral Commission, which was founded by David Rockefeller to flesh out common policies with the Japanese and the Western Europeans, as they were becoming important industrial power blocks again after the destruction of WWII. So it's definitely not unimportant, but it's not the cartoonish secret group with their unified secret agenda that many make it out to be, IMO. I think that's what Chomsky means too. The real power centers in America use the CFR, but exist independently of it, and the CFR is just one of many avenues they use to promote their interests.

by **Qutb** » Wed Apr 05, 2006 9:15 am

Hugh said - <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Debunk the 'US saved the world from Hitler' story<hr></blockquote> I think Chomsky's been doing that. His whole career has been about just that, hasn't it? That the US is not a good guy, and rarely has been.

by **Lizzy Dearborn** » Wed Apr 05, 2006 12:16 pm

if you think about it. <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/sick.gif ALT=":x"> Everything they are about is strange and otherworldly.

by **NewKid** » Wed Apr 05, 2006 4:07 pm

<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. <hr></blockquote> I tend to agree. I think they have de facto world govt more in mind instead of dejure.

by **NewKid** » Wed Apr 05, 2006 9:57 pm

Xymphora chimes in: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Blankfort on Chomsky: “He would have us believe that Israel’s occupation and harsh actions against the Palestinians, its invasions and undeclared 40 years war on Lebanon, and its arming of murderous regimes in Central America and Africa during the Cold War, has been done as a client state in the service of US interests. In Chomsky’s world view, that absolves Israel of responsibility and has become standard Chomsky doctrine.” Continuing my theme that Chomsky’s ill-advised political act in getting into the Lobby debate on the side that protects the Lobby, thus making Chomsky personally and directly responsible for the slo-mo genocide against the Palestinian people (and putting the lie to his entire life’s work: American beating up on Nicaraguan peasant bad; Israeli beating up on Palestinian peasant not so bad, because it is all the American’s fault), I wonder if this summarizes, in a nutshell, the deep problem with Chomskian anti-Americanism. Has anything gotten better since Chomsky started telling us about the problems with the American Empire? No. Everything has gotten much worse. Why? Because Chomsky’s information is directed at vague intangible bad guys that Americans can’t do anything about. Short of revolution, which ain’t gonna happen, how do you wage war against a ‘class’? On the other hand, it you are made aware that there are certain identified people – like, ahem, the Lobby – that are causing the problem, you can actually do something about it. Chomsky’s bizarre blindness about Israel is starting to look like the pattern of his life’s work. Americans are no more responsible for what happens than are Israelis, as everything is the fault of the American Empire. He provides reams of carefully-edited facts, but the sum total of what he does amounts to what we could call ‘controlled dissent’. He seems to be complaining, but he is no real threat to the Empire, as the only road out left by him is Revolution. Acting on his writings is hopeless, which is why things continue to become worse. Ironically, this criticism of Chomsky is the main political criticism leveled by the left against conspiracy theory.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://xymphora.blogspot.com/2006/04/chomsky-turns-over-his-cards.html" target="top">xymphora.blogspot.com/2006/04/chomsky-turns-over-his-cards.html</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>I think I’ve learned that there are two things you just aren’t allowed to criticize on a blog: controlled demolition theories about the WTC, and Noam Chomsky. Saint Noam has a posse, and it’s watching his back. I understand why Noam is so popular with what passes for American progressive thought. He lays the criticism of the American Empire on thick, but never actually blames Americans for the problems. It’s always some undefined class or ‘interest’, guys in silk top hats who hang around Wall Street, guys who Noam can never quite put his finger on. If he identified anybody who actually did something, Americans might actually have to do something about it. Noam simultaneously blames dark actors, absolves actual Americans, and lets the left off the hook for actually doing anything. What could be better than that? Blankfort proves that Chomsky is a closet Zionist. Watching a Chomskowitz ‘debate’ about Israel is like watching a Harlem Globetrotters game. Chomsky will always win, and prove how open-minded Zionists really are by criticizing the details of the ethnic cleansing. Dershowitz plays the Washington Generals and gracefully loses. It’s entertainment in aid of controlling debate. Left unsaid is whether the project of Greater Israel should really be proceeding. Just like the average American, Israel is off the hook for the atrocities as it is all really the work of the evil, but vaguely defined, American Empire. It’s a neat trick, but it is a trick. I’ve always really liked Chomsky, with the proviso that I’ve always been unsettled by his complete refusal to even consider conspiracy theory in the JFK assassination. His taking a political stand on the Lobby issue opened my eyes to wider problems with his methods. I’m not misrepresenting him, just reading between the lines a bit. In case you haven’t noticed, that is what I do.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://xymphora.blogspot.com/2006/04/saint-noam-has-posse.html" target="top">xymphora.blogspot.com/2006/04/saint-noam-has-posse.html</a>

by **darkbeforedawn** » Wed Apr 05, 2006 10:26 pm

Your last post really clarifys a lot of issues about Chomsky. People are very sentimental about him because he enabled our inaction and made us comfortable in our armchair view of fascism about which we could do nothing except nod our heads in sage agreement and feel superior. It is good to see we may be outgrowing him now. Or is that too optimistic?

by **dbeach** » Wed Apr 05, 2006 11:06 pm

chomsky is one who has enabled the comfy lullaby of fascism. there are many sirens sweetly singing.. the MM is over dosed with propaganda presstitutes.. I C Katie Couric is moving on up again..and again she is but one..

Chomsky: US failed state, Look to NWO

Re: Chomp On Chomsky

guess I'm with Starman on this

Re: guess I'm with Starman on this

Re: funny

hunh?

Re: guess I'm with Starman on this

Re: guess I'm with Starman on this

Chomsky on activism

Re: Chomsky on activism

Re: One step at a time.

bizz men are always cartoonish

Re: bizz men are always cartoonish

Re: bizz men are always cartoonish

New Kid

Re: New Kid

Who is online