| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
outsider
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 30 Jul 2006
Posts: 6060
Location: East London
|
 Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 9:16 pm Post subject: Thu29Oct - LONDON - Chomsky on Human Rights (free) |
 |
|
Human Rights in the 21st Century
Page contents > Ticket Information | Webcast | Podcasts | Twitter
Centre for the Study of Human Rights public lecture
Date: Thursday 29 October 2009
Time: 6.30-8pm
Venue: Old Theatre, Old Building
Speaker: Professor Noam Chomsky
Chair: Howard Davies
Leading thinker Professor Noam Chomsky considers the state and future of human rights.
Noam Chomsky is professor of linguistics at MIT.
Ticket Information
This event is free and open to all however a ticket is required. One ticket per person can be requested from 10.00am on Wednesday 21 October.
Members of the public, LSE staff and alumni can request one ticket via the online ticket request form which will be live on this weblisting from 10.00am on Wednesday 21 October.
LSE students and staff are able to collect one ticket from the LSESU reception, located on the ground floor of the East Building from 10.00am on Wednesday 21 October.
Media queries: please contact the Press Office if you would like to reserve a press seat or have a media query about this event, email pressoffice@lse.ac.uk|
Webcast
This events will be webcast live on the LSE website at LSE Live|.
Podcasts
We aim to make all LSE events available as a podcast subject to receiving permission from the speaker/s to do this, and subject to no technical problems with the recording of the event. Podcasts are normally available 1-2 working days after the event.
Twitter
You can get immediate notification on the availability of an event podcast by following LSE public lectures and events on Twitter|, which will also inform you about the posting of transcripts and videos, the announcement of new events and other important event updates.
If you are planning to attend this event and would like details on how to get here and what time to arrive, please refer to Coming to an event at LSE|
_________________
'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
TonyGosling
Editor
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 18335
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wakeymedia
Validated Poster
Joined: 12 Nov 2008
Posts: 222
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 4:38 am Post subject: Huh? |
|
|
Chomsky. . . . Chomsky. If there is anyone in this world who knows what 9/11 was it's (G)Noam.
What 9/11 does is cast many of these characters, (G)Noam included and probably foremost , in a very dodgy light for so many reasons. If they remain vague and evasive then fine, whatever.
But if they basically parrot an official line which by now Everyone-And-His-Very-Dog sees for what it is (if you haven't seen then take a look) and at the same time trash and attempt to scupper the people who are exposing what is, in plain English, a Fascist Oligarchy and its unhinged antics (fascist oligarchies are not good – think “1930's & 1940's”) then they have crossed a line from what is at best incompetence into inexcusable collaboration. And that collaboration is in mass-murder and war-crimes of immense and globally seismic proportions. Their silence and worse is, I say, a dereliction of duty which will go down in History as one of the most shameful and wilfully blind episodes in the story of Journalism.
What else is it?
Last edited by Wakeymedia on Thu Oct 29, 2009 8:58 pm; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TonyGosling
Editor
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 18335
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
acrobat74
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 03 Jun 2007
Posts: 836
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
outsider
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 30 Jul 2006
Posts: 6060
Location: East London
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Let's hope there are a few people other than his adoring Fan Club at Chomsky's meetings. I'll try to be at the 29th October LSE meeting.
_________________
'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wakeymedia
Validated Poster
Joined: 12 Nov 2008
Posts: 222
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 10:30 am Post subject: Really? |
|
|
Tony wrote | Quote: | "It's largely because of the avalanche of vicious attacks by shills and some 9/11 truthers on Chomsky that he has the views he has about 9/11.
" |
Erm - so (G)Noam only covers for a vicious and unhinged Fascist Oligarchy because those naughty Truthers have been mean to him?
Don't be silly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
outsider
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 30 Jul 2006
Posts: 6060
Location: East London
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 11:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
Tickets were free, but had to be obtained online after 10am today. I just accessed a computer, 12.15 am to apply, and bingo! All seats gone.
That's the hold this joker has on his world-wide fan club.
Strongly suggest pre-entry presence, with leaflets (preferably purpose-adapted) to leaflet attendees as they wait to be let in.
Let me know what y'all think.
_________________
'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
outsider
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 30 Jul 2006
Posts: 6060
Location: East London
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
outsider
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 30 Jul 2006
Posts: 6060
Location: East London
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 10:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hrrrrm:
A leaflet distriibuted by myself and another 9/11 stalwart at his recent London talks reads (in part - the rest of the leaflet is jam-packed with 9/11 Truth info and sites):
CHOMSKY VISIT TO LONDON UNI OCT. 2009.
Students, academics, comrades, here's a chance to defend Truth!
Ask Chomsky:
1. about 9/11 (he claims it would destroy the left to expend energy on it)
2. about JFK (he claims Lee Harvey Oswald was a lone assassin)
3. about the Council on Foreign Relations, Tripartite Commission and the Bilderberg Group (he dismisses them as 'nothing organizations)
4. about the 2004 US elections (he reckons they weren't rigged)
There has to be a problem when Chomsky and other left 'luminaries'
ignore the most pivotal event of modern times, 9/11, for fear it will 'destroy the left'.
Traditionally, students have been at the forefront of protest against wars, tyranny & government 'cover-ups'. Wake up, Class of 2009 and do your stuff! Please don't just meekly lap up what gurus like Chomsky dish out.
They're what are called 'gatekeepers', guarding the information those in power don't want you to know. At least make him explain his views. He's
here to be challenged by the UK's brightest minds, not just worshipped and adored.
SEEKING OUT AND PROPAGATING THE TRUTH ABOUT 9/11 IS OUR BEST HOPE OF STOPPING THE WAR CRIMINALS IN THEIR TRACKS AND GETTING BACK OUR CITIZENS' RIGHTS.
If anyone would like help setting up a 9/11 Truth Group, please get in touch with us. London 9/11 Truth group (see over)
_________________
'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 18, 2009 3:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It is indeed; one wonders what motivates the writer of the article to tell lies about what Chomsky says. For example:
| Quote: | 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
|
No, he's saying the opposite. Here is the full quote.
| Quote: | MAN: I just get the sense that we're waiting for some ecological disaster before people really start to get active in these movements on a massive scale
Well if we wait for an ecological disaster it'll be too late - in fact, we might not even have such a long wait.
Look, it's certainly true that as the threats mount, it may energise people - but you don't wait for that to happen: first you have to prepare the groundwork. Suppose it was discovered tomorrow that the greenhouse effects has been way underestimated, 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.
So you don't wait for the disasters to happen, first you have to create the groundwork. You need to plant the seeds of something right now, so that whatever opportunities happen to arise - whether it's workers being fired in Mexico or an ecological catastrophe, or anything else - people are in a position they can do something contructive about it. |
But I mean - who in their right mind seriously believes Chomsky actually advocates some kind of fascist world gubmint. In talks later published in book form. Because no-one actually bothers to read his books do they? Well maybe not the sort of people who gobble up right wing conspiracy cliche articles on the net.
| Quote: | | 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: |
Right on bubba! Them militias in their compounds with their semi-automatic rifles are the one thing stopping the gubmint firing cruise missiles at our asses. Anyone says otherwise is a goddam agent. And probably a commie too. From my cold dead fingers, y'hear!
| Quote: | | What about Chomsky’s claims that the CIA never acts as a rogue elephant? Do they hold up? |
Of course not. That fool Chomsky asserts the CIA provide plausible deniability for certain antics. Whereas everyone knows in reality they are a rogue organisation who get up to stuff the people running the country don't know about and it's only people surfing the net who get to be privy to the truth. It's always 'rogue elements', like that one Mel Gibson uncovered in conspiracy theory.
Plumbing the depths of cretinism we read:
| Quote: | 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. |
Does the thought not occur that since Chomsky is something of an anarchist and since anarchists tend not to like nation states that quote is exactly what you'd expect? What kind of moron believes not being a nationalist means you inevitably want one world govt? Does the writer of the article understand anything about Chomsky's politics??
And so on and so forth. Like, Chomsky things Kennedy was a complete * and wrote a book deconstructing what he regards as a false mythology surrounding Camelot - like you'd expect him to be interested in the Oliver Stone version of events.
Still. If John Coleman says Chomsky is an 'agent', it must be true...right?
Beware Noam Chomsky. His opinions may be different to yours. The only possible counter to this is to accuse him of being a shill. His voluminous output over decades and continued work into his twilight years are feeble compared with some random article on the net.
_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TonyGosling
Editor
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 18335
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
outsider
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 30 Jul 2006
Posts: 6060
Location: East London
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 18, 2009 9:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The 'Pied Piper' of Hamlin led the rats out of town;
the 'Pied Piper' of MIT leads the left up the garden path.
His attitude to certain extremely important issues, partiicularly 9/11, convince me that he is a 'Gatekeeper'; an intelligent, influential and very pernicious poison to the cause of Truth.
_________________
'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 18, 2009 10:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| outsider wrote: | The 'Pied Piper' of Hamlin led the rats out of town;
the 'Pied Piper' of MIT leads the left up the garden path.
His attitude to certain extremely important issues, partiicularly 9/11, convince me that he is a 'Gatekeeper'; an intelligent, influential and very pernicious poison to the cause of Truth. |
Why? Because he thinks differently to you? There must be an awful lot of 'gatekeepers' in the world...
Is this how you expect to be taken seriously? Hell, apparently Chomsky is very dismissive of animal rights, something close to my heart. Wow! that means he must work for big factory farming interests, right? I hope you champion animal rights or else I strongly suspect you must be a shill yourself.
I mean, why in God's name should Chomsky care about the Kennedy assassination? Because you think he should? If you actually bothered to read understanding power as opposed to blindly believing some quote-mining crank article you stumbled across you might find out why. Hell, I don't care about the Kennedy assassination - should I? I'm not really bothered if Oswald did it or not. It was the 1960s for God's sake - if you're interested in it great, but do you honestly believe some amazing revelation about the CIA doing it or whatever would lead to a fundamental restructuring of society or something? Why are you preoccupied with the past when there's loads of grim stuff going down right now? Are you a gatekeeper trying to distract us?
Regarding the others - if you bothered to try to get to grips with his position, you could understand where he's coming from. You may disagree, you may disagree strongly..and?
Decades of voluminous work about American power from someone who was a world leader in linguistics into the bargain, but in your high and mighty opinion he's an 'agent' - the sole evidence being he thinks differently about some things than you do?
But really - did you for one second really believe Chomsky goes round advocating some kind of one world government as per your article????
Beyond that, do you seriously believe some 'agent' would or could produce the volume of work Chomsky has? Is that what 'agents' do now?
And after making wild, baseless accusations against someone (on the back of a laughable 'article' by some nobody) who happens not to endorse your position (while nevertheless sharing a core viewpoint on the effect of 911 and its exploitation), you'll moan about truthers not being taken seriously.
No offence, but you probably need to bone up on the historical preoccupations of American right wing conspiracy narratives so you can see them in context. IMO Brits are too easily sucked in by this stuff and should know better.
_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
outsider
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 30 Jul 2006
Posts: 6060
Location: East London
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 19, 2009 6:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
'Why? Because he thinks differently to you? There must be an awful lot of 'gatekeepers' in the world...'
Yes, unfortunately I must agree with you there, there are indeed an awful lot of 'gatekeepers' in the world; but I do not define 'gatekeepers' as simply people that have a different opinion than me, or else I would be the only 'non-gatekeeper' in the world.
My understanding of 'gatekeeper' is someone who is used by the Powers That Be, either groomed and put in place, or genuine people 'turned' once they have a popular following, to lead people in acceptable forms of dissent, but to steer them away from crucial issues that could seriously damage their power. The three Kennedy assassinations (JFK, Bobby and JFK Jr.); 'Pearl Harbor' (spelling for your benefit); Federal Reserve and 9/11 are such issues.
JFK, Pearl and 9/11 are linked; Bush Sr. was floating around in the JFK assassination (search 'JFK2 + video'), a new 'Pearl' was brought in as what was needed to bring about PNAC's designs - out of the hat comes - to a roll of 'shock and awe' - 9/11.
Not only does Chomsky not investigate the mass of evidence on 9/11, he castigates those who do, and proffers dire warnings of the 'end of the Left' if they waste energy on such investigations.
Unlike people who 'really' upset the 'Powers', Chomsky continues in his prestigious and lucrative position at MIT, and enjoys the fawning attention of the MSM, rather than brickbats and crucifixion dished out to real problem people, to say nothing about assassination attempts and serious harrassment by the 'Security Services'.
(I've deleted a rather contentious bit that appeared here)outsider
_________________
'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
Last edited by outsider on Thu Nov 19, 2009 10:15 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 19, 2009 11:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| outsider wrote: | 'Why? Because he thinks differently to you? There must be an awful lot of 'gatekeepers' in the world...'
Yes, unfortunately I must agree with you there, there are indeed an awful lot of 'gatekeepers' in the world; but I do not define 'gatekeepers' as simply people that have a different opinion than me, or else I would be the only 'non-gatekeeper' in the world.
My understanding of 'gatekeeper' is someone who is used by the Powers That Be, either groomed and put in place, or genuine people 'turned' once they have a popular following, to lead people in acceptable forms of dissent, but to steer them away from crucial issues that could seriously damage their power. The three Kennedy assassinations (JFK, Bobby and JFK Jr.); 'Pearl Harbor' (spelling for your benefit); Federal Reserve and 9/11 are such issues.
JFK, Pearl and 9/11 are linked; Bush Sr. was floating around in the JFK assassination (search 'JFK2 + video'), a new 'Pearl' was brought in as what was needed to bring about PNAC's designs - out of the hat comes - to a roll of 'shock and awe' - 9/11. |
So your argument is basically because you think some things are connected, somebody who has a different analysis of these events is therefore put there by the powers that be.
Interestingly, in understanding power, Chomsky says he can't see why Kennedy would be assassinated because he challenges the romantic notions that have built up around him and regards him as doing nothing to contradict the status quo. He does think there was ample reason to assassinate Martin Luther King and entertains the possibility this could have been orchestrated by the state - he wonders why MLK's assassination gets so little attention in comparison to JFK. But that sort of thing isn't his domain. He is not a conspiracy researcher. I realise you think any prominent person that isn't is some kind of government agent, but that's just the way it is. Like I said, if you took the time to understand his position, you might actually get to grips with his POV, whether you happen to agree with it or not.
Just because PNAC - in a public document - made the 'new pearl harbour' statement means nothing. It doesn't 'prove' anything. Particularly if you read it in the context of the document in which it appears - are you suggesting PNAC organised 911 simply to restructure the American military in their preferred direction? If Chomsky went round saying it indicated about anything about who did 911 he'd just look daft.
| Quote: | | 'Pearl Harbor' (spelling for your benefit) |
Eh?
| Quote: |
Not only does Chomsky not investigate the mass of evidence on 9/11, he castigates those who do, and proffers dire warnings of the 'end of the Left' if they waste energy on such investigations.
Unlike people who 'really' upset the 'Powers', Chomsky continues in his prestigious and lucrative position at MIT, and enjoys the fawning attention of the MSM, rather than brickbats and crucifixion dished out to real problem people, to say nothing about assassination attempts and serious harrassment by the 'Security Services'.
Rot in Hell, Chomsky, along with the NWO, Moloch and the rest of his angels. |
Frankly I don't blame him. While being - rather predictably - from the outset someone who was not swept along with the hysterical tide and challenged US response, he was subjected to people basically demanding he prioritise truther concerns and slagging him off for not doing so. You then get the childish and rather surreal situation of random people on the internet deciding he's a 'gatekeeeper' or 'agent' simply because he has a different take on events. That's what it boils down to isn't it? You can babble on about JFK or whatever all you like, but the bottom line is your sole evidence Chomsky is some kind of agent is that he sees things differently to you. By that logic, Chomsky could accuse any truther of being carefully groomed to distract from the issues he thinks are important - and, again by your logic, he'd be right! Can you not grasp how ridiculous this is?
Who hired him?
When?
How?
Why does he keep on writing and commentating as an elderly man? Why isn't he on some yacht bough with his CIA pay?
By what mechanism does someone 'hired' produce such a massive body of work over decades? Eager beaver for someone in it for CIA paymasters isn't he? It's as dumb as those idiots who claim Karl Marx was an 'agent' and somehow believe massive, complex works of immense depth like capital can be just churned out on demand.
Please present one single scrap of actual evidence Chomsky is an agent. You have thus far failed to do so.
Where is this 'fawning attention of the MSM'? Chomsky - as he has often pointed out himself - gets more attention in Europe because the focus of his criticism is America. But I still don't see this 'fawning attention'. The American MSM has tended to ignore him or roll its eyes at him.
If you want to think about things that 'could seriously damage their power', maybe you could think about capitalism or constructs like the nation state. Hey - about as radical as Mary Whitehouse, wishy-washy paleoconservative reformist Alex Jones studiously avoids such issues and seems more fond of asking for money and encouraging you to fight the New World Order by buying a hat from his retail empire. Using your logic I can state with 100% confidence he is employed as a gatekeeper agent.
_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dogsmilk wrote: | | paleoconservative reformist Alex Jones studiously avoids such issues and seems more fond of asking for money and encouraging you to fight the New World Order by buying a hat from his retail empire. |
Classic!
Second best laugh I've had today (since reading a Baron von Munchkin ...er "climate" paper/speech/whatever).
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
outsider
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 30 Jul 2006
Posts: 6060
Location: East London
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 19, 2009 10:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
@Dogsmilk: 'Interestingly, in understanding power, Chomsky says he can't see why Kennedy would be assassinated because he challenges the romantic notions that have built up around him and regards him as doing nothing to contradict the status quo.'
Thank you, Mein Herr! Just what the doctor ordered!
Doing nothing to contradict the status quo? Like, for instance:
1. Accepting peace feelers from Castro (a communication on those lines actually arrive in Washington on the day JFK was assassinated);
2. Dealing with the abomination of the Federal Reserve: JFK had actually started the production of US dollars by the Government, based on silver);
3. Winding down the Vietnam War (LBJ immediately on taking office, after stopping the production of US Government dollars, wound UP the Vietnam War (and later creating the 'Gulf of Tonkin' fiction to massively escalate it);
4. Working towards Civil Liberties in US (Blacks);
5. And (sorry, 'It's a man's world in the Mossad') preventing Israel getting nuclear weapons.
(then of course there was the hate between JFK and LBJ from the outset; Jack couldn't stand the creep, and was persuaded against his better judgement to take him as a 'Running Mate'; a fatefull error).
Thanks again, DM, and if your hero didn't know any of this, what does that make him? Some sort of twit? I don't think so.
Rather, a very powerfull Gatekeeper, 'Pied Piper of MIT'.
And the thicko students of today's Uni's, dumbed down with flouride, mercuury and God knows what, roll over.
_________________
'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 2:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| outsider wrote: | @Dogsmilk: 'Interestingly, in understanding power, Chomsky says he can't see why Kennedy would be assassinated because he challenges the romantic notions that have built up around him and regards him as doing nothing to contradict the status quo.'
Thank you, Mein Herr! Just what the doctor ordered!
Doing nothing to contradict the status quo? Like, for instance:
1. Accepting peace feelers from Castro (a communication on those lines actually arrive in Washington on the day JFK was assassinated);
2. Dealing with the abomination of the Federal Reserve: JFK had actually started the production of US dollars by the Government, based on silver);
3. Winding down the Vietnam War (LBJ immediately on taking office, after stopping the production of US Government dollars, wound UP the Vietnam War (and later creating the 'Gulf of Tonkin' fiction to massively escalate it);
4. Working towards Civil Liberties in US (Blacks);
5. And (sorry, 'It's a man's world in the Mossad') preventing Israel getting nuclear weapons.
(then of course there was the hate between JFK and LBJ from the outset; Jack couldn't stand the creep, and was persuaded against his better judgement to take him as a 'Running Mate'; a fatefull error).
Thanks again, DM, and if your hero didn't know any of this, what does that make him? Some sort of twit? I don't think so.
Rather, a very powerfull Gatekeeper, 'Pied Piper of MIT'.
And the thicko students of today's Uni's, dumbed down with flouride, mercuury and God knows what, roll over. |
It's not a matter of Chomsky "didn't know any of this", it's that he'd assert it to be false. For example, he's commented at some length (going back decades) on why he does not believe Kennedy was "winding down the Vietnam war". Hell, I would take issue with your assertions, but that's not really relevant; the point is you are formulating your position as:
a/ I believe certain things about Kennedy that lead me to believe there were reasons to assassinate him
b/ Other people may dispute these things or ignore them because they believe them to be false, half-truths or irrelevant.
c/ They are therefore a controlled shill gatekeeper. So there.
If you wish to critique Chomsky's stance on the Kennedy presidency (have you actually bothered to read what he's got to say about Kennedy?) - fine.
If you wish to say he's dead wrong in just about everything he says - fine.
If you feel his priorities are all wrong - fine.
If you think his politics suck - fine.
It's called disagreeing with what someone else thinks.
But if you are going to assert he is some kind of paid agent, why do you feel it is wholly unnecessary to evidence this in any meaningful or plausible way? I thought you were supposed to be part of a "truth" movement?
In what way do you think you are being constructive?
You are even reduced to bland rhetoric about today's uni students apparently being "thicko" for some strange reason. Really? Can you cite any studies that demonstrate progressive cognitive impairment in bodies of students over time? I don't get to meet that many students, but the ones I do don't seem thick to me. The vast majority don't seem to me to care much about JFK or Chomsky. Alas, the days of Universities as bastions of radical thinking seems to be in decline, but I'd say that's a product of socio-cultural factors rather than a decline in intellectual ability.
As I said before, what mystifies me is the way people will go round making wild claims about people who say things they don't like then wonder why the TM doesn't get taken seriously. Chomsky has been a staunch critic of the response to 911 and the WOT. Rather than look at his commentary around this, you would rather throw your toys out your pram because he doesn't think it was an inside job and you apparently cannot see beyond this. So you think it best to just decide he's some kind of paid shill and slag him off (while apparently being quite unfamiliar with his work, certainly unfamiliar enough to cite a terrible article that blatantly quote-mines and misrepresents him - something that mysteriously doesn't appear to bother you in the slightest - lies are ok if they're saying what you want to hear, right?). Is this how the "truth movement" works?
Btw, Chomsky is not "my hero". But I do have a lot of respect for his work.
_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
outsider
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 30 Jul 2006
Posts: 6060
Location: East London
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 11:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Chomsky refuses to debate the issue, refuses to consider the mass of evidence the TM wishes to present to him and counsels the Left to ignore 9/11; he is therefore a major threat to the spread of the Truth.
That is why I attack him; and he is, in my opinion, a lot too smart to really believe the Government 'c*** and bull' narrative, which would imply he is deliberately leading his 'flock' up the garden path, and what other reason could there be than that he is rooting for the evildoers, for reasons best known to himself.
Oh, yes; re your:
'It's a man's life in MOSSAD', I would be surprised if the Waffen SS didn't say the same about their organization.
_________________
'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 22, 2009 2:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| outsider wrote: | Chomsky refuses to debate the issue, refuses to consider the mass of evidence the TM wishes to present to him and counsels the Left to ignore 9/11; he is therefore a major threat to the spread of the Truth.
That is why I attack him; and he is, in my opinion, a lot too smart to really believe the Government 'c*** and bull' narrative, which would imply he is deliberately leading his 'flock' up the garden path, and what other reason could there be than that he is rooting for the evildoers, for reasons best known to himself. |
Strange how I keep asking for any tangible evidence Chomsky is some kind of controlled gatekeeper and you consistently cannot provide any.
Chomsky says what he does because that's what he thinks. Live with it. You seem to think because he doesn't 'get' things you believe to be obvious that therefore means he's a paid shill. This is fundamentally identical to people convinced no planes hit the towers which were destroyed by space beams thinking prominent truthers who scoff at this are therefore paid shills because they don't 'get it'. It seems so inescapable to them, how could anyone possibly disagree?
Chomsky's analysis of the aftermath of 911 broadly converges with what a lot of truthers think. Please explain to me why it is unacceptable for you to look at where you might agree and otherwise concentrate on what is important to you and leave him to concentrate on what's important to him. How you would feel if Chomsky got people to attend truther talks giving out leaflets saying the truth movement is bs and everyone should prioritise what he thinks - and if DRG or whoever doesn't do so, that means they're a paid shill out to undermine the left?
Do you classify everyone by virtue of their views on 911? Would you say one of these neo-Nazi, Jew hating white supremacist types who happens to think 911 was an inside job and JFK was killed by the government are better than Chomsky just bvecause they believe these things? 911 truther good, not 911 truther bad?
| Quote: |
Oh, yes; re your:
'It's a man's life in MOSSAD', I would be surprised if the Waffen SS didn't say the same about their organization. |
I would have thought it was fairly obvious this was sarcasm from the tendency Jew theorists have had to accuse me of shilling for teh jooos when I've argued with them. You see there is this tendency for people to stomp round the internet saying "You dare to dispute my beliefs? That means you're a paid shill!" as if this somehow magically wins the argument.
_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
outsider
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 30 Jul 2006
Posts: 6060
Location: East London
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 22, 2009 3:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
@ Dogsmilk:
'Do you classify everyone by virtue of their views on 911? Would you say one of these neo-Nazi, Jew hating white supremacist types who happens to think 911 was an inside job and JFK was killed by the government are better than Chomsky just bvecause they believe these things? 911 truther good, not 911 truther bad?'
Yes, I do classify people according to their views on 9/11. No, I don't believe the neo-Nazis who believe 9/11 being an 'Inside Job' are 'better' than Chomsky, but I would welcome it if they pulicised their belief in it to their missguided followers to help spread the truth of it, but in their own publications and communications network, not in ours, so that we do not get contaminated by their poison, or by 'guilt by association'.
The thing with Chomsky is he won't investigate the evidence, yet claims we are loonies and exhorts his followers to have nothing to do with 9/11 Truth, because it would 'destroy the left'.
I cannot remember Einstein's quote, where he castigates those who will condemn without assessing the evidence.
Like many, if not most, Truthers I have family and friends who don't want to know about 9/11; do I condemn them? No, but then again they don't have Chomsky's clout, nor do they go around dismissing 9/11 Activists and issueing dire warnings about what would happen if their friends or followers waste energy on 9/11 Truth.
Chomsky chose to attack us, before we responded in like fashion. Before that, we tried to convince him (and I personally emailled him and got his feeble reply, before he came out dismissing and attacking our position).
@Dm:
'I would have thought it was fairly obvious this was sarcasm from the tendency Jew theorists have had to accuse me of shilling for teh jooos when I've argued with them. You see there is this tendency for people to stomp round the internet saying "You dare to dispute my beliefs? That means you're a paid shill!" as if this somehow magically wins the argument.'
Thanks for clarification; I still still find it odd (but you probably don't think much of my signature).
_________________
'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 12:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| outsider wrote: | | No, but then again they don't have Chomsky's clout, nor do they go around dismissing 9/11 Activists and issueing dire warnings about what would happen if their friends or followers waste energy on 9/11 Truth. |
The failing would then seem to be with us, in that "911 truth's" inability to make a clear and convincing argument for it's validity is not compelling enough to anyone of sufficient stature to access that 'clout' as you put it.
Given that "911 troof" is riven with intellectual imbeciles, outright nutters and stupid little proto-fascists, you really can't blame Chomsky (or much of the outside world) for the impressions they receive.
Leaving "911 truth" with a doubly hard uphill struggle.
Gee, I wonder how that happened.
God forbid I would ever recommend this site to anybody anymore.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
outsider
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 30 Jul 2006
Posts: 6060
Location: East London
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 5:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
@chek:
'God forbid I would ever recommend this site to anybody anymore'
It baffles me why you spend your precious time following and posting on such a God-forsaken site!
_________________
'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 10:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| outsider wrote: | | It baffles me why you spend your precious time following and posting on such a God-forsaken site! |
I sometimes wonder the same thing myself, outsider.
But then as author and/or major contributor to several of the most read topics on this forum, I take consolation in the fact that there are still quite a few people interested in a viewpoint that I try to keep as rational as possible.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 11:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| outsider wrote: | @ Dogsmilk:
'Do you classify everyone by virtue of their views on 911? Would you say one of these neo-Nazi, Jew hating white supremacist types who happens to think 911 was an inside job and JFK was killed by the government are better than Chomsky just bvecause they believe these things? 911 truther good, not 911 truther bad?'
Yes, I do classify people according to their views on 9/11. No, I don't believe the neo-Nazis who believe 9/11 being an 'Inside Job' are 'better' than Chomsky, but I would welcome it if they pulicised their belief in it to their missguided followers to help spread the truth of it, but in their own publications and communications network, not in ours, so that we do not get contaminated by their poison, or by 'guilt by association'.
The thing with Chomsky is he won't investigate the evidence, yet claims we are loonies and exhorts his followers to have nothing to do with 9/11 Truth, because it would 'destroy the left'.
I cannot remember Einstein's quote, where he castigates those who will condemn without assessing the evidence.
Like many, if not most, Truthers I have family and friends who don't want to know about 9/11; do I condemn them? No, but then again they don't have Chomsky's clout, nor do they go around dismissing 9/11 Activists and issueing dire warnings about what would happen if their friends or followers waste energy on 9/11 Truth.
Chomsky chose to attack us, before we responded in like fashion. Before that, we tried to convince him (and I personally emailled him and got his feeble reply, before he came out dismissing and attacking our position).
@Dm:
'I would have thought it was fairly obvious this was sarcasm from the tendency Jew theorists have had to accuse me of shilling for teh jooos when I've argued with them. You see there is this tendency for people to stomp round the internet saying "You dare to dispute my beliefs? That means you're a paid shill!" as if this somehow magically wins the argument.'
Thanks for clarification; I still still find it odd (but you probably don't think much of my signature). |
Well if you classify everyone according to their views on 911, all I can say is I think that's pretty pointless. And which views on 911? Are you saying Killtown comes out better in your opinion than Chomsky?? People's views on 911 vary from full on 'let's invade the ragheads', through 'blowback' to LIHOI to LIHOP to MIHOP to no planes and space beams. Where - exactly - do you draw your line? What, in your sage opinion, are prominent people allowed to think to avoid you accusing them of being on the CIA payroll or whatever simply because they have the wrong worldview?
Even within the parameters of the TM there is a wide range of opinion and half the people are frequently...denouncing each other as paid shills.
You say you "welcome" neo-Nazis promoting their version - which usually consists of them telling everyone the Jews did it as part of a worldwide Jewish conspiracy. Which is apparently better in your book than Chomsky simply not thinking it was an inside job.
But the crunch is my repeated requests for some form of evidence Chomsky is some kind of agent. There isn't any is there?
I'm a nobody, but I've been called a shill loads of times. Whenever it occurs, I just think 'what a sad case' because, quite obviously, I'm aware I'm just some guy giving their opinion and from where where I'm sitting it's very, very pathetic. I can only assume Chomsky thinks something very similar and thinks he's dealing with fruitcakes. When in addition, as chek pointed out, the truth movement contains some very weird and wonderful ideas beneath its umberella.
Please though - if you can evidence Chomsky is some kind of agent, please do so - isn't that the point?
_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
outsider
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 30 Jul 2006
Posts: 6060
Location: East London
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 11:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dogsmilk wrote: | | outsider wrote: | @ Dogsmilk:
'Do you classify everyone by virtue of their views on 911? Would you say one of these neo-Nazi, Jew hating white supremacist types who happens to think 911 was an inside job and JFK was killed by the government are better than Chomsky just bvecause they believe these things? 911 truther good, not 911 truther bad?'
Yes, I do classify people according to their views on 9/11. No, I don't believe the neo-Nazis who believe 9/11 being an 'Inside Job' are 'better' than Chomsky, but I would welcome it if they pulicised their belief in it to their missguided followers to help spread the truth of it, but in their own publications and communications network, not in ours, so that we do not get contaminated by their poison, or by 'guilt by association'.
The thing with Chomsky is he won't investigate the evidence, yet claims we are loonies and exhorts his followers to have nothing to do with 9/11 Truth, because it would 'destroy the left'.
I cannot remember Einstein's quote, where he castigates those who will condemn without assessing the evidence.
Like many, if not most, Truthers I have family and friends who don't want to know about 9/11; do I condemn them? No, but then again they don't have Chomsky's clout, nor do they go around dismissing 9/11 Activists and issueing dire warnings about what would happen if their friends or followers waste energy on 9/11 Truth.
Chomsky chose to attack us, before we responded in like fashion. Before that, we tried to convince him (and I personally emailled him and got his feeble reply, before he came out dismissing and attacking our position).
@Dm:
'I would have thought it was fairly obvious this was sarcasm from the tendency Jew theorists have had to accuse me of shilling for teh jooos when I've argued with them. You see there is this tendency for people to stomp round the internet saying "You dare to dispute my beliefs? That means you're a paid shill!" as if this somehow magically wins the argument.'
Thanks for clarification; I still still find it odd (but you probably don't think much of my signature). |
Well if you classify everyone according to their views on 911, all I can say is I think that's pretty pointless. And which views on 911? Are you saying Killtown comes out better in your opinion than Chomsky?? People's views on 911 vary from full on 'let's invade the ragheads', through 'blowback' to LIHOI to LIHOP to MIHOP to no planes and space beams. Where - exactly - do you draw your line? What, in your sage opinion, are prominent people allowed to think to avoid you accusing them of being on the CIA payroll or whatever simply because they have the wrong worldview?
Even within the parameters of the TM there is a wide range of opinion and half the people are frequently...denouncing each other as paid shills.
You say you "welcome" neo-Nazis promoting their version - which usually consists of them telling everyone the Jews did it as part of a worldwide Jewish conspiracy. Which is apparently better in your book than Chomsky simply not thinking it was an inside job.
But the crunch is my repeated requests for some form of evidence Chomsky is some kind of agent. There isn't any is there?
I'm a nobody, but I've been called a shill loads of times. Whenever it occurs, I just think 'what a sad case' because, quite obviously, I'm aware I'm just some guy giving their opinion and from where where I'm sitting it's very, very pathetic. I can only assume Chomsky thinks something very similar and thinks he's dealing with fruitcakes. When in addition, as chek pointed out, the truth movement contains some very weird and wonderful ideas beneath its umberella.
Please though - if you can evidence Chomsky is some kind of agent, please do so - isn't that the point? |
Forget the evidence - if I had it it would have been provided already, already.
And of course, I did not state I 'welcomed' the Neo-Nazis (by the way, the Bush family came to prominence from Prescott Bush running a Nazi front bank in the US, but perhaps you'd rather not go into that, nor Warburg Bank's support of Hitler) promoting their version'; I wrote I welcomed their questioning the 'official' version of 9/11. By the way, I don't quite understand why you would wish to ignore the 'Dancing Israelis' (one of your previous posts).
Too quick to ignore an obvious 'smoking gun'; too quick to attack a 'Truth Protagonist', IMHO.
!A LUTA CONTINUA!
'The dogs may bark, but the caravan moves on'
_________________
'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2009 3:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| outsider wrote: | | Dogsmilk wrote: | | outsider wrote: | @ Dogsmilk:
'Do you classify everyone by virtue of their views on 911? Would you say one of these neo-Nazi, Jew hating white supremacist types who happens to think 911 was an inside job and JFK was killed by the government are better than Chomsky just bvecause they believe these things? 911 truther good, not 911 truther bad?'
Yes, I do classify people according to their views on 9/11. No, I don't believe the neo-Nazis who believe 9/11 being an 'Inside Job' are 'better' than Chomsky, but I would welcome it if they pulicised their belief in it to their missguided followers to help spread the truth of it, but in their own publications and communications network, not in ours, so that we do not get contaminated by their poison, or by 'guilt by association'.
The thing with Chomsky is he won't investigate the evidence, yet claims we are loonies and exhorts his followers to have nothing to do with 9/11 Truth, because it would 'destroy the left'.
I cannot remember Einstein's quote, where he castigates those who will condemn without assessing the evidence.
Like many, if not most, Truthers I have family and friends who don't want to know about 9/11; do I condemn them? No, but then again they don't have Chomsky's clout, nor do they go around dismissing 9/11 Activists and issueing dire warnings about what would happen if their friends or followers waste energy on 9/11 Truth.
Chomsky chose to attack us, before we responded in like fashion. Before that, we tried to convince him (and I personally emailled him and got his feeble reply, before he came out dismissing and attacking our position).
@Dm:
'I would have thought it was fairly obvious this was sarcasm from the tendency Jew theorists have had to accuse me of shilling for teh jooos when I've argued with them. You see there is this tendency for people to stomp round the internet saying "You dare to dispute my beliefs? That means you're a paid shill!" as if this somehow magically wins the argument.'
Thanks for clarification; I still still find it odd (but you probably don't think much of my signature). |
Well if you classify everyone according to their views on 911, all I can say is I think that's pretty pointless. And which views on 911? Are you saying Killtown comes out better in your opinion than Chomsky?? People's views on 911 vary from full on 'let's invade the ragheads', through 'blowback' to LIHOI to LIHOP to MIHOP to no planes and space beams. Where - exactly - do you draw your line? What, in your sage opinion, are prominent people allowed to think to avoid you accusing them of being on the CIA payroll or whatever simply because they have the wrong worldview?
Even within the parameters of the TM there is a wide range of opinion and half the people are frequently...denouncing each other as paid shills.
You say you "welcome" neo-Nazis promoting their version - which usually consists of them telling everyone the Jews did it as part of a worldwide Jewish conspiracy. Which is apparently better in your book than Chomsky simply not thinking it was an inside job.
But the crunch is my repeated requests for some form of evidence Chomsky is some kind of agent. There isn't any is there?
I'm a nobody, but I've been called a shill loads of times. Whenever it occurs, I just think 'what a sad case' because, quite obviously, I'm aware I'm just some guy giving their opinion and from where where I'm sitting it's very, very pathetic. I can only assume Chomsky thinks something very similar and thinks he's dealing with fruitcakes. When in addition, as chek pointed out, the truth movement contains some very weird and wonderful ideas beneath its umberella.
Please though - if you can evidence Chomsky is some kind of agent, please do so - isn't that the point? |
Forget the evidence - if I had it it would have been provided already, already.
And of course, I did not state I 'welcomed' the Neo-Nazis (by the way, the Bush family came to prominence from Prescott Bush running a Nazi front bank in the US, but perhaps you'd rather not go into that, nor Warburg Bank's support of Hitler) promoting their version'; I wrote I welcomed their questioning the 'official' version of 9/11. By the way, I don't quite understand why you would wish to ignore the 'Dancing Israelis' (one of your previous posts).
Too quick to ignore an obvious 'smoking gun'; too quick to attack a 'Truth Protagonist', IMHO.
!A LUTA CONTINUA!
'The dogs may bark, but the caravan moves on' |
"Forget the evidence" because it doesn't exist. But you say it anyway because apparently that doesn't matter - from a "Truth Protagonist". Nice.
I don't know a great deal about Prescott Bush. But I can't see any reason why big business and banking interests wouldn't have dealt with the Nazis - corporations are basically amoral institutions which exist to accumulate profit. Contemporary corporations and banks deal with all kinds of unsavoury regimes and I don't see anything remotely surprising about that, however unpleasant it may be. If there's clear evidence that Prescott Bush ideologically backed Nazism that would be interesting, but not unique considering e.g, sizeable elements of the British elite were sympathetic to Hitler. The daily mail expressed admiration for Hitler. Fascism generally had quite a lot of popularity. Like that's some kind of bombshell. Edwin Black is, AFAIK, totally correct about IBM's dealing with the Nazis, but what do we expect? We can't possibly exploit this lucrative market as these chaps are complete rascals! - ?
Or what? If Prescott Bush dealt with the Nazis that therefore means the two Georges are Nazis or something? Prescott wanted to lever the Nazis into power as part of one of those big global plots where a few people apparently control every nuance of the immense complexity of global events?
I can't think of any reason why I "wouldn't want to go into that" other than not thinking it sounds tremendously exciting unless you have some compelling reason why it is.
You've said "Yes, I do classify people according to their views on 9/11" - so you're angry with Chomsky for not believing what you do but you with neo-Nazis you "would welcome it if they pulicised their belief in it to their missguided followers to help spread the truth of it" - what I find odd is that if you classify people according to their views on 911 this seems to suggest you'd rate a neo-Nazi who thinks 911 was an inside job (from their own ideological perspective and according to their agenda) more highly than someone like Chomsky.
Seriously - do you think Killtown is a greater blessing upon planet earth than Chomsky simply because he thinks 911 was an inside job?
What's the point of bringing up the 'dancing Israelis' (or Prescott Bush for that matter) which I guess I probably said months ago I think is an instance of adding 2+2 and getting 597? And? This thread is supposed to be about why Chomsky is evil.
_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
