I respect the likes of John Pilger and Noam Chomsky immensly, I have their DVDs and Books. I am a Pilger and Chomsky junkie from a very young age.
However... I believe that they are neglecting their own principles by ignoring 911 Truth. That is what they are doing, they are also failing in keeping to their principles by falling for the immense propoganda and psyop regarding 911. So their principles are noble and of the best.
John Pilger is the best journalist out there still in my opinion, however he fails with 911 Truth.
Noam Chomsky is still one of the most important intellectuals of our time, however again he fails us on 911 Truth.
So I respect them for their principles which they held true to and were bastions of, ambassadors of, throughout the Cold War period. However, this War On Terror bares the same things as the Cold War, its obviously become something much more cleverly devised to escape them.
Well, they are both old legends. I believe from 911 Truth new legends will emerge to carry on with the same or even greater nobility, those principles aforementioned.
Classic double pronged attempt to obfuscate the truth.
Prong 1: It's not true.
Prong 2: Even if it is true who cares.
I've experienced this with critics e.g. WTCs were not demolished, even if they were I'd say it was al-CIAduh.
After the who cares comment I ficd it hard to believe that anyone can take Chomsky seriously. I think it's a truly moraly repugnent comment to make not to mention hypocritical.
Classic double pronged attempt to obfuscate the truth.
Prong 1: It's not true.
Prong 2: Even if it is true who cares.
I've experienced this with critics e.g. WTCs were not demolished, even if they were I'd say it was al-CIAduh.
After the who cares comment I ficd it hard to believe that anyone can take Chomsky seriously. I think it's a truly moraly repugnent comment to make not to mention hypocritical.
I totally agree. If you take a look at 'part one' of this discussion which Zabooka has posted, he demonstrates unequivically that he understands the formula of the bogus 'War on Terror' but in return comes to the WRONG conclusion. I do not know where this so called 'brilliant mind' is going with this. It does not make any sense, none whatsoever.
"Even if it were true, which is extremely unlikely, who cares?"
That quote is going to ring through my ears many times over. What exactly does he mean, who cares? If people do not care about that, then how does he expect people to care about lesser truths? IE - if people dont care about the US Govt doing 911, why would they care about US going into Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, Somalia, etc.
Plus... people do care, thats why the movement is grown and has grown internationally. Secondly, people care enough to give us hell at every angle!
Which from what Noam Chomsky said to a student in "Manufacturing Consent : Noam Chomsky & The Media", he says something along the lines of...if you are attracting such attacks for just speaking out against an injustice, you must be doing something very right. If you are not bothering the powers that be, then you must be doing something wrong or missing something. I am paraphrasing the gist of it here.
Well, look at yourself Noam Chomsky. You are no longer being attacked so much anymore. You are no longer the out-spoken. 911 Truth is, however he would possibly say, that 911 Truth is thus doing a BAD THING, in that it keeps attention away from him and others that actually have more importance or a more important message perhaps.
What does this say about not just Noam Chomsky, but the whole Stop The War, Anti-Bush, yet at the same time anti-911Truth groups around the world? What should be our understanding and our response?
Yo Zabooka! You need to get a copy of Barry Zwickers 'The Towers of Deception' as he has a brilliant chapter called 'The Shame of Noam Chomsky and the Gatekeepers of the Left'. I adored Chomsky until i realised the truth about 911 and now i adore him considerably less.
"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum."
- Noam Chomsky
"That's an internet theory and it's hopelessly implausible. Hopelessly implausible. So hopelessly implausible I don't see any point in talking about it."
Everybody remotely connected with this stuff knows Chomsky doesn't buy into the truth movement and that has been the case for a long time.
Personally, I don't agree with everything the guy says (and I also think he's 'lost it' a bit over the last few years; should probably think about retiring), but I simply fail to see any utility in dragging him up again and again to have a pop at him for having a different POV; what does it achieve?
That article at http://educate-yourself.org/cn/noamchomskygatekepper26sep05.shtml contains numerous errors and distortions.
For example, Chomsky has never advocated 'one world government' (he's an anarchist, sorry, 'libertarian socialist' for chrissakes. His primary political influence is Rudolf Rocker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Rocker)). Rather Chomsky has repeatedly looked at the UN as the supposed arbiter of international law, its total ineffectiveness in face of the overwhelming power of the US and the resulting hypocrisy whereby the US gets away with breaking UN resolutions at will along with client states such as Israel. I would be very interested to see any (in context) quote that he's made that calls for one-world government.
The writer of the article seems to have a poor grasp of reading comprehension. To pick one example, it takes the quote
Quote:
There's another side to this, there's a sense in which it's advantageous if the oil peak is earlier. The reason why is it will compel the world, primarily the U.S. here, to move toward something like sustainable energy. If there's unbounded amounts of hydrocarbons, we're just going to destroy the environment for human life or most biological life, so the earlier the peak is, in some respects - yes, it could be catastrophic, it could also be beneficial."
and responds
Quote:
The "beneficial" aspects Chomsky discusses are likely the resulting population control and starvation that would ensue from such a shortage.
Completely missing the point; the quote says:
a/ The environment is being destroyed by hydrocarbons (i.e. endangering human life )
b/Peak oil will force a move to sustainable energy
c/If this is going to happen, it may as well happen sooner rather than later as this may mean less damage to the environment (and people) in the long run
This is hardly revelling in the human cost of peak oil; he's making a single specific point that isn't looking at that issue in that particular sentence. But he does think the dependence on oil is currently hurting people and makes that clear. And the fact the quote begins with "There's another side to this" shows what he said before that is necessary to fully understand what he was saying. Why is it left out?
The article simply ascribes a meaning to the quote based on...?
This quote -
Quote:
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)
I'm sick of seeing bandied about. Regardless of the fact it's again quoted in isolation and out of context, if you actually read what he's saying it's very clear he's not actually calling for a fascist takeover.
As I said, I don't agree with the guy on a lot - for example I do think he seriously underestimates the intelligence services and has recently been very disingenuous over the erosion of civil liberties in America. I also think he's also done some amazing work (Manufacturing Consent still stands as an absolute classic text) and the idea he's a CIA agent seems bizarre (he was the first introduction to 'radical' thinking to tons of people who have subsequently got into even more 'radical' ideas including myself, so that plan backfired). Aside from the 'agent' idea, I do think the Barrie Zwicker chapter was pretty good too.
Furthermore, as a flag bearer for the radical left, it's unsurprising he gets on the nerves of those who come from the right; however much we may try to transcend the left/right paradigm, it nevertheless strongly exists. I suspect this is where some of this 'one world government' stuff comes from; the American radical right has long been paranoid about the UN.
I mean,
Quote:
Chomsky’s role in propaganda paradigm is much like that of Karl Marx: to present a false liberation ideology which actually supports the desired solutions of the elite. Marx pointed out the inequalities and brutality of capitalism and then advocated a one world bank, army, and government with the abolition of private property and religion; in other words, the major goals known of the New World Order.
Well, I'm no Marxist, but I don't think whoever wrote that had a right good grasp of Marxism. I simply can't get my head round how an ultimate goal of universal egalitarianism and the end of wage slavery fits in with some dastardly New World Order scheme. It's hardly the fault of Marx that the Communist regimes read him to their convenience, any more than it's the fault of Adam Smith that capitalism took the turn it has or Jesus for the Spanish Inquisition. What Marx said and what's happened in his name are very distinct.
I'm reminded of Chomsky's appearance on the Alex Jones show; they spend a load of time agreeing about stuff, and then Alex throws his toys out of his pram cos Chomsky believes in gun control. How constructive.
Chomsky disagrees with trutherism. That's unlikely to change. Trying to find reasons for seeing him as some sort of shill isn't going to get anywhere and will just alienate those who have actually read any of his books rather than articles that selectively quote mine. _________________ It's a man's life in MOSSAD
Noam Chomsky joins 9/11 “Jersey” widows in calling for release of 9/11 documents
February 14, 2007 -- Noam Chomsky has signed a petition written by the 9/11 “Jersey” widows calling for the release of classified documents relating to the 9/11 attacks. The Muckraker Report has contacted him by e-mail and verified that the individual listed on the petition is indeed Noam Chomsky. Chomsky’s name is #6432: _________________ The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan.
Joined: 09 Feb 2007 Posts: 630 Location: Manchester
Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 7:59 pm Post subject:
Quote:
Noam Chomsky joins 9/11 “Jersey” widows in calling for release of 9/11 documents
I so want to use that on another forum, but I think I’ll wait a while to make sure it’s real.
Does anyone know anything about Robert Fisk’s position on 9/11 truth? I’ve got the utmost respect for his reporting on the Lebanon and the middle east, but I've not heard anything regarding 9/11 truth. _________________ Simon - http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/
Joined: 27 Mar 2006 Posts: 3187 Location: Here to help!
Posted: Fri Feb 16, 2007 10:17 am Post subject:
Some breaking news on Noam Chomsky: in a change of position on 9/11 he has just supported the Jersey girls petition calling for the release of classified documents. No direct link for this but apears to be muckracker report:
Quote:
Noam Chomsky joins 9/11 “Jersey” widows in calling for release of 9/11 documents
February 14, 2007 -- Noam Chomsky has signed a petition written by the 9/11 “Jersey” widows calling for the release of classified documents relating to the 9/11 attacks. The Muckraker Report has contacted him by e-mail and verified that the individual listed on the petition is indeed Noam Chomsky. Chomsky’s name is #6432:
That said, now that Chomsky has agreed to sign the widows’ petition, the Muckraker Report would like to see the following people sign too: Alexander Cockburn and crew at Counterpunch, the editorial staff at the Nation, Michael Moore, Barbara Ehrenreich, Amy Goodman, Maureen Dowd, Frank Rich, Seymour Hersh, Nicholas Leman at the New Yorker, Christopher Hayes, anyone who writes for the Daily Kos, including Kos himself, and the absolutely divine Camille Paglia.
Like I said in my article from a few days ago, 9/11 Widows Keep on Asking the Tough Questions, the Jersey widows say that once they have 15,000 signatures on their petition, they’re going to head back to Capitol Hill. Right now they have 6,600 signatures, 1023 of them in the last 60 hours. Please e-mail the link of the petition to all your friends. Ask them to sign and forward the petition to their e-mail contacts. The Jersey widows have to get 8,400 more signatures. They need your help. Come on - give them a hand!
Posted: Fri Feb 16, 2007 6:08 pm Post subject: Chomsky acts to obfuscate, deceive and inveigle.
For those who are interested in Chomsky, or are still unsure about him (if such doubts could still exist) I suggest Barry Zwicker's 'Towers of Deception'.
In his book (which is referenced) Barry Zwicker has a chapter called "The Shame of Noam Chomsky and Gatekeepers of the Left".
Barry does a fantastic job in analyzing Chomsky's work past and present from everything from JFK to 9/11 and it simply, shockingly exposes Chomsky works to obfuscate, deceive and inveigle.
I don't think Chomsky signing this petition in any way signifies a 'conversion'; supporting the release of classified documents is a general matter of supporting freedom of information and one that can be supported without any truther beliefs.
If Chomsky actually went MIHOP, it'd be all over the net within hours. _________________ It's a man's life in MOSSAD
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
