| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
QuitTheirClogs
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 630
Location: Manchester
|
 Posted: Sat May 24, 2008 1:25 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Jack wrote: | | it makes it worse that there is really nothing unreasonable in Chomsky's discourse with Barrett. |
Chomsky violated his wife’s privacy -- in the first reply to the interview invitation. Why even mention his wife? Why not just say he has other commitments?
_________________
Simon - http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/
David Ray Griffin - 9/11: the Myth & the Reality
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-275577066688213413 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Jack
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Dec 2006
Posts: 115
|
| Posted: Sat May 24, 2008 1:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| QuitTheirClogs wrote: | | Jack wrote: | | it makes it worse that there is really nothing unreasonable in Chomsky's discourse with Barrett. |
Chomsky violated his wife’s privacy -- in the first reply to the interview invitation. Why even mention his wife? Why not just say he has other commitments? |
are you...serious? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jomper
Validated Poster
Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 99
|
| Posted: Sat May 24, 2008 5:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| QuitTheirClogs wrote: | | Chomsky violated his wife’s privacy -- in the first reply to the interview invitation. Why even mention his wife? Why not just say he has other commitments? |
This really is an idiotic remark. In the context of what he believed was a private exchange, Chomsky explains precisely why he was supplying a very limited amount of detail about his wife's health.
The tragedy is that Chomsky had enough respect for Barrett to engage in a private discussion with him in the first place. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kbo234
Validated Poster
Joined: 10 Dec 2005
Posts: 2017
Location: Croydon, Surrey
|
| Posted: Sat May 24, 2008 5:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Has this already been posted somewhere here?
Re Chomsky....it tells it like it is.
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/noamchomskygatekepper26sep05.shtml
Here's the last part of the article:
CONCLUSIONS
Chomsky and his gatekeeper contemporaries are perfect devises for the Globalists because they help define the limits of the false left-right paradigm. Much like David Horowitz, a former Leftist, currently does for the radical Right. Is it a surprise that he edited a book called "The Anti-Chomsky Reader?" It should only be natural since they both serve the same role of gatekeeper.
Puppets like Horowitz, Michael Savage, Sean Hannity, Michele Malkin, William Kristol, William F. Buckley and their kin serve as Right Gatekeepers. They criticize the failures of liberals and Democrats and then call for Bush worshipping, illegal wars, fascist government, and giving up all of our Constitutional rights for "security." In doing so they pollute the conservative movement and help marginalize true conservatives voices like Alex Jones, Ron Paul, and groups like Gun Owners of America.
Chomsky and his gatekeepers do the same thing. They write about the crimes of American imperialism and then call for population control, gun control, global government under the UN, and a totally socialized Brave New World society.
The Left gatekeepers must manage the delicate tight rope act of appearing radical while in actuality calling for worldwide enslavement and murder. In all likelihood they get a little help from the propaganda scientists at the venerable Tavistock institute in London and adjuncts of the CIA’s Mockingbird program; clearly the Left’s denial of 9-11 truths has been too coordinated too have simply been a freak occurrence.
In the mainstream it is the same with the staged battles between pawns like Democratic operative Al Franken and Republican Ann Coulter.
All of this is designed to create a tight spectrum, a masterfully crafted false paradigm to enslave the mind and give the people false choices. Thus at either extreme of the spectrum and all points in between, from Chomsky to Horowitz, one finds they are endorsing total enslavement and global government. This is the genius of the New World Order, their complete castration of free political will through carefully managed propaganda agents. The rest of the media jackals serve as willing accomplices, mere useful idiots and power hungry sycophants with massive egos and more concern for their career than the truth.
Noam Chomsky and his Left Gatekeeper associates must be actively exposed for their role in the propaganda system. For nearly 40 years since they infiltrated the activist movement, these Left gatekeepers have made the activist movements impotent, territorial, confused, and ineffective. Thus instead of understanding their enslavement, many activists end up calling for tighter chains by echoing Chomsky’s calls for gun control, population control, and a world government under the UN. They end up critiquing the Iraq disaster without seeing government involvement in 9-11 and the CIA/MI-6/Mossad creation known as Al-Qaeda.
Noam Chomsky and his clique of re-direct agents mercilessly push real activists into dead-end solutions. Until they are vocally exposed, the Left will continue to remain a managed asset of the New World Order.
Daniel L. Abrahamson |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jomper
Validated Poster
Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 99
|
| Posted: Sat May 24, 2008 6:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, it's already been posted.
It actually has no relevance to the question of Chomsky's privacy and the correct way to behave, whether you take him to be an enemy of the truth or not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
QuitTheirClogs
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 630
Location: Manchester
|
| Posted: Sat May 24, 2008 7:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
@ Jack & Jomper
Where, prior to Chomsky needlessly bringing his wife into the discussion, does Barrett make any sort of assurance that the email exchange will be kept private?
And whose privacy do you believe has been violated here; Chomsky’s or his wife’s?
_________________
Simon - http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/
David Ray Griffin - 9/11: the Myth & the Reality
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-275577066688213413 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TonyGosling
Editor
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 18335
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jomper
Validated Poster
Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 99
|
| Posted: Sat May 24, 2008 8:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| QuitTheirClogs wrote: | @ Jack & Jomper
Where, prior to Chomsky needlessly bringing his wife into the discussion, does Barrett make any sort of assurance that the email exchange will be kept private?
And whose privacy do you believe has been violated here; Chomsky’s or his wife’s? |
I'm losing patience with this. Sorry. I'm not going to make any more posts on this thread.
But in answer to your first question, nowhere does Barrett make the assurance that he will not publish the email exchange. Chomsky however asks that the exchange be kept private at the very start and makes it clear that he is prepared to engage in it only on that basis.
Furthermore, and as I have already mentioned, Chomsky says he does not want to appear "mysterious" with respect to the demands on his time and that is why he mentions his wife. The exact words he used are quoted upthread so you do not need to visit Barrett's site to read them again.
I would suggest to you that these two points are, from Chomsky's perspective, connected. I would also suggest to you that by reading Chomsky's request for privacy and continuing to pursue their dialogue Barrett accepted and understood Chomsky's terms. The manner in which he reneges on this agreement and betrays Chomsky's trust at the end of their exchange is one of the most revolting aspects of Barrett's behaviour. In my opinion he reveals himself to be a desperately immature man as he does so.
The second question you ask is so extremely stupid that I cannot offer even one word in response. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
QuitTheirClogs
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 630
Location: Manchester
|
| Posted: Sat May 24, 2008 9:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jomper wrote: | | Chomsky however asks that the exchange be kept private at the very start |
No he doesn’t. He makes the request in the second email. He makes the first needless reference to his wife in the first email (first paragraph).
You say you are concerned with privacy, but you can’t even say whose privacy you believe to have been violated. So I’ll answer the question for you. It was Mrs Chomsky’s privacy.
Personally, I think Barrett made a mistake in publishing in toto. He should have replaced the references to Chomsky’s wife with something like:
[Redacted reference to family member]
Apart from that, Chomsky’s communicated views on 9/11 and the truth movement are NOT private. He is an influential public figure -- no different to Dick Cheney or Philip Zelikow -- who has chosen to enter the debate. He should expect his statements to be published.
| jomper wrote: | | I'm losing patience with this. Sorry. I'm not going to make any more posts on this thread. |
So this little bout of Barrett bashing comes to an end.
_________________
Simon - http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/
David Ray Griffin - 9/11: the Myth & the Reality
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-275577066688213413 |
|
| 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: Sat May 24, 2008 9:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TonyGosling wrote: | Every effort to defend this idiot Barratt's betrayal of trust is another nail in the coffin of Noam Chomsky ever taking 911 seriously.
Wake up children, it's Chomsky's choice as to whether he speaks out publicly about 911 and are you making that less or moe likely? If you don't think that then you're not making a better world but perpetrating more of the same arrogant control-freakery that's wrong with the present system.
This is exactly how the perpetrators of 911 would love to see us waste our energy. Attacking our potential allies.
Barratt has shown his true, idiotic, cowardly colours. Rather than go for the enemy he's gone for a potential ally. Pathetic.  |
Kevin Barrett is neither an idiot, nor a coward. You should think yourself blessed if you had a fraction of his intelligence or courage.
Regarding Chomsky's being a 'potential ally', I think if you read this link, which I posted in an earlier post, and also kbo posted it:
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/noamchomskygatekepper26sep05.shtml
you'll realize that no way is he ever going to come on board; read about his dismissal of the NWO, Bilderburg, Trilateral Commision, CIA shenanigans ('just taking orders from the President'), JFK and I believe you'll come to the conclusion that he's a 'busted flush'.
_________________
'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 |
|
|
Richard W.
New Poster
Joined: 24 May 2008
Posts: 3
|
| Posted: Sat May 24, 2008 10:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Chomsky's laser-like moral integrity (& intensity) are, to my mind, beyond the understanding of most of us - especially Barrett's.
Consider this : in 1994 - 14 years ago - Chomsky was being inundated with requests to give his view on the JFK conspiracies ("Keeping The Rabble In Line" - Interviews with David Barsamian" - AK Press 1994 - Page 162-163 - "Conspiracy Theorists") :
"It just got to the point where I couldn't respond any more. Within the bounds of a twenty-four-hour-day I couldn't answer the letters. So much to my regret I have to say, sorry, I can't do it".
Chomsky simply didn't have the time then, so God knows how he has had the time (or inclination) to respond now to the likes of Barratt with the 9/11 conspiracies - especially with his wife's ill-health.
The fact Chomsky responded to Barrett at all says much for this MIT 79-year old professor - I'm utterly astonished he has the time and/or energy !
The attitude and behaviour of Barrett (& his apologists) is beyond offensive embarrassment to any decent-minded, compassionate member of humanity.
For God's sake, play the ball - not the man.
Methinks this important messenger is being shot at, because the important message is not wanting to be heard.
Richard W. Symonds
GATWICK CITY OF IDEAS
England |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
outsider
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 30 Jul 2006
Posts: 6060
Location: East London
|
| Posted: Sun May 25, 2008 9:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Richard W. wrote: | Chomsky's laser-like moral integrity is, to my mind, beyond the understanding of most of us - especially Barrett's.
Consider this : in 1994 - 14 years ago - Chomsky was being inundated with requests to give his view on the JFK conspiracies ("Keeping The Rabble In Line" - Interviews with David Barsamian" - AK Press 1994 - Page 162-163 - "Conspiracy Theorists") :
"It just got to the point where I couldn't respond any more. Within the bounds of a twenty-four-hour-day I couldn't answer the letters. So much to my regret I have to say, sorry, I can't do it".
Chomsky simply didn't have the time then, so God knows how he has had the time (or inclination) to respond now to the likes of Barratt with the 9/11 conspiracies - especially with his wife's ill-health.
The fact Chomsky responded to Barrett at all says much for this MIT 79-year old professor - I'm utterly astonished he has the time and/or energy !
The attitude and behaviour of Barrett (& his apologists) is beyond offensive embarrassment to any decent-minded, compassionate member of humanity.
For God's sake, play the ball - not the man.
Methinks this important messenger is being shot at, because the important message is not wanting to be heard.
Richard W. Symonds
GATWICK CITY OF IDEAS
England |
'It just got to the point...' (above)
Why didn't he just come out with his real reason, 'Does it matter?'..'Who cares?' Or was that judged to be too controversial in the US at that time?
Far safer to air it in Hungary at the Kossuth Klub.
Have you read the article, and watched the short video clip, which I've previously put up here? Here they are again. I would welcome your assessment of the material.
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/noamchomskygatekepper26sep05.shtml
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCnoXJhITow
_________________
'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 |
|
|
Richard W.
New Poster
Joined: 24 May 2008
Posts: 3
|
| Posted: Sun May 25, 2008 11:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
David Barsamian : "Does that interest in conspiracy theories tell you something about the poltical culture ?"
Noam Chomsky : "It tells you something about what's undermining the left. For people who feel a need to believe in conspiracies..."
(Source : "Keeping The Rabble In Line" (1994) - Page 162 et al) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
outsider
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 30 Jul 2006
Posts: 6060
Location: East London
|
| Posted: Sun May 25, 2008 12:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Richard W. wrote: | David Barsamian : "Does that interest in conspiracy theories tell you something about the poltical culture ?"
Noam Chomsky : "It tells you something about what's undermining the left. For people who feel a need to believe in conspiracies..."
(Source : "Keeping The Rabble In Line" (1994) - Page 162 et al) |
Are you a 9/11 Truth Campaigner, or do you agree with Chomsky's quote you gave above, that we 'feel a need to believe in conspiracy theories' and in so doing are responsible for 'undermining the left'??
_________________
'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 May 25, 2008 12:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Have you read the article |
IMO that article roughly states "right wing commentator doesn't like the left, sees as agents"
It also contains some absolute howlers. For example, it states
| Quote: | | This false propaganda model, pitting the imperialist U.S. against the godly UN fits the classic MO of "poisoning the well." Essentially, Chomsky acts as a re-direct agent: he acknowledges many crimes of American foreign policy and then offers world government and international law as the solution. |
Well for a start I'm not aware of Chomsky ever advocating "world government" - what a totally stupid thing to say. He's heavily influenced by Anarchism (specifically anarcho-syndicalist Rudolf Rocker IIRC) for God's sake. He just doesn't promote nationalism in the way the writer of the article would like. Good thing too: nationalism sucks. For the writer of the article to invoke "Marxist-Leninsm" is just pig ignorant. Mind you, they don't appear to understand Marx either (not that I'm saying I do; Marx is complex).
Also, he's spent a lot of time illustrating how international law has been trampled over by the US and its allies and pointed out the constant hypocrisy demonstrated with regard to international law. Chomsky has done well in pointing out how the US flouts the very rules it purports to follow and invokes when it suits it.
If you believe the UN is some big conspiracy that's going to come and turf you out of your survivalist mountain stronghold and that ultra-nationalistic isolationalism is the only way to go, you might find the UN rather sinister as opposed to a talking shop that can't f*ck with the US.
Unbelievably, they wheel out that one quote you get a lot and make a ludicrous statement about it -
| 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)
|
Well look at what he's actually saying. It would be nice to see the whole context of the quote, but even from what we're presented with, it seems clear to me when you read that quote it's saying nothing like what the author of the article says it is. I have bolded the crucial part.
Or when it takes about voter fraud, it just totally ignores what Chomsky is actually trying to say:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7327592133494944743&q=noam+ch omsky&ei=M0I5SIH8HJfYjQLxzozUAw
And so on and so forth.
I may as well call Alex Jones an agent because he routinely promotes the perpetuation of capitalism and proposes a kind of reformism based on the notion that if we did away with these here NWO child-abusin' satan worshippin' 'elites' everthything would be dandy, totally failing to address the systemic factors that these actors operate within. Hence, Alex Jones expects us to believe that the system need not be replaced, only those that have perverted it, discouraging us from tearing the whole edifice down, something that might interfere with his lucrative merchandising and advertising operations.
Do I think Alex Jones is an agent? Do I buggery. I think we have a different worldview. He's like the daily mail on crack and that's fine - good luck to the guy. Denouncing people as agents or 'gatekeepers' because you don't like their politics or worldview is just a nifty means of writing off views you don't happen to agree with.
Just out of interest - who is this Danial L Abrahamson? His article is so rubbish I suspect he may be a disinformation agent of the NWO... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gareth
Suspended
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Posts: 398
|
| Posted: Sun May 25, 2008 4:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dogsmilk wrote: |
Just out of interest - who is this Danial L Abrahamson? |
Interestingly Mr Abrahamson is a progeny of a Mr W G Tarpley and a supporter/signer of last years Kennebunkport Warning.
For those singing the praises of Kevin Barrett it is well worth noting that he has a long and colourful history of damaging the reputation of the 9/11 Truth Movement:
| Quote: | Kevin Barrett is a prominent 9/11 activist. While he has significantly contributed awareness for the 9/11 truth movement, he has also damaged its credibility with damaging associations, discrediting theories, and controversial statements.
|
from: arabesque911.blogspot.com/2008/03/kevin-barrett.html
As for Barrett running for Congress check out what Sean Haugh, political director of the National Libertarian Party has to say about it:
| Quote: | In almost all cases, as Political Director I support the candidates as nominated by our state parties no matter how I feel about them. I cannot in good conscience do this in the case of Kevin Barrett.
I do not have a problem with him or anyone as a so-called "9/11 Truther." I accept that people who express skepticism over the official story about what happened that day have a home in the LP. But Mr. Barrett goes well beyond that in two ways:
1) He frequently calls for the mass executions for treason for reporters who wrote articles with which he takes issue. I absolutely will not support any candidate who calls for mass murder of anyone, and am appalled that anyone who considers themselves Libertarian would advocate something so horrific.
2) He has made qualified statements of support for the preeminent Holocaust deniers in North America. I researched this extensively before coming to this conclusion. He seems to be playing both sides of that fence. I am and will always be totally intolerant of the Holocaust deniers. It's a blatant racism borne of a deliberate stupidity and I will do absolutely everything in my power to make sure that Holocaust deniers do not feel they have a home in the LP.
I strongly urge the Wisconsin LP to not nominate Kevin Barrett for US Congress. Regardless of your decision however I will go out of my way to disassociate him from the national LP.
yours in liberty -
Sean Haugh
Political Director |
from: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpwi/message/23483
_________________
www.truthaction.org/forum
www.wearechange.org.uk |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard W.
New Poster
Joined: 24 May 2008
Posts: 3
|
| Posted: Sun May 25, 2008 6:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| outsider wrote: | | Richard W. wrote: | David Barsamian : "Does that interest in conspiracy theories tell you something about the poltical culture ?"
Noam Chomsky : "It tells you something about what's undermining the left. For people who feel a need to believe in conspiracies..."
(Source : "Keeping The Rabble In Line" (1994) - Page 162 et al) |
Are you a 9/11 Truth Campaigner, or do you agree with Chomsky's quote you gave above, that we 'feel a need to believe in conspiracy theories' and in so doing are responsible for 'undermining the left'?? |
"Outsider", what I am is of little consequence, but my personal view is that if clear, proven acts of state brutality and terror have not caused people to act already, no proven conspiracy theory (eg 9/11) is going to cause them to act now.
Chomsky has been described, pjoratively, as the "Pied Piper of the Left". I don't agree with that description, but I do believe he has the least implausible explanations (& solutions) of the realities within us and about us - often brutal realities which we are unable to face, and thus we escape into 'conspiracies' & 'theories'.
To my mind, it's the 'Master Puppeteers' (ie those whom the Gate-Keepers are really protecting), who pull the strings of both Left and Right, that really scare the sh## out of me...and who see people like Chomsky as a very serious threat (ie those in power accountable to no-one but themselves, and who perpetuate the old 20th century Left v Right idealogical conflict, which is as obsolete as Betamax v VHS).
The fact that this 'dead horse' conflict continues to be succesfully 'flogged' owes much to the cabal whom the 'Gatekeepers of Power' are protecting - whether consciously, sub-consciously, or unconsciously. Sending people on wildgoose chases with conspiracies is one of their specialities, and it helps prevent exposure of these Master Puppeteers (one of which is undoubtedly the Rothschilds).
The conflict is no longer Left v Right in the early 21st century- it's Down v Up....and we are dangerously & pitifully unaware of it.
We must wake up, wise up, and grow up - very fast indeed.
Last edited by Richard W. on Sun May 25, 2008 11:24 pm; edited 6 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
outsider
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 30 Jul 2006
Posts: 6060
Location: East London
|
| Posted: Sun May 25, 2008 6:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Following 'Dogsmilk' and gareth's posts, I regretfully have to temper my support for Kevin Barrett; I still maintain he is a valiant Truth Campaigner, and his heart is in the right (left) place, but giving any sort of support to Holocaust Deniers is not on; his threatening reporters with 'War Crimes Trials' and giving credence to 'Space Beamers' is also not very smart, IMO.
But as for the 'Gnome of Boston', I am still totally in favour of his exposure. Whilst Dogsmilk is probably correct that NC doesn't openly support World Government, by saying that the Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg and Council on Foreign Ralations are 'nothing organisations', he indirectly supports their NWO agenda by discouraging research into them. And would anyone say that Chomsky could really be unaware of their importance?
I wonder, if he deigned to reply, what NC's take on the 'USS Liberty' affair would be; would he say 'Does it matter?''Who cares'? (and then deny it), or would he simply accept the Israeli Government line that it was just a 'terrible mistake?' Probably a bit of both, but like 9/11 he would shy away from public discussion.
_________________
'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 |
|
|
fish5133
Site Admin
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 2568
Location: One breath from Glory
|
| Posted: Sun May 25, 2008 8:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Gareth wrote
| Quote: | For those singing the praises of Kevin Barrett it is well worth noting that he has a long and colourful history of damaging the reputation of the 9/11 Truth Movement:
| Quote: | | Kevin Barrett is a prominent 9/11 activist. While he has significantly contributed awareness for the 9/11 truth movement, he has also damaged its credibility with damaging associations, discrediting theories, and controversial statements |
. |
Probably includes a lot on this forum: no planers, no craners, Icke associates, Shayler associates(post messiah), Judy Wood and Fetzer associates, Andrew Johnson associates, Stephen Jones associates. Just depends on your point of view
_________________
JO911B.
"for we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against principalities, against powers, against rulers of the darkness of this world, against wicked spirits in high places " Eph.6 v 12 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
outsider
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 30 Jul 2006
Posts: 6060
Location: East London
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 5:01 am Post subject: Barrie Zwicker enters debate |
|
|
Some useful backing for Kevin Barrett:
My spat with Noam Chomsky (http://www.barrettforcongress.us/chomsky.htm) generated two outstanding radio shows with Chomsky experts Michael Morrissey and Barrie Zwicker. My conversation with Morrissey inspired him to post his account of Chomsky's bizarre, irrational argumentation in their correspondence about the JFK case: http://www.geocities.com/mdmorrissey/falsedebate. Chomsky has worked so hard to cover up the truth of JFK, 9/11, and the Palestinian right of return that more and more people, including Barrie Zwicker, suspect him of acting in bad faith. I am sorry to say that Chomsky's behavior in our correspondence has forced me to agree with Barrie.
Those interviews coincided with the Media Reform Conference last weekend. For my detailed report on the conference, featuring interviews (or occasionally, attempted interviews) with journalists Amy Goodman, Dan Rather, Phil Donaghue, and Normon Soloman; media studies professors Robert McChesney, Peter Phillips, Steve Macek and Mark Kayak; history professor Mickey Huff; FBI whistleblower and Time Magazine Woman of the Year Colleen Rowley; pro-truth Congressional candidate Carol Brouillet; and others will soon be playing on http://www.noliesradio.org
Last Friday I drove to what was supposed to be a Ron Kind listening session in Black River Falls. My press release announcing that I would be asking Kind whether he supports Kucinich's impeachment resolution garnered mainstream media coverage: Barrett plans to publicly challenge Dem incumbent over impeachment. Unfortunately Ron Kind did not show up at his scheduled listening session - he said he had to deal with the flood emergency - so I held an impromptu Kevin Barrett listening session in the room that Kind had reserved. All but one of the participants strongly opposed the war and responded positively to my argument that Kind, as a pro-war Democrat, did not deserve their votes.
_________________
'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
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 5:10 am Post subject: Re: Barrie Zwicker enters debate |
|
|
| outsider wrote: | Some useful backing for Kevin Barrett:
My spat with Noam Chomsky (http://www.barrettforcongress.us/chomsky.htm) generated two outstanding radio shows with Chomsky experts Michael Morrissey and Barrie Zwicker. My conversation with Morrissey inspired him to post his account of Chomsky's bizarre, irrational argumentation in their correspondence about the JFK case: (Sorry, this page cannot be found; I'm replacing it with this for now: http://educate-yourself.org/cn/morrisseychomskyonjfkandvietnam1993.sht ml outsider). Chomsky has worked so hard to cover up the truth of JFK, 9/11, and the Palestinian right of return that more and more people, including Barrie Zwicker, suspect him of acting in bad faith. I am sorry to say that Chomsky's behavior in our correspondence has forced me to agree with Barrie.
Those interviews coincided with the Media Reform Conference last weekend. For my detailed report on the conference, featuring interviews (or occasionally, attempted interviews) with journalists Amy Goodman, Dan Rather, Phil Donaghue, and Normon Soloman; media studies professors Robert McChesney, Peter Phillips, Steve Macek and Mark Kayak; history professor Mickey Huff; FBI whistleblower and Time Magazine Woman of the Year Colleen Rowley; pro-truth Congressional candidate Carol Brouillet; and others will soon be playing on http://www.noliesradio.org
Last Friday I drove to what was supposed to be a Ron Kind listening session in Black River Falls. My press release announcing that I would be asking Kind whether he supports Kucinich's impeachment resolution garnered mainstream media coverage: Barrett plans to publicly challenge Dem incumbent over impeachment. Unfortunately Ron Kind did not show up at his scheduled listening session - he said he had to deal with the flood emergency - so I held an impromptu Kevin Barrett listening session in the room that Kind had reserved. All but one of the participants strongly opposed the war and responded positively to my argument that Kind, as a pro-war Democrat, did not deserve their votes. |
_________________
'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
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2008 5:33 am Post subject: Re: Barrie Zwicker enters debate |
|
|
| outsider wrote: | | outsider wrote: | Some useful backing for Kevin Barrett:
My spat with Noam Chomsky (http://www.barrettforcongress.us/chomsky.htm) generated two outstanding radio shows with Chomsky experts Michael Morrissey and Barrie Zwicker. My conversation with Morrissey inspired him to post his account of Chomsky's bizarre, irrational argumentation in their correspondence about the JFK case: (Sorry, this page cannot be found; I'm replacing it with this for now: http://educate-yourself.org/cn/morrisseychomskyonjfkandvietnam1993.sht ml outsider). Chomsky has worked so hard to cover up the truth of JFK, 9/11, and the Palestinian right of return that more and more people, including Barrie Zwicker, suspect him of acting in bad faith. I am sorry to say that Chomsky's behavior in our correspondence has forced me to agree with Barrie.
Those interviews coincided with the Media Reform Conference last weekend. For my detailed report on the conference, featuring interviews (or occasionally, attempted interviews) with journalists Amy Goodman, Dan Rather, Phil Donaghue, and Normon Soloman; media studies professors Robert McChesney, Peter Phillips, Steve Macek and Mark Kayak; history professor Mickey Huff; FBI whistleblower and Time Magazine Woman of the Year Colleen Rowley; pro-truth Congressional candidate Carol Brouillet; and others will soon be playing on http://www.noliesradio.org
Last Friday I drove to what was supposed to be a Ron Kind listening session in Black River Falls. My press release announcing that I would be asking Kind whether he supports Kucinich's impeachment resolution garnered mainstream media coverage: Barrett plans to publicly challenge Dem incumbent over impeachment. Unfortunately Ron Kind did not show up at his scheduled listening session - he said he had to deal with the flood emergency - so I held an impromptu Kevin Barrett listening session in the room that Kind had reserved. All but one of the participants strongly opposed the war and responded positively to my argument that Kind, as a pro-war Democrat, did not deserve their votes. |
|
Latest news from Kevin Barrett, showing a lot of support for 9/11 Truth on the street:
I had a busy week on the campaign trail. So far I have collected nearly a thousand signatures on my nomination papers and given away hundreds of DVDs. I've had the cops called on me twice by store managers for collecting signatures on "private" sidewalks in front of big stores - but so far I've managed to avoid arrest for the crime of trying to run for public office. (I always explain that when the First Amendment was passed, every entrance to every place of business in the land was protected by the First Amendment -and as far as I'm concerned, that's still the case.)
It's slightly amazing that I, the oft-vilified "conspiracy professor" and O'Reilly death threat target, can get out there in my "Investigate 9/11" cap and dish out 9/11 truth DVDs and "Washington You're Fired" DVDs like proverbial hotcakes ... and most of the people I meet at places like Wal-Mart and the local supermarket and the rodeo and the barber shop in Richland Center, Wisconsin are happy to sign my nomination papers! Of the several dozen people who've recognized me and admitted it, all but one signed the petition to put me on the ballot. And get this - I met almost as many 9/11 truthers during two days at the rodeo at the Richland County Fairgrounds as during my two days in front of progressive food co-ops. (And don't tell Homeland Security, but the best barber shop in Richland Center is a hotbed of support for the patriot movement!)
In short, I'm happy to report that regular folks here in rural Western Wisconsin are not as dumb as the neocons think. The vast majority opposes the war, and Rep. Ron Kind's support evaporates the minute I explain that Kind has repeatedly voted FOR the war. If I can raise enough money to get my message out, I'll surprise a lot of people in this election.
In radio news...thanks to a pair of great radio guests, two of last week's shows were selected for posting, with commercials edited out, at the free speech radio hall of fame, otherwise known as http://www.radiodujour.com :
Richard Hayes Phillips, author of Witness to a Crime: A Citizens' Audit of an American Election, talks to Kevin Barrett about his ground-breaking forensic investigation of the fraudulent 2004 presidential election in Ohio.
Kevin Barrett discusses "left gate keepers" and Israel's influence over American media including Amy Goodman's Democracy Now with Muhammad Idrees Ahmad
Thanks for listening, and keep up the struggle for truth!
Kevin Barrett
http://www.barrettforcongress.us
_________________
'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 |
|
|
911Eyewitness
Validated Poster
Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Posts: 216
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 1:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| outsider wrote: | Following 'Dogsmilk' and gareth's posts, I regretfully have to temper my support for Kevin Barrett; I still maintain he is a valiant Truth Campaigner, and his heart is in the right (left) place, but giving any sort of support to Holocaust Deniers is not on; his threatening reporters with 'War Crimes Trials' and giving credence to 'Space Beamers' is also not very smart, IMO.
. |
Holly smokes Bullwinkle! What is the major damage here? He is not on; you understand he makes outrageous death threats, yet to you carry on like that is no big deal?
Having been up close with the b* I find the Berber tribesman trustworthier to turn a back to. His agenda, as agreed, transparent as glass dictates any actions to seem to be valiant yet in reality are merely ploys to assert him into the middle. A choice. That is why he was the middleman with Fetzer/Jones dispute. The chosen middle. But he is moving outside his box these days.
So it is now Barrett vs. Chomsky? A nitwit vs. an intellect? This is called association. If I can be associated I can be perceived on that level. Barrett is on the level of a punk, not an intellectual. Barrett is pretty much a crass idiot and when you compare the discourse, well, really, lets be honest. Chomsky has a better grip on the middle.
I have to be honest and tell you I found Barrett a dishonest, sleazy individual who bent over poles to ingratiate himself into places where it was just so morally bankrupt it was insanity. Watching him pull the antics and seeing the agenda unfold were all the more entertaining for the dorky professor. Of course calling him and others out on all his stuff got me tossed off the 911truth gravy train, but I don't eat dog food made on the blood of truth anyway. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
iro
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Apr 2006
Posts: 376
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 6:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 911Eyewitness wrote: | | Of course calling him and others out on all his stuff got me tossed off the 911truth gravy train, but I don't eat dog food made on the blood of truth anyway. |
thats a great line!
so painfully true, and a conclusion i came to within days of getting just a little involved in the uk 9/11 movement and forum. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
911Eyewitness
Validated Poster
Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Posts: 216
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 6:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| outsider wrote: |
I believe brave Truth campaigner Kevin Barrett would welcome a court case, to get the issue of 9/11 more publicity. |
Gee, I am doing that and so what? None of the toofers supports going to court because the truth they have is not.
http://www.911researchers.com/node/1178
My case will read tons of stuff into court records. Including locations of explosions and a lot more. But Barrett has not even come close to bringing this to fruition. He was one of those that stifles anything outside his agenda. He is moving to take a public office not fight it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ian neal
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 3140
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 6:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Gravvy train?
As far as 9/11 truth in this country goes ..... don't make me laugh |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
911Eyewitness
Validated Poster
Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Posts: 216
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 6:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| iro wrote: | | 911Eyewitness wrote: | | Of course calling him and others out on all his stuff got me tossed off the 911truth gravy train, but I don't eat dog food made on the blood of truth anyway. |
thats a great line!
so painfully true, and a conclusion i came to within days of getting just a little involved in the uk 9/11 movement and forum. |
Thank you.
I had the privilege, if you can call it that, of being invited inside, close and personal with these pied pipers. I think they never met someone who did not fold into their offers of money or the threat of spreading bad rumors so their bribes and threats did not work on me. Offers of "buying" 5000 DVD's to actual physical threats of breaking my legs if I tried to show up in DC a few years ago (from DC 911 Truth no less!). That threat came from someone already out of jail on probation for assault and battery (beating someone up) and was a leader of the 911truth AND the peace movement down in DC. The bribes came from the 911 Truth National Coordinator.
I was on the inside lists and activities watching the planned demise of the Scholars for 911 Truth and watched the morally bankrupt Barrett pull boners that no sane person would try. At one point they gave me the whole website and there was a lot of hidden stuff in folders from none other than Alex Floum! Such eye-openers.
They are betting that what I know will never come to light or be believed because it is me vs all of them - but the courts will see the evidence. You will not read about this on 911flogger that is for sure - they will continue to ignore it hoping it goes away. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
outsider
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 30 Jul 2006
Posts: 6060
Location: East London
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 07, 2008 7:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Latest on Kevin Barrett's assault on Congress:
http://www.barrettforcongress.us/
God speed, mate!!
_________________
'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 |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
