"A study of Chomsky's
stands on particularly dreadful actions such as JFK's assassination, 9/11,
and with regard to the roles of the CIA and FBI, shows Chomsky to be a
de facto defender of the status quo's most egregious outrages and their
covert agency engines. He conducts his de facto defence of the Empire
he appears to oppose through applying the very propaganda methods against
which he has warned, including use of the derogatory phrase "conspiracy
theorist," which in one context he has characterized as "something
people say when they don't want you to think about what's really going
that people practice "intellectual self-defence" is well taken.
But how many could dream the person warning you is one of the most perilous
against whom you'll need to defend yourself? That he is the fire marshal
who wires your house to burn down, the lifeguard who drowns you, the doctor
with the disarming bedside manner who administers a fatal injection? If
Noam Chomsky did not exist, the diaboligarchy would have to invent him.
To the New World Order he is worth 50 armoured division. ".....Barrie Zwicker,Towers of Deception
By Ken Adachi <Editor>
I was unfamiliar with the literary skills and oratorical persuasiveness of Noam Chomsky until a few years ago when I first heard him over KPFK (Pacifica) radio. I quickly found myself recording his talks off the radio and listening to them carefully. I was greatly impressed. Whether he's talking about the corruptive influence of the corporate mentality in American society or the sins of the Bush regime, you can't help but be impressed by the cogency of his arguments and the acuteness of his mind. Chomsky is one sharp cookie, to be sure, but is the Massachusetts Instistute of Technology professor really the liberal, leftist, anti-government 'critic' that we are led to believe he is, or does he function more as a gatekeeper, feigning the role of muckraker and champion of injustice, while all the time carrying water for the very power structures that he claims to rail against? Is he really exposing government collusion in criminal and treasonous behavior, or is he containing the limits of that exposure within certain 'acceptable' corridors of public discourse?
These articles by
Michael Morrissey, Barrie Zwicker, Bob Feldman, Daniel Abrahamson, Joe Lockard, and Benjamin Merhav among others, may get you thinking twice about Noam Chomsky and similar nationally touted "critics" of the government.
Chomsky, in particular, is thought of as the creme-de-la-creme of anti-government muckrakers while he simultaneously embraces every facet of the government's cover story when it comes to who was responsible for killing JFK, or the origin of AIDS, or the Vietnam War turn-around following the JFK assassination, or 9-11. Despite appearances to the contrary, Chomsky sides with the government's version of events with virtually every major 'conspiracy' scandal to emerge in the past 45 years.
Noam's nearly pristine reputation got a huge bump recently when Hugo Chavez, the President of Venezuela, mentioned Noam Chomsky's latest book, Hegemony and Survival, in a speech given at the UN on September 20, 2006 where Chavez characterized George Bush as "El Diablo." Chomsky's position on the New York Times best seller list rose from somewhere around 700 to number 1 practically overnight and he sold something like 60, 000 copies within a day.
I'm sure Noam welcomed the bump to his bank account along with the publicity, but how many more thousands now, around the world, will be led along those very same "corridors" of carefully crafted thought that I once strolled?
(most recent comments are found at the top and earlier comments near the bottom)
Feb. 1, 2008
----- Original Message -----
From: galen <email@example.com>
Cc: 9-11 Truth <Total911TruthNOW@yahoogroups.com>
We People <WeThePeopleCoalition_ChitChat@yahoogroups.com>
PA Patriot <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2008 3:01 PM
Subject: Why is Slesinger Defending the Quisling Chomsky?
People, look how much valuable time we've spent arguing with Slesinger about the motives of the quisling Chomsky. Every time i've ever confronted Slesinger with evidence or assertions he can't handle he simply ignores it. Here are two examples:
* Several months ago i told Slesinger that all this talk about "non-violence" is curious because the State has unilaterally been using violence and the threat of violence against the People for hundreds of years and people just accept it as "normal". As the American abolitionist, Frederick Douglas, said in 1857, "Find out just what the people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress". Apparently, there is NO limit to the amount of injustice and wrong that the American people are willing to endure.
* Recently, i pointed out to Slesinger that Chomsky is associated with the Committee of 300. Chomsky also believes in the "lone gunman" and "magic bullet" balderdash regarding the JFK assassination.
* You can't have it both ways. Chomsky is obviously intelligent, but no intelligent person could possibly believe that "it doesn't matter who did 9-11"!
While I can't know exactly what's in Chomsky's mind, I most certainly can make an informed and intelligent determination of the likely motives for his absolutely nonsensical statements about the crimes of 9-11. Chomsky is behaving like a classic "gatekeeper" of the 'left', like "controlled opposition". All we're saying is: If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck!
If the 9-11 Truth Movement is going to be successful, we MUST challenge these people like Chomsky and Greg Palast who SHOULD be our allies but are ACTING like our enemies. Do you have any idea how many people dismiss the 9-11 Truth Movement out of hand simply because their heroes Chomsky and Palast deride us?
In my opinion, further "discussion" with Slesinger about the difference between "misinformation" and "disinformation" and what the hell is wrong with Chomsky is a total waste of time.
For truth -- galen
Ardeshir Mehta wrote:
Thanks Diana. I also agree with you about WHY he is lying.
There you are, David: at least one other person agrees with my
reasoning (you asked about that, if you remember, in another post.)
On 1-Feb-08, at 12:55 PM, Diana Castillo wrote:
Chomsky is lying and I suspect it has to do with his being a
zionist, which I heard years ago, even before 911
January 26, 2008
Date: Sat, January 26, 2008 6:49 am
I agree with you on Chomsky. I saw him lecture in Provincetown about 3 years ago
with Howard Zinn and Amy Goodman. (David Rovics added the music). During the
question and answer session a woman identified herself well as knowledgeable and curious. Her question was "Are there stories or event which you as historians are
prohibited from discussing for fear of losing your reputations or positions. For
example the Kennedy assassination?"
Noam Chomsky then filibustered the question, talking in circles and touting his book
about Camelot Lost or some such suggesting his writing on Jackie's wardrobe and the
Camelot aspects were research enough for the Kennedys.
I appreciate your note.
Most people are mesmerized by Noam Chomsky and I understand that, as I was hugely impressed myself, but you have to look deeper with him and not just accept the superficial personae. He is a gatekeeper, to be sure, but he's also very skilled at concealing it.
December 28, 2007
Subject: NOAM CHOMSKY
Date: Fri, December 28, 2007
Why does Chomsky have to be a gatekeeper just because he doesn't believe in
your conspiracy theories. Can he not simply be another person, probably like most
members of your family for instance, that lives outside the realm of fantasy. I,
your family and Mr Chomsky don't believe in the illuminati, the flying spaghetti
monster or Santa Claus. Your reasoning is that we all must belong to a secret
society for our denunciation.
What exactly are you doing with your time to stop the illuminati that could possibly
be of any value? Be honest your fixation with them is nothing more than a boring
1. If you want to debate me about Noam Chomsky, can you first present some cogent arguments that support your contentions? I've posted articles from other writers that easily exceed 50,000 words detailing their reasons for labeling Chomsky a gatekeeper. You, on the other hand, send a single paragraph accusing me of being "fixated" and "boring", while offering nothing to buttress your claim.
2. I see your server is located in The Czech Republic. Do you possess enough knowledge of the English language to know the difference between a statement (or command) and a QUESTION and employ the appropriate punctuation required?
3. Can you manage to identify yourself with your given name? Is is really too much trouble for a highly atuned critic such as yourself to append your name to your eloquent, albeit brief critique?
4. What am I "doing to stop the Illuminati", you snidely ask?
Well, when it comes to Noam Chomsky, what I'm "doing" is bringing to light the deceptions, distortions, obfuscations, and carefully crafted propaganda that has been set into motion by a highly skilled and cunning wordsmith from an Illuminati-controlled institution, MIT, who has managed to suck in millions of pilgrims-such as yourself -into accepting his superficial persona as real and sincere.
I recognize your dilemma and do not hold you at fault, as many other people find themselves in a similar predicament. You lack both the intelligence and discernment to parse the enchantment of his oratory from the substance of statements; so you are compelled to view him as 'Mr. Wonderful', an appellation often used by other liberal mentalities to characterize Al Gore, another Illuminati phony of the First Order.
August 21, 2007
----- Original Message -----
From: Debra Villa <DVILLA@DAVIDEASTONINC.COM>
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Subject: Rethinking Noam Chomsky
“These articles by Michael Morrissey, Bob Feldman, Daniel Abrahamson, and Benjamin Merhav among others, may get you thinking twice about Noam Chomsky and similar nationally touted "critics" of the government.”
The logic you use in this article can be used for anything. You can make up any far fetched theory and have a few things to back it and claim it truth. But until you can prove things, like Chomsky does, it’s not truth.
72 SPRING STREET, 7TH FLOOR
NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10012
T. 212 334 3820 F. 212 334 2440WWW.DAVIDEASTONINC.COM
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer does not consent to email for messages of this kind. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of David Easton Incorporated shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it.
How interesting it is to read the words of a robot, who doesn't realize that she's a robot. You're a Believer in the idea that Noam Chomsky is Mr Wonderful because the liberal world - and Believers like you- SAY that he's Mr Wonderful. He's the epicenter of liberal consciousness -you think- because you've been steadily LED to that 'conclusion". You find yourself nodding in agreement with the splendid essays and speeches that Mr Wonderful makes and you say to yourself "My God, this man is a champion of liberty and individual expression. Who is more attuned to the plight of the ordinary citizen that Mr Wonderful? What a bulwark he is against the advancing tyranny of the corporate oligarchy" (does that about cover the 'conversation' that's taking place in your head?)
So you write me because you're really upset when someone, such as myself, throws a spanner wrench into your perception of Mr Wonderful and publish articles and essays which challenge and examine the words of Mr Wonderful MORE CLOSELY and in so doing expose flaws and OMISSIONS in his spellbinding -"I'm here to defend the Little Guy" - rhetoric.
So now, the arguments and rebutting statements of those critics are not to be considered on their own merit, but rather the impudence of my "logic" is to be challenged. How dare I publish articles that are merely composed of "far fetched theory" and possess "a few things to back it up" to tarnish the "truth" advanced by Mr Wonderful.
How deplorable of me!
Sincerely, Ken Adachi
June 2, 2007
Date: Sat, June 2, 2007
Agreed, he is a gate-keeper.
I'm enjoying your website. as much as it is
possible to enjoy reading about empty concentration
camps in America.
We have a weekly antiwar vigil where I live.
one of the women there told me about your website
May 15, 2007
Subject: Rethinking Noam Chomsky
Date: Tue, May 15, 2007
I really think Noam Chomsky is in with the Illuminati, just as Hugo
Chavez, Fidel Castro, M. Ahmadinejad, Bush, Blair, Mugabee, and about 90% of the world
He is no hero. He is a wolf in sheep's clothing and yeah, Bush is an evil bastard.
But Chavez is not better. They all make that [satanic] signal, the long horns with their fingers-
all of them. I have seen the pictures and Zagmy and others say they're all in this
destruction mess together. I believe it, so anything that Mr. Chomsky says, I don't listen to
either. He's a bloody liar and phony, just like all the jackals listed above. To me,
there is no hope with Democrats or Republicans. If this bullshit doesn't stop, we
will face a civil war because we are not a democracy. I pray it doesn't happen. The
Electoral college is one major evil that should have disappeared a long time ago.
greatest hope this country had at one time was who I considered the greatest
American freedom fighter of all time (because he cares more about us than
himself): Ralph Nader. He is the only one that had enough guts to go to the steps of
the Skull and Bones meeting house on that college [Yale] and tell Bush and Kerry
to renounce their membership with this evil organization.
Now, Ralph is old, so I pray
that a lot of wonderful and strong third party candidates will step forward. I will vote for one
of them as I can't have that karma or hypocrisy of electing an Illuminati puppet for
our country. Even if we don't win, at least I'll have a good conscience about voting for
someone who gives a damn about us and this dysfunctional country of ours. I pray for
divine intervention everyday that things will change.
I hope that the American people, except for
people like you who have this wonderful web site, will remember that only third party candidates
care about you.
You had a list of other links and web sites I think. Wes P. has a great web site , the "Illuminati news" and Leo Zagmy's "Illuminati Confessions". The only web site that
bothered me that you referred was a fundamentalist Christian web site called the Last
Trumpet. It's rather negative and I agree with them on some things, but I really don't
see them as true Christians. They cut down Buddhists, Hindus, etc.,
Jesus said to love and not judge. Well, I am not perfect, so I will say this: I didn't
like their reference on religious cutting. This only divides us, not unites us. True Jesus is love, not "my way or the highway".
Thanks for letting
me express my feelings. I think you have an excellent web site and I will refer
family and friends to it.
Jan. 3, 2007
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2007
Subject: Chomsky post on rense- correction
Dear Mr. Adachi,
First, allow me to thank you for the hard work you have put into maintaining your website. It has taught me much, and given me many new ideas about how to understand our present situation.
You recently posted a note about Mr. Chomsky on rense.com, and stated that he is a Harvard professor. In fact, he is a professor of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). This may in fact give you further reason to doubt his intentions, since MIT is largely funded by the Pentagon.
I apologize for seeming nit-picky, but without straight facts, this movement of "fringe" information sets itself up for criticism and dismissal.
Again, thank you for your efforts, and keep up the good fight.
Yes, I posted three e-mails from Chomsky fans who criticized me about the Harvard error. I noticed that the sum total of their dismissive affronts towards me was based solely on the Harvard versus MIT reference error, while not one word of rebuttal was offered to refute the mountain of conclusive evidence indicting Chomsky as a defender of Tavistock disinformation.
I recall a similar dearth of defensive ammunition from fans of CIA disinfo artist Michael Ruppert when I first posted the Peak Oil Put On page a couple of years ago.
Appreciate your support.
Jan. 2, 2007
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2007
NC [Noam Chomsky] has a multimillion$ cottage and multimillion$ trust fund set up for his kids. You may want to purchase a copy of 'Do As I Say' by Peter Schweizer. Lots of interesting dope on bleeding heart liberals.
And by the way, Michael Moore owns thousands of shares of Haliburton.
Jan. 1, 2007
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2007
Subject: Rethinking Noam Chomsky
Lost all credibility in the very first paragraph. Chomsky a Harvard professor. I think not. Rethink your sources.
Jan. 1, 2007
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2007
Concerning your recent essay "Rethinking Noam Chompsky"... he's a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (M.I.T.) - not Harvard... I've started to read some of your writing, but now I'm concerned that while you call yourself an editor, you're somewhat sloppy in your writing. If you want to be taken seriously... FACT CHECK!! It's important.
Dec. 31, 2006
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006
From: email@example.com Taiwan
Noam might have gotten a bump in sales from Hugo Chavez's speech, but you're not going to get a bump in sales of any of your stuff as long as you continue to write slovenly pieces in which your research - I hesitate to even call it that - leads you to call him a Harvard professor, when in reality he teaches at MIT.
All information posted on this web site is
the opinion of the author and is provided for educational purposes only.
It is not to be construed as medical advice. Only a licensed medical doctor
can legally offer medical advice in the United States. Consult the healer
of your choice for medical care and advice.