Noam Chomsky

[shijing]

I'd be interested in asking a question about Noam Chomsky at this point. Like his fellow Ashkenazim contemporaries George Soros, Zbignew Brzezinski and the elder Rothschilds, he's still actively pursuing his personal agenda despite being a near-nonagenarian. He's alleged to have begun his academic career with the help of Pentagon funding at MIT; his role as a gatekeeper of the left is well-recognized, and is detailed at some length in this article:

http://www.newsofinterest.tv/politics/media_issues/chomsky_nwo_asset.php

Is his imposition of a glass ceiling on conspiracy inquiry really as innocuous as stated here?:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky

Chomsky considers most conspiracy theories to be fruitless, distracting substitutes to thinking about policy formation in an institutional framework, where individual manipulation is secondary to broader social imperatives. He does not dismiss conspiracy theories outright, but he does consider them unproductive to challenging power in a substantial way. In response to the labeling of his own thoughts as "conspiracy theory", Chomsky has replied that it is very rational for the media to manipulate information in order to sell it, like any other business. He asks whether General Motors would be accused of conspiracy if they deliberately selected what they would use or discard to sell their product.

Or is this merely a smokescreen? This is the person, after all, who recently encouraged voters to hold their noses and vote for Hillary as the lesser of two evils.

While on this topic, it might also be useful to ask about Edward Snowden, since his authenticity as a whistle-blower has been questioned recently as well. To this end, the following video of a discussion between Chomsky, Snowden and Glenn Greenwald last year might provide some interesting viewing:

https://youtu.be/IOksJKfapVM

 

[whitecoast]

Or is this merely a smokescreen? This is the person, after all, who recently encouraged voters to hold their noses and vote for Hillary as the lesser of two evils.

A vote which would stand psychically as a mass sanction of extrajudicial assassination, pedophilia, open electoral manipulation, and indiscriminate foreign intervention. That's all it comes down to in my own books.

I feel sympathetic to his attempt to reconcile the alienated working class with academia's ideas for a more egalitarian society, but I feel like he can never really speak truth to power sufficiently to truly facilitate this.

 

[Neil]

Or is this merely a smokescreen? This is the person, after all, who recently encouraged voters to hold their noses and vote for Hillary as the lesser of two evils.

A vote which would stand psychically as a mass sanction of extrajudicial assassination, pedophilia, open electoral manipulation, and indiscriminate foreign intervention. That's all it comes down to in my own books.

I feel sympathetic to his attempt to reconcile the alienated working class with academia's ideas for a more egalitarian society, but I feel like he can never really speak truth to power sufficiently to truly facilitate this.

Agreed, I think it's fairly obvious he's just another overhyped stuffed-suit ivory tower academian who will never do anything because much of his funding for his comfortable lifestyle would suddenly vanish if he did. He's like a Barak Obama for intellectuals and social philosophers. He preaches an ideal for "hope and change" which sounds plausible, but the external glamor merely conceals an underlying vapid irrelevance. He is paid to put on a show as some enlightened social thinker, but at the end of the day he knows which side his bread is buttered on and accepts that role.

 

[bjorb]

Noam Chomsky about 9/11 truth: ''And even if it’s true, which is extremely unlikely, who cares, it doesn’t hold any significance''

See link if you want to see the exact time that he says this.

https://youtu.be/EEDf7OkRCxk?t=2684

Bit of a Hopeless case.

 

[Ant22]

Noam Chomsky about 9/11 truth: ''And even if it’s true, which is extremely unlikely, who cares, it doesn’t hold any significance''

See link if you want to see the exact time that he says this.

https://youtu.be/EEDf7OkRCxk?t=2684

Bit of a Hopeless case.

There's an article about this on RT:

_https://www.rt.com/usa/noam-chomsky-911-truthers-342/

Noam Chomsky slams 9/11 truthers:

MIT professor Noam Chomsky may not know exactly how or why World Trade Center 7 collapsed on September 11, 2001, but the one thing he’s sure of is that there’s no federal conspiracy behind it.

Speaking at the University of Florida a few weeks ago, Chomsky – a well-known and often outspoken scholar and political commentator – was asked by “9/11 truther” Bob Tuskin if he was ready to join activists in their belief that the government played a hand in the destruction of WTC 7, also known as Building 7, and that its role was covered up by the media.

Tuskin pointed to a group of construction experts who claim Building 7 was destroyed by a controlled demolition, but Chomsky dismissed the assertion. He acknowledged that “a minuscule number of architects and engineers” agree on this issue, but said they’re not doing what scientists should do after making a new discovery.

“What you do when you think you’ve discovered something is write articles in scientific journals, give talks at the professional societies, go to the civil engineering department at MIT or Florida or wherever you are, and present your results, then proceed to try to convince the national academies, the professional society of physicists and civil engineers, the departments of the major universities, convince them that you’ve discovered something,” he said, according to Raw Story.

“There happen to be a lot of people around who spend an hour on the internet and think they know a lot physics, but it doesn’t work like that,” he added, taking a jab at conspiracy theorists. “There’s a reason there are graduate schools in these departments.”

Chomsky also said that publishing an article in an academic journal was one of the least risky things an individual could do, rejecting claims that 9/11 truthers have refrained from doing so due to fear of the government.

Building 7 collapsed several hours after the twin towers (WTC 1 and 2) did in 2001. It wasn’t struck by an airplane, but a study by the National Institute of Standards and Technology found that the combination of structural damage by intense fires and debris from the collapse of the twin towers ultimately resulted in the building’s downfall.

Critics of this explanation believe that heat could not have caused enough damage to topple Building 7, and that explosives were placed throughout the building and detonated.

During his explanation, Chomsky also dismissed claims that the government was responsible for bringing the towers down.

“There is just overwhelming evidence that the Bush administration wasn’t involved,” he said. “Very elementary evidence. You don’t have to be a physicist to understand it. You just have to think for a minute.”

Chomsky said that even though the Bush administration clearly wanted to invade Iraq, it blamed 9/11 on Saudi hijackers. He said it could have easily blamed the attacks on Iraqi hijackers instead of presenting claims about Al- Qaeda connections to Saddam Hussein and Iraq amassing weapons of mass destruction.

Chomsky first entered the public sphere in the late 1960s with his criticism of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. He has since made waves for criticizing American foreign policy and other western governments as he did the Soviet Union. He has equated interventionist policies by the U.S. with terrorism, and has called U.S. presidents “guilty of horrendous terrorist acts.” He also said that the diplomatic cables leaked to WikiLeaks in 2010 revealed a “profound hatred for democracy on the part of our political leadership.”

I read Chomsky's 'Hegemony or Survival' years ago, long before I came across this forum or the Wave. It seemed so revolutionary to me back then, over a decade ago when I first started to smell the rat. Now it looks like Chomsky is yet another trojan horse, lies sandwiched in between thin layers of truth.

The book was apparently a bestseller when it first came out. Well, if he spoke 'nothing but the truth' the book would most likely not be allowed to reach the bestseller status.

 

[hlat]

While on this topic, it might also be useful to ask about Edward Snowden, since his authenticity as a whistle-blower has been questioned recently as well.

Snowden is definitely fake. In 2014, he was talking about 9/11 as if the official story of a terrorist attack was true.

https://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,34885

 

[Anthony]

While on this topic, it might also be useful to ask about Edward Snowden, since his authenticity as a whistle-blower has been questioned recently as well.

Snowden is definitely fake. In 2014, he was talking about 9/11 as if the official story of a terrorist attack was true.

https://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,34885

I think that discernment is required whether we are talking about Chomsky, Snowden or somebody else. They might be completely off on certain issues, while close or correct on other.

 

[Woodsman]

While on this topic, it might also be useful to ask about Edward Snowden, since his authenticity as a whistle-blower has been questioned recently as well.

Snowden is definitely fake. In 2014, he was talking about 9/11 as if the official story of a terrorist attack was true.

https://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,34885

"Definitely" is a strong word for any rational person to use. Especially since on the Venn diagram of Snowden's approximate knowledge and worth, the truth behind 9/11 and the realities of digital snooping technologies don't necessarily have to cross-polinate in order for him to hold legitimacy at the security level he had access to.

Speaking on this subject...

I've noticed that often around here there are virtually *no* figures at all in the media, politics or industry who escape severe judgement or who warrant even a moderate amount of allowance or respect for their work on the world stage. Unless you're JFK, Putin or Julius Caesar, (two of whom are dead, and two of whom are possibly the same person), -or unless you've been lifted from obscurity exclusively by this forum, then there is a tendency is to suspect deliberate deceptiveness and con artistry.

This, if I may be pardoned for saying so, smacks rather of black & white thinking. It should be remembered that there isn't a single person on this forum who is even close to perfect; nobody gets to be here on this planet, in this density, without carrying flaws aplenty.

Chomsky is a sneaky Zionist spy in the service of the Beast because he has decided for whatever reason that he will not face 9/11. (Perhaps he just doesn't want to deal with Flat Earthers and Fake Moon Landers, who if we're being honest, are only a few steps removed from 9/11 Truthers in the public's eye. Maybe fearing public discreditation is his personal challenge in this life. -But that doesn't automatically make him a monster. It makes him flawed. It makes him human.)

Elon Musk, with his electric cars and rocket program is a Bond villain if you follow certain lines of thinking around here. (-A villain who is apparently so bad that the other Bond villains feel the need to blow up his rockets with high-speed secret drone technology.)

Of course it is true that people can be easily duped into defending the Matrix against their own better interests. But it is not a far leap to paranoid, non-productive and frankly just plain disrespectful to assume that all activities undertaken by anybody with any influence on the world stage is consciously out to getcha'.

It makes sense to carry a healthy degree of watchfulness, of course, to anticipate attack and foul play, exactly because anybody can be fooled, but I think it's also fair to extend a bit of forgiveness to the people out there following their own variations of "Life is Religion".

Now, being a public figure does mean you lose some expectation of privacy, and the more prominent the figure, the more this becomes true. But I also can't help but feel that it is something of a violation to go poking around in people's lives with questions of "Is ____ a Bad Guy" with the C's. It seems pretty damning and STS to be asking for validation or disavowal from a source which is so implicitly trusted. Maybe part of the work is for us to sort that stuff out on our own? To examine the evidence and come up with our own best interpretations?

Am I off in thinking this? -I should mention that I felt a bit hot under the collar while writing this post, and in the past this has indicated that maybe I'M the one being made a fool of, being manipulated into protecting the Matrix. Maybe a list of important names with Good or Bad check boxes beside them is exactly what is called for.

 

[Neil]

I think there is a qualitative difference between someone like Jordan Peterson and Noam Chomsky, discernible after just a little bit of observation. Peterson speaks with passion and conviction about a just cause he really believes in, and gives the impression that he is doing all he can to get his point across. Sure he has a few blind spots, and I'm sure we will find things about him we don't like as we continue to study him, but he seems to have a very good understanding of the practical application of the knowledge he does have. Chomsky, by comparison, comes across as a bit of a detached intellectual. Sure, Manufacturing Consent makes some salient points and is true and enlightening as far as it goes, but it seems like he has decided there is only a certain level of knowledge you're allowed to have, and once you reach his "limit" he becomes rather worthless for anything else. Whenever Chomsky speaks, for some reason I get this mental image of O'Brien from 1984. So Chomsky is ok as long as you can extract what is useful from him and move on, but he speaks enough truth and is articulate enough that you won't unless you already have a fairly wide view of things; and I think that's where he traps genuine "liberal progressives." For me, Chomsky helped me "backfill" some practical knowledge about "Hasnamusses" and things I had kind of encountered from a more theoretical esoteric standpoint, but he was a pretty small piece overall.

As for Snowden and Assange, I think the best way to think of them is as "assets" of the deep state. They are puppets, and as such, one must look to their masters to determine whether they are good or bad. I've paid a lot more attention to Assange than Snowden because he has revealed a lot more interesting "secrets". There is a war going on in the deep state, and Assange's faction is clearly aligned against the Clinton-Soros-Brzezinski axis. Right now a lot of "conspiratorial truths" are being released such that the MSM is having to deal with it and losing its credibility in the process. In my book, that makes him good. However this is only due to the need and circumstance of the faction which controls him. I'm not at all convinced that just because they're opposed to the Clintons et al that they're necessarily good people or that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. They just have a different view of the endgame, and if and when the Clinton faction is displaced, Assange may become a tool to craft the new control matrix and become a mouthpiece for the Party. At the next turn he may become "evil." So we're back to the Law of Seven and how everything kind of comes full circle when you're dealing with machines. Is there anything real in Assange that will allow him to utilize the shocks to go off in some direction as a truth warrior and move the world along a positive trajectory? I doubt it, but he is useful at the moment, and riding his momentum until the next shock shakes things up again may assist that portion of humanity who wishes to escape this reality along the way to their aim.

So yes, definitively labeling someone as all good/bad is a little too simplistic, it has to be measured against the standards of the Law of Three, in the grand scheme of things, how much the events and how these people react to them provide catalyst for human conscious evolution.

 

[hlat]

While on this topic, it might also be useful to ask about Edward Snowden, since his authenticity as a whistle-blower has been questioned recently as well.

Snowden is definitely fake. In 2014, he was talking about 9/11 as if the official story of a terrorist attack was true.

https://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,34885

"Definitely" is a strong word for any rational person to use.

_http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1xfc4b_edward-snowden-nbc-news-full-interview-may-28-2014_news

Here is the full 2014 NBC interview of Snowden.

At 10:26, Snowden talks about the false premises of WMDs for the Iraq war and then says, "Whether that was due to bad faith or simply mistakes of intelligence, I can't say for sure." Snowden must think we are pretty dumb. Snowden is clearly and definitively lying to the public. He is playing a role, pretending to be something he is not. He wants the public to believe some true things and also believe some lies. He has a disinformation agenda.

 

[Woodsman]

I think there is a qualitative difference between someone like Jordan Peterson and Noam Chomsky, discernible after just a little bit of observation. Peterson speaks with passion and conviction about a just cause he really believes in, and gives the impression that he is doing all he can to get his point across. Sure he has a few blind spots, and I'm sure we will find things about him we don't like as we continue to study him, but he seems to have a very good understanding of the practical application of the knowledge he does have. Chomsky, by comparison, comes across as a bit of a detached intellectual. Sure, Manufacturing Consent makes some salient points and is true and enlightening as far as it goes, but it seems like he has decided there is only a certain level of knowledge you're allowed to have, and once you reach his "limit" he becomes rather worthless for anything else. Whenever Chomsky speaks, for some reason I get this mental image of O'Brien from 1984. So Chomsky is ok as long as you can extract what is useful from him and move on, but he speaks enough truth and is articulate enough that you won't unless you already have a fairly wide view of things; and I think that's where he traps genuine "liberal progressives." For me, Chomsky helped me "backfill" some practical knowledge about "Hasnamusses" and things I had kind of encountered from a more theoretical esoteric standpoint, but he was a pretty small piece overall.

As for Snowden and Assange, I think the best way to think of them is as "assets" of the deep state. They are puppets, and as such, one must look to their masters to determine whether they are good or bad. I've paid a lot more attention to Assange than Snowden because he has revealed a lot more interesting "secrets". There is a war going on in the deep state, and Assange's faction is clearly aligned against the Clinton-Soros-Brzezinski axis. Right now a lot of "conspiratorial truths" are being released such that the MSM is having to deal with it and losing its credibility in the process. In my book, that makes him good. However this is only due to the need and circumstance of the faction which controls him. I'm not at all convinced that just because they're opposed to the Clintons et al that they're necessarily good people or that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. They just have a different view of the endgame, and if and when the Clinton faction is displaced, Assange may become a tool to craft the new control matrix and become a mouthpiece for the Party. At the next turn he may become "evil." So we're back to the Law of Seven and how everything kind of comes full circle when you're dealing with machines. Is there anything real in Assange that will allow him to utilize the shocks to go off in some direction as a truth warrior and move the world along a positive trajectory? I doubt it, but he is useful at the moment, and riding his momentum until the next shock shakes things up again may assist that portion of humanity who wishes to escape this reality along the way to their aim.

So yes, definitively labeling someone as all good/bad is a little too simplistic, it has to be measured against the standards of the Law of Three, in the grand scheme of things, how much the events and how these people react to them provide catalyst for human conscious evolution.

I slept and thought on things after my previous post and came back with something close to what you are saying here.

-That without the right level of knowledge and awareness and personal work, (and it remains a challenge even with those advantages), everybody is a potential asset. -A chicken which can be pulled from the feed lot floor and programmed by the "stock manager" for 4D STS's optimal outcomes. So it is probably safe to assume that any chicken in a leverage position is going to be potential target for the controllers.

That being the case, it is perhaps fair to ask about the specific intentions and modes of the controllers and their success rate with a given individual.

I also wonder, however, about the idea that some souls incarnated specifically to be wrenches in the machine, so to speak. Who came here with a soul-level knowledge of the broad situation and the soul-level intention to serve others by expressing their life activities in such a way as to help "system bust" the machine in order to help lean probabilities away from this planet from going dark.

 

[Alejo]

I tend to see them all as human beings with their own gaps of knowledge.

I always thought of Snowden as someone who was allowed to release some information that was really no that shocking. And to an extend some goes for Assange. But there is value is having this now discussed out in the open with sources, I see that as a positive outcome of their actions. We're those act of conscience? Perhaps not, but I don't think I could determine that.

Chomsky also plays a role that carries valuable information at times, but he also has huge gaps in knowledge much like every single one of us. And perhaps he doesn't have a network that he can bounce ideas back and forth with. Or perhaps he doesn't want one as he feels rather comfortable of everything he knows.

Also, it's worthwhile to consider what each one of us would say in their circumstances. Sure we'd like everyone to know things exactly as we do, but there might be some survival instinct that kicks in and makes you hold back specially in the presence of global reach. Who knows?

So I concur, all three of these public figures have useful information but not the whole banana. Maybe part of that is willful ignorance or disinformation intent. It's up to us to learn to discern based on the fruits of their acts. I don't think we should use black and white thinking here either, where they're either evil tools of the empire or warriors for the rebellion.

I think that, much like what was said above, they're human beings in the earth 3D experience, and as such an objective consideration of that fact should be exercised so at to not fall on unhealthy judgement or unhealthy identification.

 

[bjorb]

New low for Noam Chomsky:

Noam Chomsky: Trump could stage a ‘false flag’ terror attack and ‘change the country instantly’
http://www.rawstory.com/2017/03/noam-chomsky-trump-could-stage-a-false-flag-terror-attack-and-change-the-country-instantly/

Author and political philosopher Noam Chomsky sounded a dire warning on Monday in an interview with AlterNet’s Jan Frel, saying that President Donald Trump could stage a “false flag” terror attack in an effort to consolidate his power and strip Americans of their constitutional rights.

Why would Trump do that, Americans are already stripped away of their constitutional rights under the NDAA thanks to the Obama administration.

Chomsky warned that eventually the people who voted for Trump will realize that his “promises are built on sand” and begin to lose faith in his presidency, at which point Trump will need someone to scapegoat, so he will say, “‘Well, I’m sorry, I can’t bring your jobs back because these bad people are preventing it.’ And the typical scapegoating goes to vulnerable people: immigrants, terrorists, Muslims and elitists, whoever it may be. And that can turn out to be very ugly.”

The only thing Trump seems to be aiming at is his open hunting season on pedophiles, but let's keep silent about that.

“I think that we shouldn’t put aside the possibility that there would be some kind of staged or alleged terrorist act, which can change the country instantly,” Chomsky said.

Staged terrorists attacks already occured, and already chanced the counry and the world dramatically, Noam Chomsky is living under a rock.

Chomsky — who has called Trump a “con man” who will drag civilization “down to the utter depths of barbarism” — also said that much of the world is amused at the outrage many Americans feel about Russian meddling in the 2016 election.

“I mean whatever the Russians may have been doing, let’s take the most extreme charges, that barely registers in the balance against what the U.S. does constantly,” he said. “Even in Russia. So for example, the U.S. intervened radically to support [Boris] Yeltsin in 1991 when he was engaged in a power play trying to take power from the Parliament, Clinton strongly supported him. In 1996, when Yeltsin was running, the Clinton administration openly and strongly supported them, and not only verbally, but with tactics and loans and so on.”

“All of that goes way beyond what the Russians are charged with, and of course that is a minor aspect of U.S. interference in elections abroad,” said Chomsky, adding that the U.S. operates under a philosophy of “If we don’t like the election, you can just overthrow the country.”

The White House is reportedly in turmoil after the collapse of the administration’s healthcare law, which was withdrawn before it could come to a vote on Friday. While the president’s poll numbers are at historic lows, Trump’s supporters are still largely loyal to the man they voted for.

 

[T.C.]

THIS, from a guy who promotes the official narrative around 9/11?

 

[Glenn]

New low for Noam Chomsky:

Noam Chomsky: Trump could stage a ‘false flag’ terror attack and ‘change the country instantly’
http://www.rawstory.com/2017/03/noam-chomsky-trump-could-stage-a-false-flag-terror-attack-and-change-the-country-instantly/

Author and political philosopher Noam Chomsky sounded a dire warning on Monday in an interview with AlterNet’s Jan Frel, saying that President Donald Trump could stage a “false flag” terror attack in an effort to consolidate his power and strip Americans of their constitutional rights.

Why would Trump do that, Americans are already stripped away of their constitutional rights under the NDAA thanks to the Obama administration.

Chomsky warned that eventually the people who voted for Trump will realize that his “promises are built on sand” and begin to lose faith in his presidency, at which point Trump will need someone to scapegoat, so he will say, “‘Well, I’m sorry, I can’t bring your jobs back because these bad people are preventing it.’ And the typical scapegoating goes to vulnerable people: immigrants, terrorists, Muslims and elitists, whoever it may be. And that can turn out to be very ugly.”

The only thing Trump seems to be aiming at is his open hunting season on pedophiles, but let's keep silent about that.

“I think that we shouldn’t put aside the possibility that there would be some kind of staged or alleged terrorist act, which can change the country instantly,” Chomsky said.

Staged terrorists attacks already occured, and already chanced the counry and the world dramatically, Noam Chomsky is living under a rock.

Chomsky — who has called Trump a “con man” who will drag civilization “down to the utter depths of barbarism” — also said that much of the world is amused at the outrage many Americans feel about Russian meddling in the 2016 election.

“I mean whatever the Russians may have been doing, let’s take the most extreme charges, that barely registers in the balance against what the U.S. does constantly,” he said. “Even in Russia. So for example, the U.S. intervened radically to support [Boris] Yeltsin in 1991 when he was engaged in a power play trying to take power from the Parliament, Clinton strongly supported him. In 1996, when Yeltsin was running, the Clinton administration openly and strongly supported them, and not only verbally, but with tactics and loans and so on.”

“All of that goes way beyond what the Russians are charged with, and of course that is a minor aspect of U.S. interference in elections abroad,” said Chomsky, adding that the U.S. operates under a philosophy of “If we don’t like the election, you can just overthrow the country.”

The White House is reportedly in turmoil after the collapse of the administration’s healthcare law, which was withdrawn before it could come to a vote on Friday. While the president’s poll numbers are at historic lows, Trump’s supporters are still largely loyal to the man they voted for.

I think we will see more and more of these 'gatekeepers' falling off the deep end.