It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Chomsky, the Left-gatekeepers, and 9/11

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 11:31 AM
Hi CN23,

Took a while to get my eyes back after reading that comment about The Pet Goat! Tears, convulsions... that was a good one.

And them's some pretty damning quotes you have there from Chomsky.

I don't know. I really want to think that he's just cautious and that he wants to cling on to the niche he's carved for himself in the mainstream. That's the most charitable thing I can think of. It's weird. I've learned so much from his books, and I really like the way he thinks about things. It would be a shame to think that he'd been co-opted. I mean, for a "mainstream" US academic, his positions are very radical, and he has exposed, consistently, a lot of the dodgy dealings of the US government.

It's a hard thing for me to get my head round, frankly.

There is always the fall-back position that he just met his own personal "boggle limit" - the point where you just go, "no way, that's not possible". Although I'd have thought he would follow where the evidence takes him.

Mind you, as I've said, he seems to be aware that the USG has long been a player in the international drug trade, but won't mention it other than in the occasional footnote.

I used to look at Znet all the time, but funnily enough after 9/11 the action seemed to be elsewhere... it all seemed less relevant, somehow.

posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 12:25 PM
I've been going back and reading some links I skipped before, and I'm now edging towards the conclusion that, for whatever reason, it's actually ok for some people to write about USG drug deals, as long as they hold the line on the Kennedy and 9/11 thing. Very odd. I read the "My Beef with Noam Chomsky" article, which was illuminating, and then came across the fact that Alexander Cockburn had also weighed in against the JFK conspiracy theory. Ouch. I really liked Cockburn and St. Clair's Whiteout, a valuable source on CIA drug deals. To find that he's publicly taken that kind of position on the
JFK thing, while supporting the late Gary Webb, is a bit weird, frankly.

It has now become clear to me that leading progressive/left/liberal thinkers and writers like I.F. Stone, Noam Chomsky and Alexander Cockburn will only criticize the monied and powerful to the extent that they think it is safe for them to do. This is no different in principle from what the mainstream news media does: critiques are within a constrained margin of what is acceptable and not acceptable to the powers that be.

The only difference is that Mr. Chomsky and Mr. Cockburn have much wider margins than ABC (now owned by Disney), NBC (owned by General Electric), CBS (owned by Westinghouse), The Washington Post (with long ties to the intelligence community), and the N.Y. Times (so biased that the previously mentioned Lies Of Our Times was created to combat the rampant disinformation).


posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 05:05 PM
What a fascinating thread, I have only (very) recently read any Chomsky but I have been aware of him for some time, and as I have an interest in Nazism (who made muchos use of Manufactured Consent both on large and small scale) I had simply assumed that he was a ‘stand up’ guy. Having discussed Chomsky with one or two people I am starting to wonder, primarily because I’m sensing at least one agenda being carried.

Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
Leftist funding flow chart

This chart is excellent I spent a good twenty minutes just staring at it. I have a couple of questions that I hope someone may be able to answer – following the money is all very well until you hit something like PBS, which I presume is funded through taxation. As the money in this case is blind, I would like to know who decides how much funding and who decides content. For some reason I kept looking at this chart and thinking that there should be a line from the Rockefeller Foundation, may not be money but I would bet they have influence, to PBS. Which leads me to my second question or point – Does anyone know of a similar chart or diagram that explains the implementation of social policy? I would bet the two would fit together like gloves.

Either way it seem to be eerily like the objectives of Operation Mockingbird to me.

Bill Moynes, much revered former head of PBS, also acted as a Trustee for the Rockefeller Foundation. The Rockefeller Foundation and its subsidiaries are one of the most powerful lobbyists of social policy in the world, not just the USA. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but they do shape all our lives through socio-economic policy and we should therefore be attuned to their motives as they set our moral and social parameters. I would suspect that Moynes became head of PBS because he was attuned to those parameters.

Above the Fords and the Rockefellers are positioned the Trilateral Commission, the Council of Foreign Relations and the CIA. Do those arrows go up or down in terms of influence/funding?

Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
In your opinion(s), are Chomsky and other leftist intellectuals deliberately attempting to discredit the 9/11 truth movement?

After reading Rich23’s highly insightful analysis of “Conspiracies Or Institutions? 9-11 and Beyond”. I looked at a few other articles by the same writers, particularly on topics that I have some understanding of and I think that while they may not be attempting to discredit the “Truthers” they do seem to be attempting to deflect attention away from some things and towards others. The only other explanation to my mind is that these socio-political professionals actually know less than I do, I don’t realistically believe that. There are, I suppose, good reasons why they may wish to white wash certain events, but I personally do not support silence if it deflects all the flak in another direction. If responsibility is shared, it should be shared.

posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 06:12 AM
I was a little concerned about derailing the thread and given the close scrutiny that is observed on this board did not wish to unduly antagonise anyone. I have nothing to add to the 9/11 debate but I am concerned that the 'Anti-Zionist' Left are attempting to white wash the Zionist movement. For my part one fundamentalist religious group is no better than any other and I hope that my comments as contentious as they may be will be taken in this light.

Firstly and with some relevance I wanted to comment on this;

Originally posted by rich23

Legal assassination disguised as an accident or secretly pinned on someone else might also fit the second definition because it’s not just secret, but actively deceptive. But no definition of conspiracy, however broad, includes everything secret.

HUH? Assassinations are never legal. True, Israel regularly assassinates inconvenient Arab politicians, and Pinochet was responsible for thousands of deaths... but in this small, busybody world, what they do is illegal somewhere. I mean, even Saint Donald of Rumsfeld is wanted in Germany... oh! the humanity!

In the UK a "legal" Assassination, is one that has been approved by the Joint Intelligence Council. An assassination that is carried out with the knowledge of any member of the government, privy council or Military Intelligence service without approval of the JIC is therefore illegal. An example of an illegal assassination would therefore be the assassination of Reinhard Heydrich. Heydrich was assassinated with the full knowledge of the Head of SOE1 Hugh Dalton but there is no evidence and record of it having been approved by the JIC.

Chomsky claims that as a young man that he did not believe that Zionism meant the creation of a Jewish sovereign state and that this intention was not made public until 1942. It may be that this is the case, however, in retrospect he should now know that the intention existed many years before that. Why does he choose not to discuss the origins of militant Zionism? This is surely as an important issue in the dispute in Palestine as any other country’s foreign policy.

Again, I am aware that this may be construed as derailment but….one of the authors of the article that Rich23 dissects also wrote the following article, which though unrelated to 9/11 does demonstrate a pattern of behaviour from this writer and I would therefore like discuss one of the points that Stephen R Shalom discusses.

What was the impact of World War Il?
As war approached, Britain shrewdly calculated that they could afford to alienate Jews-who weren't going to switch to Hitler's side-but not Arabs, so they restricted Jewish immigration into Palestine. This was precisely when the need for sanctuary for Europe's Jews was at its height. Many Jews smuggled their way into Palestine as the Western nations kept their borders closed to frantic refugees.

This of course is true, the Britons were eager to retain the good will of the Arabs, however Shalom fails to mention that this was largely due to civil unrest between the emigre Jews and the Arabs. The Hebron Massacre precipitated any acts of violence perpetrated by the Arabs against Jews and this is a factor that led to British SIS boarding and turning away any vessel that was suspected of carrying illegal immigrants. The native Jewish population, the native Muslim population and the native Christian population were all opposed to further immigration, not just the British. At no time was it the consideration of the British that they could afford to antagonise the Jews and this is, IMO, deliberately misleading.

At war's end, as the enormity of the Holocaust became evident, for the first time Zionism became a majority sentiment among world Jewry. Many U.S. Christians supported Zionism as a way to absolve their guilt for what had happened, without having to allow Jews into the United States. U.S. Zionists, who during the war had subordinated rescue efforts to their goal of establishing a Jewish state, argued that the Holocaust confirmed the need for a Jewish state: Had Israel existed in 1939, millions of Jews might have been saved. Actually, Palestine narrowly avoided being overrun by the Nazis, so Jews would have been far safer in the United States than in a Jewish Palestine.

Half truths!

The British did everything in their power to prevent the Nazis reaching the Middle-East, Operation HHHH's sole purpose was to redirect Hitler towards an invasion of Russia as Churchill feared that Nazis would cut off the Middle-Eastern resources vital for the war effort AND it would represent a threat to India.

During the war many Jews in Palestine joined the British army. By war's end, the Jewish community in Palestine was well armed, well-organized, and determined to fight. The Palestinians were poorly armed, with feudal leaders.

This though takes the biscuit, I am in no way defending Britain, we have much to answer for but this is directing all the blame towards Britain for the creation of Jewish militantcy. I find it hard to believe that Shalom is so short of information. This is where Heydrich comes back in.

In 1937 Heydrich entered into negotiations with members of the Haganah Defense Organisation via Fiefel Polkes. Haganah were effectively acting as security against Arab attacks on Jewish Settlers which were precipitated by illegal land purchases and the failure of the settlers to understand the system whereby you could purchase land but not own the Olive groves planted on the land. Naturally, by denying access to crops and therefore livelihood tensions were inevitable.

Heydrich sent his “Jewish Expert” Adolf Eichmann to meet with Polkes in Palestine to discuss ways in which the illegal immigration of Jews could be increased.

The results was that Pino Ginzburg and Moshe Auerbach (who would both later become members of the newly formed Mossad) went to Berlin. There in conjunction with Heydrich’s SD and the Gestapo, Haganah set up a training camp and ‘recruited’, forceably and voluntarily young men to join in the defence of Jewish settlements in Palestine. On average 400 men were rounded up, trained and then smuggled into Palestine on a WEEKLY basis.

By late 1939, Heydrich had developed a route in conjuction with his former mentor, Admiral Canaris, Head of the Abwehr (German SIS) to take an even greater number of ‘emigrants’ directly via Hamburg and Emden under German Naval protection. This plan was cut short however with the invasion of Poland and the declaration of war from Britain. Heydrich had more pressing problems and the training camp, and emigrations petered out. 70,000 German, Czechoslovakian and Austrian Jews though had made it safely to Palestine, many of those young males, trained by the Haganah aided by Reinhard Heydrich.

I may be wrong to say this but is it fair that the US and the UK should be the only ones pointed to in the debate as to how militant Zionism originated given the above. Why do Chomsky and Shalom feel the desire to point fingers everywhere other than at Israel?

I am in no way suggesting that Chomsky’s and Shalom’s reluctance to enter into the Conspiracy theorists arena is motivated by an understanding that Israel is to blame for the attacks of 9/11, but shouldn’t Israel be subject to the same scrutiny that the US, UK and Palestinians have faced? Sadly, as is often the case, I am left with more questions than answers. But if as Chomsky asserts the US foreign policy is largely to blame, does this mean that in his eyes Israel will perpetually be a victim and therefore not responsible for its own actions of which the above, IMO, is a suitable example.

posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 07:35 AM
Chomsky's not stupid, so why is he pretending to be re: 9/11?

My take: old-fashioned zionist/FOI, working hard to divert attention from it to keep the lid on that stinking can of worms and the whole ME agenda. Far too transparent and dismissive and blatantly anti-intellectual statements coming from someone who's supposed to be a profound thinker. Why stop thinking when you get near 9/11, why stop questioning? Oh, no you don't, Mr C! Don't slip away that easily...

Also, under the guise of saving the left from itself, he is actually emasculating the left. "Don't make trouble, leave that mess be, don't look there..."

Never liked him, anyway, now I see more clearly why: insidious manipulator.

posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 06:26 PM
I watched this (as linked by a previous poster – sorry can’t remember who).

Then I watched these

I haven’t read any Chomsky other than a few articles on his web site, but he is not at all what I had expected.

I discussed Chomsky with my husband. He outlined ‘Manufacturing Consent’ for me, (he has read a few of Chomsky’s books).

I’ve just watched this again.

Now, is it just me or is Chomsky totally contradicting himself?

posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 05:13 AM

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
I’ve just watched this again.

Now, is it just me or is Chomsky totally contradicting himself?

I'm going to answer my own question - I've just watched this again with a fresh mind (I was on Chomsky overload last night

He's not contradicting himself at all, I wasn't listening properly.

I don't think that Chomsky is an agent of disinformation, I do think that he is a little elitist and is more selective in his comments TO the mass media. Whether this is for self-preservation, a desire not to become THE spokesman of government opposition (ie I don't think he wishes to lead), or because he feels some peoples minds are not capable of absorbing what he says (intellectual elitism, ie he dumbs down) I don't know and I am not sure that it matters.

As with Alex Jones and Bill Hicks (I miss him so much!) we should simply be glad that Noam Chomsky exists - we don't need to dig too deeply to see, agenda or not, they at least open the debate. They make us do this
and this
and sometimes this
, its all good

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in