| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Tara Carreon
Veteran
Joined: 25 Sep 2008
Posts: 992
Location: Tucson, Arizona
|
 Posted: Thu May 21, 2009 5:19 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Universalism and collectivism are essentially nihilistic philosophies, making the individual nothing.
| The Fallacy of Collectivism, by Ludwig von Mises wrote: | | Universalism and collectivism are by necessity systems of theocratic government. The common characteristic of all their varieties is that they postulate the existence of a superhuman entity which the individuals are bound to obey. What differentiates them from one another is only the appellation they give to this entity and the content of the laws they proclaim in its name. The dictatorial rule of a minority cannot find any legitimation other than the appeal to an alleged mandate obtained from a superhuman absolute authority. It does not matter whether the autocrat bases his claims on the divine rights of anointed kings or on the historical mission of the vanguard of the proletariat or whether the supreme being is called Geist (Hegel) or Humanite (Auguste Comte). The terms society and state as they are used by the contemporary advocates of socialism, planning, and social control of all the activities of individuals signify a deity. The priests of this new creed ascribe to their idol all those attributes which the theologians ascribe to God — omnipotence, omniscience, infinite goodness, and so on. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Tara Carreon
Veteran
Joined: 25 Sep 2008
Posts: 992
Location: Tucson, Arizona
|
| Posted: Thu May 21, 2009 8:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Compare this to Thomas Paine's discussion in "Rights of Man" of how when people enter into society, their civil rights originate from their natural rights as individuals:
| Thomas Paine, The Rights of Man wrote: | Hitherto we have spoken only (and that but in part) of the natural rights of man. We have now to consider the civil rights of man, and to show how the one originates from the other. Man did not enter into society to become worse than he was before, nor to have fewer rights than he had before, but to have those rights better secured. His natural rights are the foundation of all his civil rights. But in order to pursue this distinction with more precision, it will be necessary to mark the different qualities of natural and civil rights.
A few words will explain this. Natural rights are those which appertain to man in right of his existence. Of this kind are all the intellectual rights, or rights of the mind, and also all those rights of acting as an individual for his own comfort and happiness, which are not injurious to the natural rights of others. Civil rights are those which appertain to man in right of his being a member of society. Every civil right has for its foundation some natural right pre-existing in the individual, but to the enjoyment of which his individual power is not, in all cases, sufficiently competent. Of this kind are all those which relate to security and protection.
From this short review it will be easy to distinguish between that class of natural rights which man retains after entering into society and those which he throws into the common stock as a member of society.
The natural rights which he retains are all those in which the Power to execute is as perfect in the individual as the right itself. Among this class, as is before mentioned, are all the intellectual rights, or rights of the mind; consequently religion is one of those rights. The natural rights which are not retained, are all those in which, though the right is perfect in the individual, the power to execute them is defective. They answer not his purpose. A man, by natural right, has a right to judge in his own cause; and so far as the right of the mind is concerned, he never surrenders it. But what availeth it him to judge, if he has not power to redress? He therefore deposits this right in the common stock of society, and takes the arm of society, of which he is a part, in preference and in addition to his own. Society grants him nothing. Every man is a proprietor in society, and draws on the capital as a matter of right.
From these premisses two or three certain conclusions will follow:
First, That every civil right grows out of a natural right; or, in other words, is a natural right exchanged.
Secondly, That civil power properly considered as such is made up of the aggregate of that class of the natural rights of man, which becomes defective in the individual in point of power, and answers not his purpose, but when collected to a focus becomes competent to the Purpose of every one.
Thirdly, That the power produced from the aggregate of natural rights, imperfect in power in the individual, cannot be applied to invade the natural rights which are retained in the individual, and in which the power to execute is as perfect as the right itself.
We have now, in a few words, traced man from a natural individual to a member of society, and shown, or endeavoured to show, the quality of the natural rights retained, and of those which are exchanged for civil rights |
http://www.nader-library.com/rights.man.1.htm
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tara Carreon
Veteran
Joined: 25 Sep 2008
Posts: 992
Location: Tucson, Arizona
|
| Posted: Thu May 21, 2009 9:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Just made a bumpersticker for our car which says, "WHEN DID YOU STOP BELIEVING IN RATIONAL THOUGHT?"
| MIRCEA ELIADE, A Mythical Geography wrote: | | ... it is always possible to be "oriented'" in a world that has a sacred history, a world in which every prominent feature is associated with a mythical event. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tara Carreon
Veteran
Joined: 25 Sep 2008
Posts: 992
Location: Tucson, Arizona
|
| Posted: Thu May 21, 2009 9:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
How ironic. The person who built IndyMedia's infrastructure is dismayed at activists trying to shut down the WTO. He sounds like one of those Brazilian fascists OPPOSED to IndyMedia's so-called "liberal" agenda. Do we really need to wonder any longer whose side he's on?
| Riseup.net wrote: | Snow Owl (Bubo scandiacus)
The Snow Owl sits perched high on a icy branch, peering from afar at the insides of Riseup machines to find little bugs to snack on. He helped start Riseup when living in Seattle because he was dismayed by all the activists who showed up to shut down the WTO with their hotmail and yahoo accounts. No longer living in Seattle he works hard remotely keeping Riseup servers running, the network fast, and the spam from polluting your inbox. During the day he works at running a cooperative, occasionally reading and writing books, and sometimes winning strange and puzzling awards. He spent a lot of time building up the technical infrastructure for Indymedia, but now just contributes by maintaining some small pieces. He spends too much time in front of the computer, sadly. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tara Carreon
Veteran
Joined: 25 Sep 2008
Posts: 992
Location: Tucson, Arizona
|
| Posted: Thu May 21, 2009 9:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Roger Lippman wrote: | December 8, 1999
Editor, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer:
Assistant Police Chief Ed Joiner says (P-I, 12-8-99) that "in a perfect world" the police would have have liked to create "a deserted core where the [WTO] conference took place," shutting that part of the city to everyone else - shoppers, workers, and protesters alike - like they would in a military dictatorship. If anyone should be falling on his own sword after this affair, it would be Joiner, the man who ordered the police to use tear gas and rubber bullets against thousands of non-violent protesters and out-of-luck Capitol Hill residents. If a new police chief is to be chosen from the ranks of the SPD, let's hope it's not someone from Joiner's culture.
Meanwhile, Bill Bryant, a Seattle consultant on international trade, was reported to have said, "If this were run by corporate elites, the trains would have run on time." He should take this obvious allusion to Italian fascism and move to Singapore, where he and Joiner would probably be more appreciated than in Seattle.
These two wishful practitioners of a police state are well in tune with the ethos of the WTO - unelected tribunals serving only corporate interests as they meet in secret to strike down environmental protection and worker safety laws.
Roger Lippman
Seattle |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tara Carreon
Veteran
Joined: 25 Sep 2008
Posts: 992
Location: Tucson, Arizona
|
| Posted: Thu May 21, 2009 10:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
IndyMedia is obviously a honey pot, for those who think Communism is "sweet.". According to Michael Ruppert, another fascist in "liberal" disguise, (there are so many of them!) "A honey pot, in intelligence jargon, is a tempting source of information or 'dangle' that is set out to lure intended victims into a trap. Ultimately the honey pot is violently and maliciously discredited so as to destroy the credibility of anything stuck to it by association." But to me, it's more like a giant bear trap.
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
53.16 KB |
| Viewed: |
5378 Time(s) |
|
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
41.65 KB |
| Viewed: |
5379 Time(s) |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tara Carreon
Veteran
Joined: 25 Sep 2008
Posts: 992
Location: Tucson, Arizona
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 10, 2009 12:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ralph Nader has been pushing this book "Why Bother? Getting a Life in a Locked-Down Land," by Sam Smith, giving copies to contributors to his campaign last season, and recommending it highly in his own wonderfully inspiring book "Civic Arousal." In at least one chapter it's an anarchist free-for-all, even to the point of commending bloody rebellion and nuclear war, which is quite horrifying. Most of the book is sheer nonsense, a ton of blab, confusion, and contradictory messages. It promotes existentialism, a nihilist, fascist philosophy. Nietzsche was an existentialist, as was Heidegger. Existentialism was a post-Hegelian philosophy. All these philosophers are darlings of the Neocons. I can't think of any philosopher more repellent than Nietzsche, not even Plato. A hateful, nasty man was what he was, not that the Existentialists aren't constantly referring to Plato as well with his elitist, anti-democratic nazi-communist tripe.
Existentialism is a psychologically sadistic philosophy that takes reality and puts it through the grinder, producing nothing but ugliness and horror at the end. It's the nihilists revenge on existence, a tautological way of destroying matter, a grand misogyny, taking earth and beating the shit out of her, telling "God" to go fock himself with his great creation, giving the resultant "transcending" mind to the "Devil," instead of letting reality and existence be the fresh, pure, unknown thing that it is, something we discover in little parts and wonder at, mutable and subject to our reformation in beautiful ways that enlighten the human spirit as we are moved by genetic impulses of love and generosity. No, this philosophy is not a small thing that we can let "exist/not-exist/exist-in-shreds/exist-apart-from," more humane rational philosophies. It is something horrifyingly negative which does not deserve Ralph Nader's respect. If we're going to accept their philosophy, we may as well accept their politics as well. This philosophy does NOT go well with the rationalism that was the inspiration for the eighteenth-century western enlightenment., which forms the foundation of our democratic society. Okay, it's not democratic, BUT IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE!
The book is so depressing, it makes me never want to read a work of social and political criticism again. "Purist anti-fascist protagonists are noble prigs." Of course Sam must repeatedly tip his hat at more compassionate and understanding ways of thinking lest we think he's not one of us, but I know he doesn't mean these things, he's just saying them to trick us so we'll listen to his existentialist nonsense. Or another way of saying it is ithat it is yet another attempt to integrate these fascist ideas into a progressive way of thinking. "Can't fascism and civic responsibility go hand in hand?" I find my face more and more screwed up in dis-gust as I proceed through the book, which I haven't finished yet. Statements like this particularly annoy me:
"... our true evolutionary insignificance daily mocks our pretensions ... We are nothing and everything."
And not being a big fan of patriarchy, inviting people like Stephen Goode to describe our era as "a time of epigons," meaning "the afterborn," specifically "the sons of the seven Greek chieftains ... [who] were generally not considered as admirable and competent as their fathers."
Where are the mothers in all this?
I thought he was trying to counter our poor self-image so we could get out there and act on behalf of humanity. Certainly quoting Kierkegaard -- "the more consciousness, the more intense the despair"-- or saying that "with Buddhist-like deconstruction and Christian-like rebirth we should pretend we are dead", or explaining that according to Camus "suicide is a sign one lacks strength in the face of nothing" and like Camus, we should "surrender ourselves to the magnificent indifference of the universe" isn't going to help.
I'm putting the book up because Ralph recommended it. I'm reading along, and I get to Chapter 5 where Sam devotes a section to the anarchist Hakim Bey. I first heard of Hakim Bey from Eddy Nix, the person who recommended I post at Indy Media. Eddy Nix created my interest in Indy Media in the first place, as I explained in my first post. Eddy thought I should put Hakim Bey's writings in the Library. But after doing a little research on Hakim Bey, I didn't like his philosophy. What I didn't know was that he was a famous anarchist pedophile until I did some more research on him last night in response to the section in Sam Smith's book. I also found tthat Eddy Nix is a good friend of Hakim Bey's. So now I wonder what is the connection between Indy Media, Robert Anton Wilson and Hakim Bey?
In any case, why is Nader pushing a book that pushes a pedophile anarchist? I chalk it up to Nader's extreme naivete about people. It would be better for Nader if he chucked his Underwood typewriter and surfed the Web more, so he'd know about things lke this, so he wouldn't look foolish pushing people who recommend reading books by pedophiles. That's the problem when you're one of the best. If you're going to be inspired by someone, they're always going to be inferior to you. Ralph doesn't want to look like he doesn't like anyone, so he has to like inferiors like Sam Smith.
But there's something more that is really starting to bother me about Ralph: his comfort level with anarchy and nihilism. Just what the hell is he trying to promote here? It certainly goes far beyond his own writings, which are beautiful creations, inspiring, heart-felt, and good.
I'm also disappointed in Russell Mokhiber, Sally Denton, and Roger Morris for publishing the book.
According to Robert Helms, who wrote about Hakim Bey's pedophilia, the Anarchist community refuses to discuss the issue of pedophile anarchists. Apparently, it's a topic that's off limits.
So go buy your Hakim Bey pedophile literature in anarchist bookstores all around the world. Apparently, there's some kind of tradition of anarchist pedophiles in the movement. You can read about it right here on Indymedia: http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/12/306871.shtml . In response to some of the writers' comments there, I would say that if you're a pedophile, NOTHING you say is worth a damn to people who are trying to improve the world and spread positive messages.
And why don't we lock these people up? No one should have the freedom to be a pedophile!
PAEDOPHILIA AND AMERICAN ANARCHISM -- THE OTHER SIDE OF HAKIM BEY
by Robert P. Helms
http://www.naderlibrary.com/lit.pedophiliahakimbey.htm
http://www.naderlibrary.com/lit.smithwhybother.5.htm
P.S. And is Hakim Bey, real name Peter Lamborn Wilson, related to Robert Anton Wilson? Hakim says that after drinking beer with Robert, they decided they were cousins. I hate this kind of mind-focker. He's not saying they really are cousins; he's not saying they aren't. But they look almost identical.
And what do you think about his statement that neuro-linguistic programming was invented by Robert Anton Wilson and Timothy Leary? I thought it was invented by Bandler http://www.naderlibrary.com/bandler.method.htm . Anybody know what neurolinguistic programming is? As far as I can tell, it's the model for all these silly movies we see nowadays for people's minds being divided into compartments, different personalities, selves, so that intelligence agents who commit terrible crimes like mass murder and genocide, bombings, etcetera, can live with the new selves they create, the ones who "didn't" do the crime.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tara Carreon
Veteran
Joined: 25 Sep 2008
Posts: 992
Location: Tucson, Arizona
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 10, 2009 12:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here's the existentialist "non-reason/meaning-to-them" for neuro-linguistic programming. Don't you love the tortured language of these existentialists? -- "Facticity, a concept defined as that "in-itself" of which humans are in the mode of not being." Are you focking kidding me? Why don't we just start talking Scientologese, "The M.E.S.T. Universe." Like worms, or snakes squirming through the self-made detritus of their lives. How can these people not look at themselves in the mirror every morning and see themselves for the fakes they are?
Existentialism, by Wikipedia
http://www.naderlibrary.com/lit.existentialsmwiki.htm
Facticity
A concept closely related to freedom is that of facticity, a concept defined by Sartre in Being and Nothingness as that "in-itself" of which humans are in the mode of not being. This can be more easily understood when considering it in relation to the temporal dimension of past: One's past is what one is in the sense that it co-constitutes them. However, to say that one is only one's past would be to ignore a large part of reality (the present and the future) while saying that one's past is only what one was in a way that would entirely detach it from them now. A denial of one's own concrete past constitutes an inauthentic lifestyle, and the same goes for all other kinds of facticity (having a body (e.g. one that doesn't allow a person to run faster than the speed of sound), identity, values, etc.).
Facticity is both a limitation and a condition of freedom. It is a limitation in that a large part of one's facticity consists of things one couldn't have chosen (birthplace, etc.), but a condition in the sense that one's values most likely will depend on it. However, even though one's facticity is "set in stone" (as being past, for instance), it cannot determine a person: The value ascribed to one's facticity is still ascribed to it freely by that person. As an example, consider two men, one of which has no memory of his past and the other remembers everything. They have both committed many crimes, but the first man, knowing nothing about this, leads a rather normal life while the second man, feeling trapped by his own past, continues a life of crime, blaming his own past for "trapping" him in this life. There is nothing essential about his committing crimes, but he ascribes this meaning to his past.
However, to disregard one's facticity when one, in the continual process of self-making, projects oneself into the future, would be to put oneself in denial of themself, and would thus be inauthentic. In other words, the origin of one's projection will still have to be their facticity, although in the mode of not being it (essentially). Another aspect of facticity is that it entails angst, both in the sense that freedom "produces" angst when limited by facticity, and in the sense that the lack of the possibility of having facticity "step in" for one to take responsibility for something one has done also produces angst.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tara Carreon
Veteran
Joined: 25 Sep 2008
Posts: 992
Location: Tucson, Arizona
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 18, 2010 1:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here's another pseudo-liberal progressive organization debunked: Human Rights Watch. Doesn't seem like any of the "liberal" organizations are really liberal. There's been MAJOR cooptation. Take Obama for example. He's Ford Foundation too. It's getting a little depressing, all of the deception. People by and large, mostly large, seem unable to penetrate the lies. Why do we humans assume that the elites who control our reality are telling the truth until proven otherwise? That's a long road to travel trying to find their lies, and most people don't bother. The ones who do aren't believed. They are called "conspiracy theorists."
Is there anything real in our social reality?
Is there anything real in our social reality?
Is there anything real in our social reality?
Or is it all lies?
Or is it all lies?
Or is it all lies?
I'm just hoping Nader's for real. But I'm scared, too, that just like Noam Chomsky, some day the demon will come out of the box!
I should have known as soon as I saw his MIT credentials. I hoped that there was SOMEONE who came out of MIT who WASN'T CIA.
| Michael Barker wrote: | HIJACKING HUMAN RIGHTS
by Michael Barker
August 3, 2007
In our increasingly public relations-driven world, it is of little surprise that cynical political elites regularly use the rhetoric of democracy, peace, and human rights to disguise their overtly anti-humanist policies. Why should we expect less of our leaders in a world where the corporate media wages a relentless war to manufacture our consent for ruling demagogues? Thus it seems a logical assumption that budding mind managers will attempt to pervert the very concepts that their voters/targets hold most dearly. That this doublespeak is rendered invisible in the mainstream media is a given, but the lack of debate about this process in the alternative media is more worrisome.
Writers in the alternative press, of course, regularly question the rhetoric of our anti-democratic leaders, but the number of researchers investigating their cunningly misnamed (imperial) organizations - like the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and the United States Institute for Peace (USIP) - are few, and the number examining the democratic credentials of what are taken to be progressive organizations are even less still. This is disturbing in many ways, because if say for example I was a neoconservative and had identified this void of critical inquiry, then I would see the obvious utility of infiltrating and hijacking (or even creating) such unaccountable organizations so that I could use them for my own political purposes.[1] Thus if we are truly interested in creating progressive democratically run group's within society, then it seems like a no-brainer that we should ensure their accountability through undertaking ongoing critiques of their work. While such activities are less necessary for organisations that invite a high degree of local participatory control, it is vital for national or internationally orientated groups that for the most part are privately run, with public involvement usually limited to monetary support.
Human Rights Watch (HRW) is one of the latter such organizations, and as a highly regarded and influential international nongovernmental organization (NGO), it is vital that its global work be regularly examined to ensure that it remains true to it's stated humanitarian mission. Simply put, this is because as Jonathan Cook writes:
"The measure of a human rights organisation is to be found not just in the strides it takes to seek justice for the oppressed and victimised but also in the compromises it makes to keep itself out of trouble. Because of the business that human rights defenders are in, they must be held to a standard higher than we demand of others."[2]
Unfortunately, it seems that for the most part HRW has evaded such critical commentary from the Left, only coming under scrutiny from a handful of activists at a relatively late stage in their institutional history. So although this article aims to contribute towards what is hoped will be an ongoing critique of HRW's work, the author recognises that in HRW's case the following critical examination may be coming too late to help them resolve their democratic failures. That said, at the very least it is hoped that this article will encourage other like-minded readers to begin to think more critically about the work of global NGOs with a mind towards promoting and developing a world order based on participatory principles. Initially, this article will provide an overview of the recent critiques of HRW, however, the bulk of the article will interrogate the 'democratic' ties of some of the key people affiliated with HRW by focusing on their Americas Advisory Committee (work analysing their other advisory boards is currently in progress). Finally, HRW's role as a leading proponent of 'humanitarian' interventions will be discussed, and recommendations made for how concerned activists may best counter the antidemocratic developments exposed in this study.
Abusing the Principles of Human Rights
In an instructive article dealing with human rights abuses in China, Ralph McGehee (1999) draws attention to the links between HRW's Asia branch and the imperial ambitions of the NED and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). He notes that: "US corporate-owned media, in league with government agencies, orchestrate media coverage to demonize states in conflict with corporate plans". He observed that in China's case many of those stories "seem to be generated by the 'privately funded' US-based Human Rights Watch/Asia" and that this:
"...reveal[s] the current US policy of using (rightly or wrongly) the theme of human rights violations to alter or overthrow non-US-favored governments. In those countries emerging from the once Soviet Bloc that is forming new governmental systems; or where emerging or Third World governments resist US influence or control, the US uses 'human rights violations,' as an excuse for political action operations. 'Human Rights' replaces 'Communist Conspiracy' as the justification for overthrowing governments."[3]
In a similar vein, Sara Flounders (2002) illustrates how HRW provided the global media with information that enabled them to claim that in the West Bank "no massacre had taken place in Jenin" when in fact much other evidence suggested that a massacre had taken place.[4] She notes how HRW claims that "its reports are objective, balanced and evenhanded", however:
"When it comes to Palestine this has meant equating the violence of the illegal Israeli occupation with the resistance of Palestinians to overwhelming military force. Once Human Rights Watch declared that 'no massacre' had occurred in Jenin, the demand for an inquiry and international action against Israeli crimes virtually disappeared. Media coverage shifted sharply. The Bush administration made a new round of demands on the Palestinians to condemn violence while calling Ariel Sharon 'a man of peace' and expressing sympathy for Israeli 'self-defense' measures. HRW statements echoed these shifts."
More recently, HRW's work in Palestine has come under fire from Jonathan Cook (2006) for seemingly "distorting its findings to placate the Israel lobby".[5] This provoked HRW's Middle East policy director, Sarah Leah Whitson, to respond to Cook's critique whereupon she misrepresented his argument, which in turn invited a reply from Cook who observed that:
"If this is how one of the directors of HRW distorts my arguments and evidence when I carefully set out my case in black and white on the page, one has to wonder how faithfully she and her organisation sift the evidence in the far trickier cases relating to human rights, where things are rarely so black and white."[6]
Crucially Cook clarifies his observations in his initial article by noting that he was "not challenging HRW's research, which appears to show unequivocally that Israel did commit major war crimes; I am contesting its distorted presentation of the facts it unearthed to suit what looks suspiciously like a political agenda."
Just over a month later in November 2006, Cook again highlighted HRW's hypocrisy and doublespeak in Palestine, drawing attention to their press release Civilians Must Not Be Used to Shield Homes Against Military Attacks; which he observed was a travesty for it "denounce[ed] the Palestinians for choosing collectively and peacefully to resist house demolitions, while not concentrating on the violations committed by Israel in destroying the houses and using military forms of intimidation and punishment against civilians".[7] Others like Norman Finkelstein (2006) also called upon HRW to retract this press release, which was subsequently withdrawn by HRW just over 2 weeks later.[8]
In a similar vein to HRW's controversial actions in Palestine, Heather Cottin (2002) questioned the way HRW "equates the actions of the Colombian guerrilla fighters struggling to free themselves from the oppression of state terror, poverty and exploitation with the repression of the U.S-sponsored armed forces and paramilitary death squads".[9] Taken together these recent examples clearly illustrate that there is more to HRW than first meets the eye. However, it is their promotion of foreign interventions in the name of 'human rights' that is potentially their most dangerous activity - as revealed by Edward S. Herman, David Peterson and George Szamuely (2007) in a devastating critique, titled Human Rights Watch in Service to the War Party, which examines HRW's role in supporting the dismantlement of Yugoslavia. They conclude that:
"Sadly, HRW has... been an important contributor to human rights violations in the former Yugoslavia. HRW helped stir up passions in the demonization process from 1992 onward and actively and proudly contributed to preparing the ground for NATO's 'supreme international crime' in March 1999."[10]
The first full-length investigation of the people working behind the scenes at HRW was undertaken by Paul Treanor (2004), in which he methodically worked through the elite linkages of their Europe and Central Asia Advisory Committee. Treanor noted that:
"...human-rights interventionism became a consensus among the 'foreign policy elite' even before September 11. Human Rights Watch itself is part of that elite, which includes government departments, foundations, NGO's and academics. It is certainly not an association of 'concerned private citizens'. HRW board members include present and past government employees, and overlapping directorates link it to the major foreign policy lobbies in the US."[11]
Indeed, HRW was created in 1978 as the Helsinki Watch (which later became HRW's Europe and Central Asia Advisory Committee) "at the instigation of [ambassador-at-large for President Carter] Arthur Goldberg" with the start-up costs covered by a $400,000 from the Ford Foundation.[12] Furthermore, as Bruce Montgomery (2002) observes their establishment credentials were fortified by Robert L. Bernstein (the founder of HRW) who "began by recruiting the establishment elite to give the cause clout and visibility."[13] Kirsten Sellars (2002) also points out that:
"The Ford Foundation played a crucial part in the development of the human rights movement in the seventies and eighties. A graph based on The Foundation Grants Index shows that Ford provided the lion's share of US foundation grants for international human rights work in the years 1977 to 1991, especially in the first five years. (Kathryn Sikkink, 'Human Rights, Principled Issue-Networks, and Sovereignty in Latin America', International Organization, 47(3), Summer 1993, 421.) In particular, Ford was responsible for financially kick-starting many new human rights NGOs in the late seventies, including Helsinki Watch and the other Watch committees, the Lawyers Committee for International Human Rights, and the International Human Rights Law Group [now known as Global Rights. It also revived older groups such as the International League for Human Rights."[14]
For activists and researchers familiar with the Ford Foundation's elitist and anti-democratic history, this in itself should start alarm bells ringing as to the political motivations guiding the financial support which helped bring about HRW's existence.[15] This is because the Ford Foundation's backing of HRW is consistent with 'democratic' changes occurring within the US foreign policy elites thinking in the 1970s, which was beginning to recognise the importance of soft-power in promoting American hegemony. These changes were no doubt informed by the political experiences gained by the political elites running liberal philanthropic foundations (like the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations'), which in 1984 eventually led to the creation of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and the United States Institute for Peace (USIP). Ironically, these groups carry out the same disruptive work that the CIA and USAID are well known for, yet under the protective rhetoric of democracy and peace.[16] However, the type of democracy promoted by these organisations is best referred to as low-intensity democracy, or polyarchy.
While only one study has exposed the anti-democratic orientation of the USIP, far more studies (especially more recently) have laid bare the 'democracy' promoting practices of the NED and its cohorts - it's four primary grantees being the National Democratic Institute, the International Republican Institute, the Center for International Private Enterprise, and the AFL-CIO's Solidarity Center.[17] The seminal study examining the NED is Professor Robinson's Promoting Polyarchy: he notes that:
"[T]he NED was created in the highest echelons of the US national security state, as part of the same project that led to the illegal operations of the Iran-Contra scandal. It is organically integrated into the overall execution of US national security and foreign policy. In structure, organization, and operation, it is closer to clandestine and national security organs such as the CIA than apolitical or humanitarian endowments as its name would suggest. The NED has operated in tandem with all major interventionist undertakings in the 1980s and 1990s."[18]
As the latter part of this study will illustrate, some of HRW's Americas Advisory Board are directly promoting the agenda of the NED-linked 'democracy' establishment, while many others are closely linked to its most influential proponents. For reasons of concision, however, the author has chosen to focus predominantly on the 'democratic' affiliations of HRW's Americas Advisory Board members, and so does not concentrate on each individual's links to what appear to be genuinely democratic organizations. This decision has been taken because the primary purpose of this essay is to draw attention to the close interlocks that exist between the human rights and the 'democracy promoting' communities. That many of the people working with HRW are also invited to work with progressive groups' is a given (especially considering the lack of attention paid to their activities), but this should surely also indicate the depth of the problem facing progressive activists who endeavour to promote a democracy based on participatory principles, not imperialism. (In most cases progressive links are not highlighted, although many of them can be found at SourceWatch.)
Before launching into the investigation of HRW Americas Advisors, it is important to clarify a few methodological details to help make the article easier to read. For a start, all the HRW advisors for which biographical information was available online (40 of 43 - biographical information was not available for Mark Kaplan, Andy Kaufman, and Tony White) have been examined in alphabetical order, that is, bar George Soros who is introduced first due to the exceptionally important role he has played in a number of 'democratic' organizations. Secondly, due to the paucity of critical research on many of the 'democratic' organizations introduced in this article, a short summary of their 'democratic' links has been provided in the appendix: however, where a 'democratic' group's work is directly relevant to the HRW advisor being examined this information is sometimes provided in the main body of the text. Finally, to make the article easier to read many of the articles internet references have been omitted, thus a complete version of this essay with all references included can be obtained from the author on request.
Introducing HRW's Americas Advisors: A Truly 'Democratic' Board
George Soros
Roland Algrant
Roberto Alvarez
Cynthia J. Arnson
Lloyd Axworthy - Chair
Carlos Basombrio
Peter D. Bell
Marcelo R. Bronstein
Paul Chevigny
Roberto Cuellar
Dorothy Cullman
Miguel Diaz
John Dinges
Denise Dresser
Nancy Englander
Tom J. Farer
Muni Figueres
Myles Frechette
Alejandro Garro
Peter Hakim
Ronald G. Hellman
Bianca Jagger
Stephen L. Kass
Marina Pinto Kaufman - Vice-Chair
Susanna Leval
Michael Maggio
Kenneth R. Maxwell
Jocelyn McCalla
David Nachman
Robert A. Pastor
Bruce Rabb
Michael Shifter
Julien J. Studley
Rose Styron
Javier Timerman
Arturo Valenzuela
Horacio Verbitsky
George R. Vickers
Alexander W. Wilde
Source
Agent of Imperialism: Human Rights Watch as 'Democracy Promoter'
As this article has demonstrated, the activities of HRW's Americas advisors are closely entwined with those being pursued by various 'democracy promoting' elites. In fact, the numerous overlaps that exist between HRW's Americas advisory board and the 'democracy promoting' establishment are so extensive that in many cases you would be hard pressed to tell the difference between the two groups. This raises a number of serious issues, as if HRW were really genuinely concerned with the promotion of democracy and human rights, then knowledge of their links to anti-democratic organizations - which they must certainly be aware of by now - should surely give them cause to rethink their choice of advisors at the very least. However, given HRW's elitist origins (fully outlined in the introduction) it seems more likely that such 'democratic' ties are actually an integral part of their modus operandi. Indeed, HRW's intimate relations with 'democracy promoters' like the NED and USIP may be merely seen as a reflection of the high degree of influence liberal elites and liberal foundations have over the running and funding of HRW.
Unfortunately, as the mass media do not provide an accurate reflection of society, it is not surprising that the elitist image of HRW revealed in this article is rarely documented in their coverage of human rights issues. This is because as Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky (1988) suggested in their seminal work Manufacturing Consent, the mass media's primary (yet for the most part unstated) goal is to manufacture public consent for elite interests. Bearing this in mind, it is logical - that in spite of contrary evidence - that the mass media portrays HRW as a progressive organization, and that critiques of HRW's elitist history are rendered invisible in the mainstream media.[19] (What is less logical though is the lack of criticism that HRW and many of the other groups examined in this study have received in the alternative media - although perhaps that is another question for later article.)
So is HRW really an agent of imperialism? The short answer is yes: that said, this is of course a difficult question to answer briefly, as there is no doubt that HRW has and continues to carry out progressive work that protects some human rights in some areas of the world. However, it is important to note that this does not necessarily mean that they are helping to create a more progressive global society. Critical examinations of groups like the NED and the USIP have demonstrated that the discourse of democracy and peace serves as a brilliant rhetorical cover for promoting elite democracy - that is, low intensity democracy or polyarchy. Thus although HRW may be promoting some form of human rights, it appears that like the NED and the USIP, their work may be undermining the efforts of other more progressive groups struggling to promote a more egalitarian and participatory world order.[20] Critically, Julie Mertus (2004) in her important study, Bait and Switch: Human Rights and US Foreign Policy, illustrates that in spite of all the work of human rights groups:
"The United States is in fact still leading the world on human rights, but in the wrong direction, promoting short-term instrumentalism over long-term ethical principles, double standards instead of fair dealing, and a fearful view of human nature over a more open one... Human rights talk has not been accompanied by human rights behaviors."[21]
Here it is instructive to turn to James Petras and Henry Veltmeyer's (2005) incisive analysis regarding the mechanics of social change. In an attempt to understand why many NGOs may actually be exacerbating the very problems that they are aiming to fix, Petras and Veltmeyer explain that:
"In Latin America... the main concern [of the US government] in the 1960s and 1970s was to stave off pressures for revolutionary change - to prevent another Cuba. To this end, USAID promoted state-led reforms and the public provision of credit and technical assistance to the mass of small and peasant producers in the region. A good part of ODA [Overseas Development Aid] took a bilateral form, but increasingly USAID turned to nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) as their executing arm, bypassing governments in the region and channelling funds more directly to the local communities. The NGOs provided collateral 'services' or benefits to the donors, including strengthening local organizations opting for development and weakening class-based organizations with an anti-systemic orientation. In this context, the NGOs were also used, almost incidentally - and somewhat 'innocently' from the perspective of many of their personnel - not only to promote economic and social development (rather than social change and revolution) but to promote the values of democratic forms of organization as well as capitalism (the use of the electoral mechanism in their politics and the market in their economics)."[22]
Not being ones to mince their words, Petras and Veltmeyer go on to describe such NGOs as the "executing agents of US imperialism" which "helped turn local communities away from organizations seeking to mobilize for direct action against the system and instead promoted a reformist approach to social change."[23] Likewise Joan Roelofs (2003) also suggests that many "[c]ivil society organizations are convenient instruments for imperialism" which are effectively "controlled by elites via funding, integration into coalitions, and overlapping personnel."[24] As Ian Smillie (1995) observes, the irony of this situation is that "[d]espite frequently repeated reassurance that NGO independence is reasonably intact, the fact is that [since the 1960s] Northern NGOs have stumbled into a contracting era without appearing to have noticed it."[25]
Clearly HRW would rank among those NGOs that Petras, Veltmeyer and Roelofs would describe as a working in the service of imperialism, a diagnosis which I for one would agree with. But even if one were not inclined to go this far, it can be argued with certainty that (at the very least) by working so closely with the 'democracy promoting' community HRW is actively legitimizing the promotion of polyarchy, and thus undermining efforts to promote participatory democracy. Indeed, the presence of such extensive 'democratic' ties among HRW's Americas advisory board alone should be irreconcilable for a group which aims to promote human rights, unless of course HRW sincerely believes that neoliberal economics coupled with political disengagement will provide the best protection for global human rights. However, given the evidence presented in this article, it seems more likely that rather than just being indirectly linked to the 'democracy' elites, HRW is in actual fact an integral member of the 'democracy promoting' community - albeit a liberally orientated member.
Unfortunately, the hegemonic position that HRW's work has attained over the global promotion of human rights has negative consequences for democratic governance which are not immediately obvious. David Chandler (2006) observes that:
"While mainstream commentators conflate human rights with empowerment, self-determination and democracy, there are few critics who draw attention to the fact that the human rights discourse of moral and ethical policies is essentially an attack on the public political sphere and democratic practices."[26]
Indeed with the end of the Cold War 'humanitarian' interventions have grown to become a central pillar for justifying what should in a more honest world be called illegal wars of aggression. Problematically, for anyone interested in challenging such humanitarian doublespeak, Chandler points out that "it is perhaps even more concerning that many commentators argue that critical discussion of the human rights framework itself is unproductive and dangerous."[27] This reasoning perhaps helps to explain why few commentators in even the alternative media have undertaken sustained criticisms of HRW and its 'democratic' affiliates. Talking about the rise of NGOs more generally, Petras and Voltmeyer (2001) suggest that:
"It is symptomatic of the pervasiveness of the NGOs and their economic and political power over the so-called 'progressive world' that there have been few systematic Left critiques of their negative impact. In a large part this failure is due to the success of the NGOs in displacing and destroying the organized leftist movements and co-opting their intellectual strategists and organizational leaders."[28]
This is clearly a dangerous situation for progressive activists still wishing to promote participatory democracy, as many of the large transnational NGOs (like HRW) are unlike governments almost totally unaccountable to the public, and it can easily be argued that their presence actually works to minimise meaningful public participation in political activities. Indeed, Petras and Voltmeyer (2001) go on to note, that:
"In most cases the NGOs are not even membership organizations but a self appointed elite which, under the pretence of being "resource people" for popular movements, in fact, competes with and undermines them. In this sense, NGOs undermine democracy by taking social programs and public debate out of the hands of the local people and their elected natural leaders and creating dependence on non-elected overseas officials and their anointed local officials."[29]
Chandler concludes his critique of humanitarian interventions by noting that: "[t]he destructive dynamic of human rights interventionism is not because human rights policies are not fully applied or because international institutions are following some hidden Great Power agenda, but precisely because the human rights discourse itself is deeply corrosive of the political process."[30] While Petras and Voltmeyer would certainly agree with Chandler's description of the corrosive nature of the discourse of human rights, Chandler's analysis falls short by failing to recognise the vital role that international liberal philanthropists have played in openly (not covertly) engineering the legalistic discourse of human rights which dominates the globe today. That said, perhaps Chandler's failure to address the vexing issue of liberal philanthropy should not be considered to be just a personal shortcoming, as his exclusion of any discussion of the critical role of liberal foundations is more symptomatic of academia in general.
Writing in 1993, Mary Colwell observed that private foundations - both liberal and conservative - "are largely ignored in studies of how public policy is made in the United States... [and that in] much of what is written about the nonprofit, 'third' or 'independent' sector... the critical role of private foundations and data from research about the political and economic elite is absent."[31] This is certainly the case with studies concerned with human rights, even progressive ones like Chandler's. One of the few scholars to have comprehensively investigated the anti-democratic influence of liberal foundations is Joan Roelofs, who suggests that, liberal foundations:
"...greatest threat to democracy lies in their translation of wealth into power. They can create and disseminate an ideology justifying vast inequalities of life chances and political power; they can deflect criticism and mask (and sometimes mitigate) damaging aspects of the system; and they can hire the best brains, popular heroines, and even left-wing political leaders to do their work."[32]
To briefly summarize. Liberal foundations started seriously funding progressive activist organizations (like the civil rights movement) in the 1960s. Then through a process referred to as strategic philanthropy, liberal foundations were able to successfully moderate civil society by directing the bulk of their funding towards the more conservative progressive groups, thus reducing the relative influence of more radical activists through a process either described as channelling or coopting.[33] Unfortunately, to date, Roelofs (the leading writer/scholar critically examining such processes of cooption) has not provided a detailed analysis of the effect of liberal philanthropy on the human rights movement. But she does point out that:
"'Solidarity' groups, which relate the poverty and rebellions throughout Latin America to U.S. corporate penetration backed by overt and covert military action, are potentially challenging to the system. [Liberal] foundations have attempted to counter this perspective by creating Americas Watch [now a part of HRW] and many other human rights organizations. These regard the troubles arising from a lack of respect for human rights throughout Latin America. They hope to improve the situation by such means as bringing human rights violations to the attention of the media and international organizations and encouraging human rights groups throughout the hemisphere. The problem with this legal approach is that abuses are regarded as 'deviations,' even when a regime is using terror as an instrument of policy."[34]
Participatory Solutions for Participatory Social Change
Fortunately for progressive activists, the answers to the 'democratic' problems raised in this article are rather simple. However, before any suitable solutions can be implemented, individuals and organizations concerned with protecting human rights and promoting a more egalitarian world order will in the first instance need to acknowledge that a problem exists. Given the paucity of information and current commentary concerning this subject, it is likely that this will be the most difficult step for progressive activists and their organizations to make. In fact, the issue of developing sustainable funding (in ways compatible with participatory principles) for progressive social change has not even been seriously addressed by many progressive activists either - a recent exception being INCITE!'s (2007) The Revolution Will Not Be Funded (published by South End Press).
Realistically, it is unreasonable to assume that the evidence presented in this paper will be enough to radically alter the high regard many individuals have for HRW and liberal philanthropists more generally. Therefore, the first step that I propose needs to be taken to change this situation is to launch a vibrant public discussion of the broader role of liberal foundations and the NED in funding social change - an action that will rely for the most part upon the interest and support of grassroots activists all over the world. Only then, once progressive activists concerned with the promotion of human rights have considered all the evidence, will it be possible for them to collectively decide upon the most appropriate way to engage in humanitarian activities that will promote not undermine participatory democracy (and human rights). Indeed, to counter the negative influence of the 'democracy promoting' establishment - which of course includes liberal philanthropists - on NGOs like HRW, it is vital that progressive citizens committed to a participatory democracy work to develop alternate funding mechanisms for sustaining grassroots activism, so they can break the "insidious cycle of competition and co-optation" set up by liberal foundations and their cohorts.[35] Then perhaps progressive NGOs and activists will be able to "systematically criticize and critique the ties of their colleagues with imperialism and its local clients, their ideology of adaptation to neoliberalism, and their authoritarian and elitist structures." Petras and Veltmeyer add that progressive NGOs would then need to encourage their less progressive counterparts "to get out of the foundation/government networks and go back to organizing and educating their own people in Europe and North America to form socio-political movements that can challenge the dominant regimes and parties that serve the banks and the [Transnational Corporations]."36 This is certainly no small order, but it is certainly one that will better enable progressive activists all over the world to promote participatory democracy rather than polyarchy.
References
[1] It is interesting to note that the phenomenal success of the new Right from the 1970s onwards, was in large part based on the mimicry of the liberal foundations strategies. See, Yves Dezalay and Bryant G. Garth, The Internationalization of Palace Wars: Lawyers, Economists, and the Contest to Transform Latin American States (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002), 127, 276.
[2] Jonathan Cook, 'The Israel Lobby Works its Magic, Again: How Human Rights Watch Lost Its Way in Lebanon', Counterpunch, September 7, 2006.
[3] Ralph McGehee, 'CIA's War against China', Friends of Tibet, December 1999.
[4] Sara Flounders, 'Massacre in Jenin, Human Rights Watch and the Stage-Management of Imperialism', CovertAction Quarterly, Fall 2002.
[5] Jonathan Cook, 'The Israel Lobby Works its Magic, Again: How Human Rights Watch Lost its Way in Lebanon', Counterpunch, September 7, 2006.
[6] Jonathan Cook, 'Human Rights Watch: Still Missing the Point: Should We Deny Lebanon the Right to Defend Itself?', Counterpunch, September 25, 2006.
[7] Jonathan Cook, 'Palestinians are Being Denied the Right of Non-Violent Resistance?: Would HRW Have Attacked Martin Luther King, Too?', Counterpunch, November 30, 2006.
[8] Norman G. Finkelstein, 'Human Rights Watch Must Retract its Shameful Press Release: Rush to Judgment', Counterpunch, November 29, 2006; HRW, 'Human Rights Watch Statement on our November 22 Press Release', Human Rights Watch, December 16, 2006.
[9] Heather Cottin, 'George Soros, Imperial Wizard', CovertAction Quarterly, 74, Fall 2002.
[10] Edward S. Herman, David Peterson and George Szamuely, 'Human Rights Watch in Service to the War Party: Including A Review of "Weighing the Evidence: Lessons from the Slobodan Milosevic Trial" (Human Rights Watch, December, 2006)', Znet, February 25, 2007.
Greg Grandin (2007) recently observed that HRW has "jumped on the media and political bandwagon" by arguing that Hugo Chavez is attacking freedom of expression in Venezuela by failing to renew a broadcast license for "one of the oldest and largest opposition-controlled TV stations" RCTV. This is particularly interesting as amongst other things "RCTV actively participated in the U.S.-backed [and NED aided] coup that briefly overthrew Venezuela's democratically elected President Hugo Chavez in 2002." Likewise, John Pilger also castigated both Amnesty International and Reports sans Frontiers for being wrong in demonizing Chavez concerning the RCTV affair. See, Greg Grandin, 'Free Speech in Venezuela', AlterNet, June 22, 2007. ; John Pilger, 'Pilger on Reporters Without Borders and RCTV', The New Media Machines, June 8, 2007. (6 minute video)
[11] Paul Treanor, 'Who is behind Human Rights Watch?', 2004.
[12] Interestingly, Arthur Goldberg had been "general counsel for the steelworkers union for many years and helped engineer the merger between the AFL and CIO... [and] he was even credited with delivering the blue-collar vote to Kennedy, who rewarded him with the position of secretary of labor and later associate justice of the Supreme Court and ambassador to the United Nations." Goldberg also worked "briefly as a partner at Paul Weiss" a Wall Street law firm that current HRW advisor, David Nachman, also worked at during the 1980s. "In terms of the Helsinki monitors, according to Korey, 'Goldberg saw the need for a responsible and highly regarded American NGO that could provide detailed information about Communist repression that might sensitize Western public opinion.... He met with the President of the Ford Foundation, McGeorge Bundy, and prevailed upon him to form an appropriate NGO' (Korey 1998, 138)." "Other major funding sources in the 1980s were the MacArthur Foundation, the Revson Foundation, the J. M. Kaplan Foundation, and George Soros, who ultimately hired Aryeh Neier [the founding executive director of HRW] to head his own foundation." See, Dezalay and Garth, The Internationalization of Palace Wars, 279, 281.
Also see, David Korey, The Promises We Keep: Human Rights, the Helsinki Process, and American Foreign Policy (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1993); David Korey, NGOs and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: "A Curious Grapevine" (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1998).
The founding executive director of HRW, Aryeh Neier, served in this position for 12 years before joining the Open Society Institute in 1993, but prior to this he had worked for 15 years at the American Civil Liberties Union, eight of which he spent as one of their national directors. 'Aryeh Neier'.
[13] Bruce P. Montgomery, 'The Human Rights Watch Archives', Peace Review, 14:4 (2002), 457; Ford Foundation Annual Report 1979 (October 1, 1978 to September 30, 1979).
"Robert Bernstein, the president of Random House, came to Helsinki Watch through a concern that began in the early 1970s to protect the freedom of expression of Soviet and Eastern European dissidents. A number of important lawyers were also involved from the beginning, including the two other officers, Orville Schell and Adrian De Wind, who were partners in leading Wall Street firms and had been or were at the time presidents of the New York City Bar. Along with this group associated with Helsinki Watch were the presidents of major universities, including Chicago, MIT, and Columbia; and leaders of great banks, including Lazard Freres and Salomon Brothers, as well as representatives of the literary world, including the authors E. L. Doctorow, Toni Morrison, and Robert Penn Warren." See, Dezalay and Garth, The Internationalization of Palace Wars, 132.
Robert Berstein is currently chair of Human Rights in China, serves on the national council of Human Rights First, and is a member of HRW's Asia Advisory Committee.
[14] Kirsten Sellars, The Rise and Rise of Human Rights (Sparkford, UK: Sutton Publishing, 2002), 222.
With regards to the formation of Helsinki Watch, "[t]he Ford Foundation was particularly keen to recruit opinion-leaders, and a blue-chip board, drawn heavily from the ranks of the Council on Foreign Relations, was duly convened." Kirsten Sellars, The Rise and Rise of Human Rights, 140. For a detailed examination of the elite orientation of the Council on Foreign Relations, see Laurence H. Shoup and William Minter, Imperial Brain Trust: The Council on Foreign Relations and United States Foreign Policy (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1977).
[15] Edward H. Berman, The Ideology of Philanthropy: The Influence of the Carnegie, Ford, and Rockefeller Foundations on American Foreign Policy (Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press, 1983); Joan Roelofs, Foundations and Public Policy: The Mask of Pluralism (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2003); Frances S. Saunders, Who Paid the Piper?: The CIA and the Cultural Cold War (London: Granta, 1999). The Ford Foundation continues to be a strong supporter of HRW, and in 1997 gave them a grant for $1 million. See, Ford Foundation Annual Report 1997.
[16] For critiques of USAID and the CIA see, Steve Weissman, The Trojan Horse: A Radical Look at Foreign Aid (San Francisco: Ramparts Press, 1974); Ward Churchill and Jim Van der Wall, The COINTELPRO Papers: Documents from the FBI's Secret Wars against Domestic Dissent (Boston, MA: South End Press, 1990).
[17] Recent literature exposing the NED's polyarchal works includes, Michael J. Barker, 'Taking the Risk out of Civil Society: Harnessing Social Movements and Regulating Revolutions', Refereed paper presented to the Australasian Political Studies Association Conference, University of Newcastle 25-27 September 2006; Anthony Fenton, 'Legitimizing Polyarchy: Canada's Contribution to "Democracy Promotion" in Latin America and the Caribbean', Znet, October 29, 2006; Greg Grandin, Empire's workshop: Latin America, the United States, and the Rise of the New Imperialism (New York: Metropolitan Books, 2006); Hilary Keenan, 'Aid Without Mercy: The Paid Pipers of Civil Society', 21st Century Socialism, September 15, 2006; Kim Scipes, 'Worker-to-Worker Solidarity Committee to AFL-CIO: Cut all Ties with NED', Znet, May 1, 2006; Gerald Sussman, 'The Myths of "Democracy Assistance": US Political Intervention in Post-Soviet Eastern Europe', Monthly Review, December 2006.
For a recent article on the British government's involvement in the 'promotion of democracy' see, William Clark, 'Philanthropic Imperialism', Lobster: The Journal of Parapolitics, Issue 53 Summer 2007.
[18] William I. Robinson, Promoting Polyarchy: Globalization, US intervention, and Hegemony (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 89.
[19] Two recent books critiquing the discourse of human rights include, Jean Bricmont, Humanitarian Imperialism: Using Human Rights to Sell War (New York: Monthly Review Press, 2006); and Bonny Ibhawoh, Imperialism and Human Rights: Colonial Discourses of Rights and Liberties in African History (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2007).
[20] Indeed, "[o]ne of the fundamental issues facing critical intellectuals today is the corruption of political language, the obfuscation of capitalism as it presently exists through the use of euphemisms and concepts that have little relationship to the social and political realities they purport to discuss." James Petras and Henry Veltmeyer, Globalization Unmasked: Imperialism in the 21st Century (London, Zed Books, 2001), 61.
[21] Julie A. Mertus, Bait and Switch: Human Rights and US Foreign Policy (New York: Routledge, 2004), 1.
[22] James Petras and Henry Veltmeyer, Empire With Imperialism: The Globalizing Dynamics of Neoliberal Capitalism (London: Zed Books, 2005), 178.
[23] Petras and Veltmeyer, Empire With Imperialism, 178, 179.
[24] Joan Roelofs, Foundations and Public Policy, 203, 203-204.
[25] Ian Smillie, The Alms Bazaar: Altruism Under Fire: Non-Profit Organizations and International Development (London: Intermediate Technology Publications, 1995), 167.
[26] David Chandler, From Kosovo to Kabul and Beyond: Human Rights and International Intervention (2nd Edition) (London: Pluto Press, 2006), 206-207.
"It is on the alleged basis of these new human rights needs that the liberal social democratic interventionists have taken over from the conservative Right as the biggest advocates of increased military spending." David Chandler, From Kosovo to Kabul and Beyond, 167.
[27] David Chandler, From Kosovo to Kabul and Beyond, 14.
[28] James Petras and Henry Veltmeyer, Globalization Unmasked, 128.
[29] James Petras and Henry Veltmeyer, Globalization Unmasked, 132.
"NGOs emphasize projects, not movements. They 'mobilize' people to produce at the margins, not to struggle to control the basic means of production and wealth. They focus on the technical and financial-assistance aspects of projects, not on structural conditions that shape the everyday lives of people. The NGOs co-opt the language of the Left-'popular power,' 'empowerment,' 'gender equality,' 'sustainable development,' 'bottom-up leadership,' etc. The problem is that this language is linked to a framework of collaboration with donors and government agencies committed to non-confrontational politics. The local nature of NGO activity means that 'empowerment' never goes beyond influencing small areas of social life with limited resources, always within conditions permitted by the neoliberal state and macroeconomy." See, James Petras and Henry Veltmeyer, Globalization Unmasked, 133.
[30] David Chandler, From Kosovo to Kabul and Beyond, 236.
[31] Mary A. C. Colwell, Private Foundations and Public Policy: The Political Role of Philanthropy (New York: Garland Pubishers, 1993), 195.
[32] Joan Roelofs, Foundations and Public Policy: The Mask of Pluralism (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2003), 8.
[33] Robert F. Arnove, (ed.), Philanthropy and Cultural Imperialism: The Foundations at Home and Abroad (Boston, Mass.: G.K. Hall, 1980); Michael J. Barker, 'The Liberal Foundations of Environmentalism: Revisiting the Rockefeller-Ford Connection,' Capitalism Nature Socialism, Submitted; Mary A. C. Colwell, Private Foundations and Public Policy; Donald Fisher, 'The Role of Philanthropic Foundations in the Reproduction and Production of Hegemony: Rockefeller Foundations and the Social Sciences,' Sociology, 17, 2, 1983; Craig J. Jenkins, 'Channelling Social Protest: Foundation Patronage of Contemporary Social Movements,' in W. W. Powell and E. S. Clemens, (eds.), Private Action and the Public Good (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1998); Joan Roelofs, Foundations and Public Policy; John Wilson, 'Corporatism and the Professionalization of Reform,' Journal of Political and Military Sociology, 11, 1983.
Of course, during the 1960s and 1970s radical activists were also literally eliminated by the CIA and FBI. See, Ward Churchill and Jim Van der Wall, The COINTELPRO Papers.
[34] Joan Roelofs, Foundations and Public Policy, 140-141.
[35] Brian Tokar, Earth for Sale: Reclaiming Ecology in the Age of Corporate Greenwash (Boston, MA: South End Press, 1997), 214.
[36] James Petras and Henry Veltmeyer, Globalization Unmasked, 137. |
Last edited by Tara Carreon on Fri Jun 18, 2010 1:40 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tara Carreon
Veteran
Joined: 25 Sep 2008
Posts: 992
Location: Tucson, Arizona
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 18, 2010 1:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Daniel L. Abrahamson wrote: | NOAM CHOMSKY: CONTROLLED ASSET OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER
by Daniel L. Abrahamson
The Pied Piper of the Left
Chomsky's role in propaganda paradigm is much like that of Karl Marx: to present a false liberation ideology which actually supports the desired solutions of the elite. Marx pointed out the inequalities and brutality of capitalism and then advocated a one world bank, army, and government with the abolition of private property and religion; in other words, the major goals of the New World Order.
Tens of millions of activists worldwide still remain trapped by this scam, failing to recognize the inherent autocratic and elitist structures of Marxism-Leninism or the newer incarnation under Chomsky.
The Globalist elites and their army of social scientists at the Tavistock Institute understand that people are going to question the inequities of the current economic system. For example, why is wealth distributed so unequally between classes and countries? Why are those living in third world nations allowed to die from preventable diseases and starvation? Why does the U.S. government sponsor and direct such murderous foreign policy? Why was America attacked on 9-11?
In other words, why is the world embroiled in such violence? Who is behind all this suffering? And most importantly, what solutions would relieve the poverty and destruction plaguing the worldwide population?
Enter Chomsky, the controlled opposition, to play the role of re-direct agent. He discusses a mere fraction of the real elite manipulation and then quickly pushes his followers into dead-end solutions and alienating rhetoric. Chomsky's hero status is further amplified by Left gatekeeper publications like Z Magazine, DemocracyNow!, The Progressive, and The Nation.
Is it a coincidence that all of those magazines receive major funding from Globalist front-groups like the Rockefeller Foundation, Ford Foundation, Carnegie Endowment, and MacArthur Foundation? Chomsky may be the head gatekeeper, but he works alongside a network of fellow Globalist assets like Amy Goodman who do their best to appear radical while avoiding all the hardcore issues and deliberately leading the Left into oblivion.
The following analysis will show that Chomsky, a deep cover agent for the New World Order, a master of black propaganda whose true motives become clear with a sober and honest examination.
September 11, 2001
Noam Chomsky has acted as the premier Left gatekeeper in the aftermath of the 9-11 crimes, lashing out at the 9-11 truth movement and claiming [that] any suggestions of government complicity are fabrications. The "radical" Chomsky takes a position so deeply rooted in denial that it makes the staged 9-11 whitewash commission look like an honest study. He belligerently refuses to discuss any of the massive evidence proving government foreknowledge and participation in the crimes, claiming it would destroy the activist movements worldwide:
"If the left spends its time on this, that's the end of the left, in my opinion: the mainstream would be utterly delighted. It is highly likely that nothing significant will be found. And if -- which I very greatly doubt -- something is found that would quickly send everyone in Washington to the death chamber, the left is unlikely to emerge triumphant."
In other words, Chomsky is telling his followers to ignore the evidence because according to him, none exists. However even if there is massive evidence, responsible activists should ignore it because it would be "the end of the Left." Chomsky's role as a 9-11 gatekeeper goes even further as he denies each piece of evidence individually. The following examples should suffice:
[First], as most honest 9-11 researchers know, 7 of the accused 19 hijackers are alive, proving the official story is a fabrication. Many of the remaining 12 were trained as U.S. Air Force bases and CIA-connected Huffman Aviation [in Venice, FL]. Many of the accused "religious fanatics" acted more like degenerate contract agents, as they flashed wads of cash, visited strip clubs, drank profusely, blew cocaine, smoked weed, cavorted with strippers and had strange meetings in the drug-rich Florida keys.
Men like Mohammed Atta fit the M.O. of an undercover CIA drug runner: a man trained at U.S. Air Force bases, fluent in many languages, able to evade INS regulations, working with drug dealers, and receiving wired bank funds from CIA-linked Pakistani intelligence. There remains no photographic evidence of these supposed hijackers ever getting on the planes (walking through airport security does not count). Furthermore, the autopsy list of Flight 77 which supposedly hit the Pentagon listed none of the accused hijackers.
Regarding the evidence of government complicity in training the hijackers, Chomsky wrote the following:
"Nothing empirical is impossible. Thus, it is conceivable that everyone in the White House is totally insane. And in my opinion, that's what they would have had to be to try something that would have been very likely to turn into an utter fiasco, and if by some miracle had succeeded, would almost certainly have leaked, so that they would all be facing the death sentence. Possible, but not likely."
[Second], what about the unprecedented NORAD [North American Air Defense] stand down on 9-11 which broke standard operation procedure? Over 67 times in 2001, NORAD had dispatched [interceptors for] jets when they deviated from their flight path. In 1999, when golfer Payne Stewart's single engine Lear [jet] depressurized, NORAD planes were flying around the vessel in 20 minutes.
But on 9-11, Ben Sliney, in his first day on the job as hijacking coordinator for the FAA, delayed calls to NORAD. Meanwhile NORAD ran at least 7 hijacking drills that morning like Operation Vigilant Guardian, where commercial jets crashed into government buildings in Manhattan, Washington DC, and Virginia. These "mock" drills, designed to [go] live on 9-11, helped to distract the honest people within NORAD and the FAA, and to evade suspicion from patriotic investigators within the CIA, FBI, and NSA's Echelon network.
Of the subject of the NORAD stand down, Chomsky wrote the following:
"Whether NORAD followed SOP, I have no idea, not having investigated the matter. I think the case is very weak, and diverts people from the really serious issues."
[Third], how about the document called "Operation Northwoods" signed off in 1962 by the Joint Chiefs of Staff like Generals Lemnitzer and Landsdale? These men, sworn to protect the Constitution, devised a plan to create false-flag terrorism in order to engineer a war with Cuba. Their treasonous plans included the following:
"Hijacking attempts against civil air and surface craft could appear to continue as harassing measures condoned by the Government of Cuba."
"Exploding a few plastic bombs in carefully chosen spots, the arrest of Cuban agents and the release of prepared documents substantiating Cuban involvement also would be helpful in projecting the idea of an irresponsible government."
"We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba . . . casualty lists in U.S. newspapers cause a helpful wave of indignation."
This document was discovered in the National Archives and has been the subject of mainstream articles by ABC News and others. It stands as clear evidence that the U.S. government has designed plans to engineer terrorist attacks and blame them on foreign enemies. Yet Noam Chomsky does not think the Northwoods document matters:
"Operation Northwoods example is only one of many reasons for being skeptical about this: it doesn't even come close, and it was not carried out. Furthermore, there is nothing in history that even remotely resembles what is being proposed. Of course, that does not show that the thesis is impossible: nothing could show that, by definition. And if someone can put together some evidence and refute the arguments as to why it is extraordinarily unlikely, then the matter will be worth pursuing."
Chomsky's role as the chief 9-11 gatekeeper proves he is distracting his leftist followers from the truth. Instead of facing the clear facts, he claims that 19 hijackers did it and that al-Qaeda is a real terrorist enemy. When presented with documented evidence, from living hijacker patsies to the NORAD stand down, he simply claims it doesn't exist. He resorts to emotional "they would never do it" appeals in order to deny the obvious.
Chomsky is exhibiting far more than logical skepticism, but instead is actively engaging in disinformation.
9-11 Prior Knowledge
Chomsky's denial of government complicity in the crimes of September 11 [2001] is one thing, but he goes further, claiming the government had no prior knowledge of the attacks. Mind you, this is a position even weaker than Michael Moore's tepid [documentary film] "Fahrenheit 9-11", which at least tacitly suggested a degree of prior knowledge.
Chomsky's position is untenable. For a man who prides himself on science and logic, his steadfast refusal to acknowledge mainstream media reports finds him using arguments similar to Holocaust deniers: one can show them photographs, videos, testimony, and physical evidence but the burden of proof is impossible. Such is the case with Chomsky who ignores the many government admissions of prior knowledge widely available even in the 9-11 whitewash commission report. Here is Noam Chomsky writing on government prior knowledge:
"That tells us even less. Every intelligence agency is flooded, daily, with information of very low credibility. In retrospect, one can sometimes pick out pieces that mean something. At the time, that's a virtual impossibility. By arguments like this we can prove that someone blew up the White House yesterday."
If they did not have prior knowledge, why were [vice president] Cheney and NORAD running drills that morning where hijacked jets flew into buildings in New York, Washington DC and Virginia? Also, wouldn't the NSA's Echelon network have picked up the chatter?
Of course, Chomsky does not even admit the Echelon network exists. This despite the NSA's openly acknowledged ability to monitor all phone calls, emails and satellite communication with keyword software which can identify phrases and immediately begin tracking the communication. This despite their admitted bases at Fort Meade [Maryland], with sister sites in the UK, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and other unknown locations.
Students of the intelligence world know full well that the NSA's Echelon network picked up the chatter for weeks before the attacks. In fact, the NSA admitted it, saying that on September 10 agents intercepted calls from hijackers but, *ahem*, did not translate them until after the attacks. Such admissions are red herrings, clearly designed to excuse massive prior knowledge at tops levels of the intelligence circles.
What about the Presidential Daily Briefing given to Bush in late August which discussed the threat of hijacked jets? What about intelligence groups like Able Danger and FBI agents like Robert Wright who warned of the flight school trainees? What about FBI agent John O'Neill's investigation into Al-Qaeda financing which was quashed by Bush? What about attorney David Schippers who desperately tried to warn [attorney general] Ashcroft about the impending attacks? Why was the CIA admittedly tracking the accused hijackers since 2000? Why was FEMA running drills in Manhattan that morning out of [building] WTC-7? Why did PNAC documents like "Rebuilding America's Defenses" call for "helpful Pearl Harbor style" attacks?
Those are just a smattering of the mountain of evidence proving beyond any reasonable doubt that the U.S. government had prior knowledge. But Chomsky must deny these, because his role is to mislead and distract while chastising the 9-11 truth movement.
CFR / Bilderberg / Trilateral Commission
Before and after 9-11, the key role for the Left Gatekeepers like Chomsky has been denying the existence of the overclass which prints the money, funds and manages the wars, ships the drugs, controls entire industries, and creates the scientific propaganda which plagues society. Instead they critique mid-level minions and front corporations while speaking in glittering generalities.
In the world of Left gatekeepers, the New World Order does not exist. There are no elite plans for global government. Instead they paint the picture of a profit-motivated world in which corporations control the government. But merely blaming corporations misses the forces which own their assets, manage their resources, control their boards of directors, and pull their strings.
Chomsky steadfastly denies the role of the Council on Foreign Relations, Bilderberg Committee, and Trilateral Commission in the creation and management of the wars and poverty he claims to condemn. When speaking on such "conspiracies," he said the following:
"It's the same with the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations, all these other things the people are racing around searching for conspiracy theories about -- they're "nothing" organizations. Of course they're there, obviously rich people get together and talk to each other, and play golf with one another, and plan together-that's not a big surprise. But these conspiracy theories people are putting their energies into have virtually nothing to do with the way the institutions actually function." (Understanding Power, p. 348)
The CFR, funded by Wall Street and the Rockefellers after [World War I], is an organization openly sworn to destroying American national sovereignty in favor of world government. They have acted as the de-facto "secret team" in managing U.S. domestic and foreign policy, orchestrating wars like Vietnam and the first Gulf War. Almost all executives in the CIA and State Department have been members of the CFR, whether it was Dean Rusk, Allen Dulles and Robert McNamara during Vietnam, or Richard Armitage and George Tenet during the crimes of 9-11.
The CFR has been the dominant roundtable group pushing for a Panamerican Union by 2010 which would dissolve national borders and unite Mexico, Canada, and America under a single currency, with biometric ID cards and GPS-tracked vehicles on camera-strewn superhighways. How can Chomsky seriously claim the CFR is a "nothing organization" when their role in crafting policy is so clear? Whom is he trying to protect in denying the treasonous goals of the CFR?
Chomsky's stonewalling on the Bilderberg Group raises even more suspicions. Since 1954 the Bilderberg has served as the central brain of the New World Order, the major secret gathering for Globalist agents from across the globe. Bilderberg chairmen like Prince Bernhard and David Rockefeller have pushed for total global government, eugenics population control, engineering wars, and controlling the worldwide economy. Top politicians from America and Europe also undergo a grooming process at the Bilderberg [meetings]. Bill Clinton went in 1991 as Rockefeller's personal guest, and Tony Blair attended in 1993 before becoming Prime Minister. John Kerry attended in 2000, and John Edwards did two weeks before becoming the VP nominee in 2004.
Major members of the media, such as editors from the Economist, NY Times, Newsweek, Washington Post, [and] US News and World Report are regular attendees. Yet they rarely if ever mention the proceedings, sworn to secrecy by their globalist masters.
Nevertheless in recent years, the truth has emerged. Major media outlets like the BBC admit [that] the Bilderberg is planning for a one-world currency, bank, and army. Articles in Reuters and the Financial Times of London have admitted the existence of the Bilderberg Group, their grooming of politicians, and their secret plans for world governance. If these mainstream media reporters can admit the major role of the Bilderberg in shaping world affairs, why can't Chomsky? Why is he holding back?
Simlarly, how can Chomsky seriously ignore the role of the Trilateral Commission, the brainchild of Globalist masters David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski? This is the same Brzezinski who helped direct the first CIA funds to Osama bin Laden [in the 1980s], and in his book "Between Two Ages" called for a technotronic society with a microchipped population.
The Trilateral Commission openly admits they are trying to control the economy through closer European-Japanese-American cooperation. They operate much like the CFR, counting the worlds top elites, politicians, corporate executives, and media barons as members. They have been instrumental in creating the destructive "free trade" agreements that are destroying America's economy and national sovereignty in order to usher in world governance.
[Note that David Rockefeller was also Chairman of the CFR for many years prior to founding the Trilateral Commission. --ed]
Journalist Jim Tucker, a Spotlight reporter with impeccable credentials, also links the Trilateral Commission to the international narcotics trade, the $500 billion-plus racket from heroin and cocaine alone which helps fund the Globalist's house of cards.
What would motivate Chomsky to call the Trilateral Commission a "nothing organization?" Is it because they echo his goal of a world government? Or are there darker forces at work? When balanced against over 50 years of documented evidence, Chomsky's claims are exposed as nothing more than spurious lies and denial.
The Federal Reserve
Similarly, while Chomsky bemoans the widespread poverty in America and the Third World, he has never spoken publicly on the role of the Federal Reserve. Therefore most Leftist activists are unaware of the role played by this privately owned bank cartel which prints worthless fiat currency out of thin air. Since its secret formation at Jekyll Island in 1910, and subsequent illegal passage [of the Federal Reserve Act] during the Wilson administration, the Federal Reserve has held the American economy hostage: creating inflation and boom & bust cycles through managed money supply and interest rates.
Furthermore, every dollar printed is merely debt charged to the federal government. Thus while it only costs 10 cents to print a $100 bill, the U.S. government foots the bill for the full $100 to the private Fed.
The creation of the Federal Reserve, owned largely by the Rockefeller, Morgan, and Rothschild interests, has eluded the "radical" Chomsky. Furthermore he does not discuss the proven role of the Fed in creating recessions and depressions in order to purchase assets at a fraction of their value.
Chomsky ignores the role of the fiat currency system which drives down wages, inflates prices, and puts the American economy under the iron claw of a few elite families. Since the dollar is the base currency for worldwide trade and the current economic house of cards, shouldn't these topics be discussed?
Perhaps Chomsky stays mute because a central bank fits into his ideology. After all, one of the key planks in the Marxist and Fabian socialist agenda is a managed central bank in order to control the economy. Or perhaps Chomsky fears discussion of the Fed would expose the real hidden hand that runs the world economy. For him it is easier to blast the front corporations and low-level grocery boys.
(For more, see " Secrets of the Federal Reserve," by Eustace Mullins)
The CIA
If he denies even basic government foreknowledge of 9-11, should it be any surprise that Chomsky avoids criticism of the CIA? When asked about the links between the CIA and bin Laden, and the CIA's overt support of the Taliban, Chomsky wrote the following:
"CIA support for bin Laden (which is not quite accurate) or the Taliban (also not quite accurate) doesn't seem to me remotely relevant."
How can Chomsky write this with a straight face? He is simply ignoring the documented evidence of CIA funding for the "freedom fighters" known as al-Qaeda, totaling over $6 billion. The cozy CIA/al-Qaeda relationship continued through the Bosnian conflict via training of the drug-peddling Kosovo Liberation Army.
What about the meetings between Taliban leaders, oil executives, and Bush administration officials from January to August 2001 to discuss building an oil and gas pipeline for Unocal? Chomsky also denies the mainstream reports from UK and French newspapers about two top CIA agents meeting with bin Laden for over ten days in July 2001 while he received dialysis at the American Hospital in Dubai.
But Chomsky goes further than that. While claiming to critique the CIA, he absolves the agency of any responsibility for its actions, from [its] Nazi origins via Project Paperclip to heinous mind control experiments like MK ULTRA. This horrific period in CIA history, a true Rosetta stone in understanding the New World Order, is scientifically ignored by Chomsky, who sees [or portrays --ed] the CIA as an innocent victim of White House orders:
"Or take the CIA, which is considered the source of a lot of these conspiracies; we have a ton of information about it, and as I read the information, the CIA is basically just an obedient branch of the White House. I mean sure, the CIA has done things around the world -- but as far as we know, it hasn't done anything on its own.
There's very little evidence-in fact, I don't know of any-that the CIA is some kind of rogue elephant, you know, off on its own doing things. What the record shows is that the C.I.A. is just an agency of the White House, which sometimes carries out operations for which the Executive branch wants what's called "plausible deniability"; in other words, if something goes wrong, we don't want it to look like we did, those guys in the CIA did it, and we can throw some of them to the wolves if we need to. That's basically the role of the CIA, along with mostly just a collection of information."
(Chomsky, "Understanding Power")
Like all of Chomsky's claims, this one is based on emotion, conjecture, and opinion. He does not cite any specifics, knowing full well that his fawning minions will accept his word as gospel. Chomsky sees the CIA as a pathetic collection of scapegoat bureaucrats, acting as grocery boys for their master President. According to him, the CIA does not carry out secret projects on their own, and if accused of such, are innocent.
The JFK Assassination and CIA Role
Therefore is it any surprise that Chomsky endorses the lone assassin and magic bullet theory in the assassination of JFK? From his emergence as a guru of the Left in the late 60's, Chomsky has belittled anyone researching the anomolies stemming from the official story and Warren Commission cover-up. According to him, any examination is a complete waste of time:
"The Kennedy assassination cult is probably the most striking case. I mean, you have all these people doing super-scholarly intensive research, and trying to find out just who talked to whom, and what's the exact contours were of this supposed high-level conspiracy -- it's all complete nonsense. As soon as you look into the various theories, they always collapse, there's just nothing there. But in many places, the left has just fallen apart on the basis of these sheer cults."
(Chomsky, "Understanding Power")
Chomsky's position puts him in the less than 15% of Americans who believe Oswald was the lone shooter. For such a self-proclaimed "anarchist" radical, Chomsky's trust in the Warren Commission's official story seems akin to a child's belief in Santa Claus.
The facts, of course, tell a different story. While far from perfect man, Kennedy ran afoul by opposing the very forces that took over after his death. He began withdrawing 5,000 CIA "advisers" from Vietnam; fired CIA chiefs Allen Dulles and Richard Bissell; disbanded the CIA and handed over covert operations to the State Department; ordered the creation of a silver-backed government currency to break the Federal Reserve monopoly; turned down the Operation Northwoods plan to engineer false flag terrorism and blame it on Cuba; and refused to invade Cuba and launch a full scale nuclear war during the Missile Crisis, a plan favored by hawks like General Curtis LeMay.
Chomsky ignores the true history of the Kennedy presidency because it would expose the shadow government takeover after his assassination.
What about Chomsky's claims that the CIA never acts as a rogue elephant? Do they hold up?
MK ULTRA and Project Paperclip
Chomsky has never publicly acknowledged the covert CIA mind control program known as MK ULTRA and its many offshoots. This program alone shows how the CIA was indeed a rogue elephant, as they ran an illegal campaign of propaganda, brainwashing, sex slavery, and poisoning of citizens.
In 1946, Globalist bagman Harry Truman began a covert plan [Operation Paperclip] to smuggle top Nazi SS officers, scientists, and propagandists into America. Those same war criminals quickly became the front line for the postwar U.S. intelligence machine. Reinhard Gehlen, one of Hitler's top intelligence chiefs, led postwar European intelligence for the CIA, becoming the darling of head honcho Allen Dulles.
Then, using his same crew of Gestapo and SS, aided by the Vatican and sponsored by the CIA, Gehlen set up "rat lines" which smuggled 5,000 of the worst Nazi criminals into South and Central America. Butchers like Klaus Barbie, Martin Bormann and Josef Mengele among others owed their freedom to this program.
Those same men would later aid CIA coups in Argentina, Chile, Paraguay, Brazil and other countries. After all, they were veteran experts: early Gehlen projects had included rigging elections in Italy and France.
By 1955, more than 760 German scientists had became U.S. citizens, many specializing in black research projects. This growing cabal of Nazi doctors found a happy marriage with the control freak elitists infesting the NSA, CIA, and black operations government.
These men birthed the MK ULTRA program, focusing on mass mind control via drugs, hypnosis, subliminals, and pulsed electromagnetic waves. It was this mad science, spawned in the Nazi labs of Dr. Josef Mengele, that now obsessed men like Sidney Gottlieb, John Lilly, Jose Delgado and Ewen Cameron.
Their most famous project was the creation of "Manchurian candidates", used for political assassinations, drug transportation, espionage, and sabotage. Yet this was not limited to Sirhan Sirhan.
In fact, both Gottlieb and Cameron helped train thousands of pre-adolescent children for use in child prostitution, sex slavery, blackmail, satanic rituals and murder. Known as the Monarch Project, children were kidnapped from American streets and foreign nations and then programmed with trauma based mind control.
Other common victims for experimentation included prisoners, the homeless, and residents of mental institutions, all cherry-picked because they were defenseless. Details of this horrific and still operational program are available in rare and highly suppressed texts of Fritz Springmeier.
Why does Chomsky refuse to discuss MK ULTRA and its sister projects? Why does he claim the CIA was merely a pawn of the White House, when the record proves that Eisenhower and Kennedy had little, if any knowledge of MK ULTRA? Simply put: Why is Noam Chomsky covering for the CIA?
Elite Child Sex Rings
The Monarch Project of prostituting children deserves further mention (although Chomsky would disagree). In 1988, Vice President Bush was caught having 15 year-old callboy prostitutes visiting the White House late at night. The credit cards records to prove it were splashed across the front page of the Washington Times: "Homosexual Prostitution Inquiry Ensnares VIP's with Reagan, Bush Sr."
Unfortunately the star witness, [Bush aide] Craig Spence, was suicided in his hotel with piano wire before he could testify. Books like "The Franklin Coverup" by John DeCamp have further proven the links between the CIA and Army intelligence to the elite sex slavery rings. Cases like the "The Finders" in Washington DC, where customs agents discovered a CIA warehouse full of child porn and satanic torture [material], stand as yet further evidence.
In the former Yugloslavia, CIA front company Dyncorp has been convicted of operating in the human slave trade and using their C-130's [cargo planes] to ship many of the 200,000 women and children smuggled out every year. Furthermore, mainstream news outlets have shown evidence of U.N. "peacekeepers" assisting the sex trade in the Democratic Republic of Congo and Balkans.
Despite the voluminous amount of grotesque evidence, Chomsky has never discussed the elite sex trade. This is an issue so shocking, so paradigm-altering, that his Leftist followers would no longer trust their loving mother government, and that is the last thing Chomsky wants. After all, if the Leftists knew that top level politicians [and their masters --ed] are actually pedophiles practicing satanic ritual abuse, they would no longer trust the savior world government. The absence of Chomsky and the Left on the suffering of these children speaks volumes about their true moral character and motives.
Projects MK ARTICHOKE and MK NAOMI
Other MK ULTRA side projects included pushing LSD to the youth culture and attaching electrodes into prisoners heads, the latter perfected by Dr. Delgado. Adjunct programs like MK NAOMI and MK ARTICHOKE focused on genetically engineered viruses, biological agents, and radiation effects on American citizens. Common experiments included testing biological agents and atomic weapons radiation on soldiers, the mentally handicapped, people in subways, and even whole towns; putting cancer viruses into polio vaccines; and exposing pregnant women to radiation to test the effects on the fetus. These experiments have been documented as continuing into the 1980's and likely still continue today.
Chomsky does not discuss these horrendous programs, because it would awaken his readers to the cruelest fact: that the U.S. government will murder its own citizens and soldiers, killing hundreds of thousands of unwitting subjects simply for political gain. After all, if they would feed radiated breakfast cereal to thousands of retarded children, would these same parasitic elites not also kill more than 2,800 Americans on September 11?
Of course, MK ULTRA lives on today in our drinking water. It was around the time of its inception, in the 1950's, that the U.S. government began adding sodium fluoride to tap water in massive quantities. Should we be shocked? After all, the first people to use the deadly neurotoxin were the Nazis, who found [that] it pacified the concentration camp prisoners. Now, thanks to imported Nazi doctors helping our friendly neighborhood CIA, American citizens could enjoy the same privilege as those in Hitler's camps.
Chomsky has never discussed the effects of sodium fluoride, nor the lead and arsenic used in water as silent weapons of pacification [and contraception --ed]. As a scientist, he is apparently uninterested in sodium fluoride's proven link to cancer, leukemia, osteoporosis, Alzheimer disease, and brain damage.
So, should we be surprised that he never writes about the deadly poison aspartame found in thousands of products? Or genetically modified foods and growth hormones which destroy immune systems while causing blood disorders and swelling of the organs? Or cell phones which emit deadly microwave radiation leading to cancer, vision loss, and (according to published BBC reports) altering human DNA? Or the GWEN towers which pulse deadly ELF radiation across America?
Rockefeller Pharma Cartel
The Nazi doctors who didn't end up in American intelligence found cushy jobs in the pharmaceutical cartel firms like Merck and Eli Lilly. Chomsky never discusses the history of these firms; nor the Rockefeller control over the American Medical Association; nor the link between mercury-tainted vaccines and brain damage; nor the deadly mind control drugs like SSRI's (Prozac, Zoloft, etc.) and amphetamine-based Adderall/Ritalin pills pimped out to helpless children.
These drugs cause bone degeneration, memory loss, suicidal tendencies and added depression to the poor kids gobbling them like Flintstone's chewables [vitamins], all at the advice of their pill-pusher death merchant doctors. Meanwhile Chomsky stays true to form, ignoring these matters and instead calling for socialized, Federally-controlled healthcare which would further subsidize the pharma cartel. This is just another example of his bait and switch tactics, a sloppy mess of disinfo and elite sponsored solutions.
Psychiatry and the "New Freedom" Initiative
Chomsky and his [fellow] Left Gatekeepers also ignore the assault from psychiatric community, largely controlled by the Rockefellers and Tavistock Institute, who seek to define every neurosis as a mental illness in order to push more drugs. Bush has signed the "New Freedom Initiative" to forcibly psychologically test all K-12 students in public schools, screen them for "mental illnesses," and force the children to take the recommended drugs.
This brainwashing agenda was pushed by the pharma cartel, with Glaxo Smith Kline, Eli Lilly, Merck and others investing millions in buy-offs and lobbying. But news of this extraordinary Stalinist plan never graced the pages of Chomsky's editorials, nor Z Magazine, The Nation, the Progressive, and DemocracyNow!. Perhaps this is because the New Freedom Initiative fits into their goal of government-controlled socialized health care.
The New Freedom Initiative, bolder than Stalin's wildest dreams, is just a small part of the eugenics agenda -- a dominant Globalist goal which Chomsky and his Left Gatekeeper bagmen aid and abet. Chomsky has never written about the sinister American Psychiatric Association, nor the role of it's former chief, Dr. Ewen Cameron, the aforementioned MK ULTRA villain and CIA child programmer.
Key aspects of the scientific eugenics movement such as population control, abortion legalization, poisonous vaccinations, and stem cell research find their most vocal advocates on the far Left of the managed political debate. Leftist college major [subjects] like sociology advocate programs like parental licensing by the state, state-controlled child care, and Chinese style childbirth laws with forced sterilization as a penalty.
Leftists call for more vaccinations in the Third World despite the admittedly tainted vaccines used by the World Health Organization and UNICEF. All of this is indicative of an infiltrated movement, a Left deeply penetrated by Globalist agents driving activists into unwittingly championing the Brave New World.
Population Control
Population control by any means necessary is a major, some would say the major goal of the New World Order, perhaps even paramount to their goal of a cashless society control grid with microchipped slaves. The chief architects of population control are Bilderberg elitists like David and Nelson Rockefeller, Henry Kissinger, Prince Philip, Ted Turner, Alexander Haig, and Cyrus Vance. Their Malthusian nightmare requires killing 90% of the "useless eaters" through war, genetically engineered viruses, and engineered starvation. Declassified documents like NSSM 200 and Global 2000 lay the plans out with cold precision.
Chomsky, the self-proclaimed radical, also advocates such depopulation methods. In Chomsky's book "Understanding Power," a collection of his talks with activists, a crowd member asks about population control, to which Chomsky responds:
"If we continue to produce energy by combustion, the human race isn't going to survive much longer...Yeah, population control is another issue where it doesn't matter if you do it, everybody has to do it. It's like traffic: I mean you can't make driving a car survivable by driving well yourself; there has to be kind of a social contract involved, otherwise it won't work." ("Understanding Power", p. 61)
Chomsky and other gatekeepers claim to maintain the moral high ground, but then advocate the eugenics agenda pushed by elite roundtable groups like the Bilderberg and Club of Rome. How can Chomsky claim to be an advocate for the Third World while simultaneously pushing for the managed murder agenda favored by Henry Kissinger?
Gun Control
Another one of the great successes of the Left gatekeeper has been pushing for the unconstitutional gun control agenda through their publications like The Nation, Z Magazine, The Progressive, and their internet kin at DemocracyNow! and Indymedia. It is a great achievement of propaganda when the supposed radicals "opposing Bush" call for a completely disarmed American populace and inflated budget for BATF thugs in ski masks. Chomsky mocks those who support the Constitutionally endowed right to bear arms. In fact, he says it doesn't exist:
"It's pretty clear that, taken literally, the Second Amendment doesn't permit people to have guns. But laws are never taken literally, including amendments to the Constitution or constitutional rights. Laws permit what the tenor of the times interprets them as permitting."
("Secrets, Lies, and Democracy")
Then later in the interview, Chomsky is asked if guns are a proper way to respond to government tyranny. He responds as follows:
"As for guns being the way to respond to this, that's outlandish. First of all, this is not a weak Third World country. If people have pistols, the government has tanks. If people get tanks, the government has atomic weapons. There's no way to deal with these issues by violent force, even if you think that that's morally legitimate.
Guns in the hands of American citizens are not going to make the country more benign. They're going to make it more brutal, ruthless and destructive. So while one can recognize the motivation that lies behind some of the opposition to gun control, I think it's sadly misguided."
("Secrets, Lies and Democracy")
It would be one thing to hear such rhetoric out of the Fabian socialists in the Democratic party. But to have the supposed "fringe radicals" saying there is no second amendment and advocating gun seizures is remarkable. And because of globalist infiltration of the left, this policy once favored by Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and other mass murderers has found a comfortable home. Hence it has become common to hear activists protesting the Iraq quagmire while simultaneously calling for gun control.
Environmental Front Groups
As masters of propaganda, the Globalists have used their Left Gatekeepers to push eugenics and population control as necessary for the environment. This has been accomplished through the phony environmental movement and "Peak Oil" fabrications.
The Club of Rome, a globalist front group created in 1968, immediately began calling for population reduction under the guise of environmentalism. Other fronts like the World Wildlife Fund, managed by the aforementioned Prince Philip, vocally push for population control while seizing large swaths of land for "Mother Earth." Other pet projects such as the Kyoto Protocol, which would give the U.N. total control of energy resources, have floundered.
Past WWF board members have included Bilderberg founder Prince Bernhard, Hollinger media gopher and Bilderberg member Conrad Black, Shell chairman John Loudon, King Juan Carlos of Spain, Prince Henrik of Denmark, and accused drug dealer Henry Keswick.
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 underestimated, 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", p. 388)
Here is Noam Chomsky, openly advocating a fascist takeover because the ends justify the means. This is classic problem-reaction-solution programming, as he points to the real threat of pollution and then offers the solution of tyranny.
(Also see " The Earth Charter and the Ark of Hope")
Peak Oil
As previously stated, the environmental movement was funded and amplified by Globalist oil, banking, and drug cartels, with specific help from the Rockefeller Foundation. The WWF, along with other phony NGO's like the Sierra Club and Greenpeace consistently call for population reduction. Additionally these groups push the flat earth thesis of "Peak Oil," predicting that oil supplies will soon run out and of course...require massive worldwide population reductions.
Chomsky posted an entry called "Peak Oil" on his blog in June, 2004, writing the following: "The basic theory is incontrovertible. The only questions have to do with timing and cost."
Then in a radio interview with Steve Scherr, Chomsky said the following of Peak Oil:
"There's another side to this, there's a sense in which it's advantageous if the oil peak is earlier. The reason why is it will compel the world, primarily the U.S. here, to move toward something like sustainable energy. If there's unbounded amounts of hydrocarbons, we're just going to destroy the environment for human life or most biological life, so the earlier the peak is, in some respects - yes, it could be catastrophic, it could also be beneficial."
The "beneficial" aspects Chomsky discusses are likely the resulting population control and starvation that would ensue from such a shortage.
But, in reality, oil is abiotic and constantly regenerating. This, while huge wells go untapped in Russia, Equatorial Guinea, Nigeria, Sudan, Cuba, Indonesia, Iraq, Alaska, Venezuela, Bolivia, Norway, and the Gulf of Mexico [and Alaska --ed]. Additionally, refinery capacity has been deliberately shut down by the oil oligopoly in order to create artificial supply shortages. Market prices are controlled by the Anglo-American cartel and they intend to use this as a vehicle for engineered crises. At this year's Bilderberg meeting Henry Kissinger reportedly predicted $100 a barrel oil within a year. The only possible result is a complete worldwide depression.
It is within the "radical" Left that horror stories of diminishing oil find their home. Even within the 9-11 truth movement, authors like Mike Ruppert and Nafeez Ahmed have attempted to attach Peak Oil as the reason for government engineering of 9-11 and the wars in the Middle East. By polluting the activist movements with Peak Oil lies, the Globalists have created an army of strong advocates for $5 a gallon gasoline.
Project for the New American Century (PNAC)
Another triumph of Chomsky's disinfo campaign has been the active denial of the The Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a neocon group that published radical statements calling for world war, population control, and a worldwide police state back in 2000. The signatures on the documents included Dick Cheney and cabinet members like Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Armitage, Dov Zakheim, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle, and Eliot Abrams.
It was Zakheim who previously ran Systems Planning Inc., which made remote-control software for commercial airliners. Also as comptroller of the Pentagon, he "lost" over $3 trillion of taxpayer money without explanation. Yet his corruption was not singular; after Bush took his figurehead position in the stolen election of 2000, all of the PNAC radicals became the architects of 9-11 and purveyors of pre-war lies about Iraq.
Their infamous "Rebuilding America's Defenses" document, produced in 2000 before 9-11, reads like prophecy, calling for theater wars against Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. They also admitted that "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor." September 11, anyone?
"The Pearl Harbor of the 21st century took place today." -- George W. Bush, 9/11/01, "House of Bush, House of Saud," by Craig Unger
They also openly called for killer viruses to wipe out large sectors of the human population. The document states: "[A]dvanced forms of biological warfare that can 'target' specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool."
How can Chomsky and his kin ignore the statements of the PNAC cabal, whose mad plans for world domination read like the lost chapters of [Hitler's] "Mein Kampf"?
If the Left Gatekeepers won't discuss these published documents, how can we expect them to research the true history of AIDS and the potential emerging avian flu? Should we be surprised when they fail to mention the 60 plus dead microbiologists after 9-11, many of them leading researchers in emerging viruses? Should we look to Chomsky to find an expose of the heavy metals and biological agents in chemtrails?
Israel and the Zionists
Many authors of the PNAC documents were radical Zionists linked to the Likud party in Israel, who presented similar plans to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in 1996 ("Policy for a Clean Break").
Chomsky, the supposed critic of Israel, has been praised by followers for his books like "The Fateful Triangle" which detail many Israeli war crimes. Furthermore he often criticizes the Israeli-linked network dominating U.S. foreign policy. But as always, Chomsky again avoids the hardcore issues, instead speaking in glittering generalities.
For example, he remains mute on the "Office of Special Plans," the ad-hoc nerve center of pre-war Iraq propaganda, run out of Cheney's office. It was here that Zionist moles like Paul Wolfowitz, Larry Franklin, Douglas Feith, Stephen Cambone, and Richard Perle cooked up phony WMD threats, links to 9-11, and collaboration between secular Iraq and Al-Qaeda.
Those same gophers, many of them assets of the Israeli Likud party and intelligence syndicate Mossad, operated a two-way spy network; just as manufactured propaganda flowed from Mossad to the OSP moles, U.S. secrets on Iran secretly floated into Sharon's war cabinet.
In the middle of all the traitorous espionage was the mafia don of all lobbying cartels, the Israeli-controlled AIPAC. Top level AIPAC officers like Steve Rosen often acted as a go-between, then using that same fake intelligence to strong-arm the Congress where they control both sides.
All parties mentioned, from Rosen to Franklin, are now under investigation from the FBI and Justice Department for the aforementioned crimes. Major articles in the Washington Post now admit Franklin, working with Feith and Cambone, was passing secrets to Israel through AIPAC. Chomsky has never spoken publically about any of these topics, and certainly not the Mossad involvement in false-flag terror events like the USS Liberty and connections to 9-11.
Vote Fraud
When he isn't busy covering up the facts surrounding 9-11 or the crimes of the CIA, Chomsky spends time actively denying the vote fraud of 2004, which ushered in another term for the neocon dictatorship. Chomsky often brags that he does not vote in presidential elections, noting that both sides are owned by corporations. But he has openly denied the role of electronic voting fraud in 2000 and the more prominent example of 2004. In 2004, exit polls in Ohio and Florida showed John Kerry winning by a comfortable margin, but mysteriously [the official] numbers showed a Bush victory.
The room for vote fraud was immense. The Secretary of State in Ohio, Ken Blackwell, managed Bush's campaign in the state, much like Katherine Harris did in Florida during 2000. Diebold, the company which makes most of the electronic voting machines, is crawling with former CIA and NSA members and used convicted felons to design their software. The Diebold CEO Walden O'Dell is a Bush Pioneer [financial supporter] and wrote in a GOP fundraising letter that he was "committed to delivering electoral votes to the President."
The Diebold [voting machine software] code is private and has been exposed as being easily hacked by Bev Harris at BlackBoxVoting.org. In North Carolina and Georgia, machines were throwing out 5,000 block votes for Bush without explanation. But none of this seems to interest Chomsky, who finds the accusations of vote fraud to be without merit:
"I don't find the evidence compelling. An inaccurate count in itself is a random effect. As for collusion, yes, there are concerns, but concerns are not evidence. The problem that concerns you may or may not be real, but in my view, even if we take the worst case scenario, it is still marginal -- just as the Florida chads were marginal in the 2000 elections. I know of no reason to suppose that electronic voting will have more than a random effect."
Chomsky and the gatekeepers cannot discuss the fraud of electronic voting because it would awaken too many people to the total bankruptcy of the system. It is important that college activists at Berkeley think their vote for Ralph Nader counted. If they knew the entire game was rigged like a Don King boxing match, too many illusions would break down.
World Government
Chomsky plays the left gatekeeper role perfectly, presenting a false dialectic of the evil American imperialist as the antagonist aggressor, contrasted by the savior U.N. world government as the benevolent deux ex machina.
This false propaganda model, pitting the imperialist U.S. against the godly [socialist] U.N. fits the classic M.O. 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.
The Globalists have long been masters of such a paradigm. In the early part of the 20th century, the same Wall Street bankers crafted the doctrines of Communism. While posing as a workers' liberation theology, it pushed for a central bank, world army, world court, world government, and the abolition of religion, private property, and the nation state.
(For more, see "Wall St. and the Bolshevik Revolution")
Like other "anarchist" agent provocatuers such as John Zerzan (who helped train violent mobs to ruin the Seattle WTO protests in 1999), Chomsky has called for the elimination of private property. He argues, "that some form of council communism is the natural form of revolutionary socialism in an industrial society."
In fact, Chomsky goes further, pushing for the elimination of the nation-state and national sovereignty to be replaced by a one world government:
"Well in my view what would be ultimately necessary would be a breakdown of the nation-state system -- because I think that's not a viable system. It's not necessarily the natural form of human organization." (p. 314)
Chomsky, echoing rhetoric from the phony Marxist doctrines, is essentially endorsing the major goal of the world elite: the breakdown of national sovereignty in favor of a one-world government.
Noam Chomsky is a shameless world government pimp, and has heaped lavish praise on men like Bertrand Russell who helped designed the New World Order. Luckily for him, Chomsky has been publicly rewarded for his faithful service to the U.N. cause. In February 2004, he received the Award of Excellence at the U.N. Correspondents Association Club in New York. Previous winners included Globalist assets like Mikhail Gorbachev.
UNESCO
Since Chomsky is an avowed global government cheerleader, is it any surprise he supports some of the worst U.N. programs? UNESCO, the nightmare U.N. vehicle posing as an "aid" organization, finds a strong advocate with Chomsky.
Long a pet project of the Malthusian-obsessed Rockefeller clan, UNESCO projects include filtering pro-UN propaganda into American schools and with the goal of eventually merging the curriculum with Mexico and Canada in the proposed Panamerican Union; and seizing control of huge swaths of American federal lands through U.N. "World Heritage" sites. The first UNESCO chief Julian Huxley said during his tenure in 1948:
"The general philosophy of UNESCO should be a scientific world humanism, global in extent... It can stress the transfer of full sovereignty from separate nations to a world political organization. Political unification in some sort of world government will be required to help the emergence of a single world culture."
But Noam Chomsky, ever the advocate of the U.N., endorses the goals of UNESCO wholeheartedly and lambastes the evil conservatives who question its motives:
"UNESCO - because it's working for the Third World we practically put them out of business. The United States launched a huge propaganda campaign against UNESCO. in the 1970's and Eighties -- it was full of outrageous lies, totally fabricated, but nevertheless it sufficed to eliminate the Third World orientation of UNESCO. and make it stop doing things it was doing around the Third World, like improving literacy and health care and so on." (p. 86)
Propaganda
Many credit Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent" with being the premier study of government propaganda. In Leftist circles it is hailed as a Bible, a rite of passage for any true activist to understand the system. But again, Chomsky's work, while appearing radical, is actually gatekeeper disinfo.
Chomsky spends the entire book attempting to prove that newspapers diminish American war crimes while exaggerating those of foreign governments. Such a point is easy to prove, and he does so in his own droll and methodical manner.
Yet he stops there. Chomsky does not discuss the real elephant in the room: direct CIA collaboration with media outlets and journalists beginning in the 1950's under Operation Mockingbird.
Chomsky avoids writing about Mockingbird, the CIA program which covertly put major publishing, newspaper, and media outlets, as well as thousands of individual reporters under direct agency control. Agents included Ben Bradlee at Newsweek, Henry Luce of Time and Life, Arthur Sulzberger of the New York Times, Alfred Friendly of the Washington Post, and Joseph Harrison of the Christian Science Monitor.
Shouldn't this be a significant development for a historian authoring an honest study of propaganda? After all, who is to say that this program doesn't still continue? The Bush administration has admitted spending hundreds of millions on fake newscasts and paying individual reporters like Armstrong Williams to push talking points in newspapers. What about the times they haven't been caught? Exactly how many mainstream commentary and news outlets work with the CIA and White House?
Perhaps this is the reason why the scripts of the nightly news on ABC, CBS, and NBC are almost exactly the same, while Newsweek, Time, and the New York Times push the elitist agenda on cue (as seen most prominently in the run up to the war in Iraq).
Furthermore Chomsky does not discuss collaboration between the Bilderberg Committee and the major media outlets. Shouldn't this concern the so-called radical anarchist, when media editors attend secret meetings calling for eugenics, world government, and a cashless society control grid? Owners, editors and writers from Time, Newsweek, Economist, Washington Post, New York Times, CBS, NBC, ABC and every news outlet in between have attended the world government meetings.
Further, what about the influence of the CFR, which openly calls for a Panamerican Union and the end of American national sovereignty? The CFR counts amongst its members major editors, owners, and journalists in media outlets from PBS to CBS; CNN to News Corp.; New Republic to U.S. News and World Report.
Aren't these the reasons that journalists push the propaganda Chomsky identifies? In "Manufacturing Consent," Chomsky takes limited aim at an easy target. But he fails to dig deeper and examine the actual reasons why the propaganda permeates the mainstream media opinion. Clearly the influence of the CIA, CFR, Bilderberg Committee, and White House have turned major media outlets into little more than docile commissars. Furthermore, the interlocking interests of media owners with the military industrial complex have served to sway content even further.
Chomsky's "classic" study is little more than a "limited hangout" project. He is merely shooting the messengers, blaming journalistic "bias" while failing to follow the trail of money, power, corruption, and black propaganda. Instead, he identifies some passive propaganda and is hailed as a brilliant analyst and purveyor of truth by the Leftist minions. But his true achievement is ignoring the reasons behind the lies, as he executes a masterful bait and switch tactic. Is it a coincidence that Chomsky's co-author for "Manufacturing Consent," Edward Herman, has also denied any government complicity in 9-11?
While claiming to expose propaganda, Chomsky has perfected the art.
Conclusions
Chomsky and his gatekeeper contemporaries are perfect devices 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 U.N., 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 to 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 U.N. They end up critiquing the Iraq disaster without seeing government involvement in 9-11 and the CIA/MI6/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. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
Home
Search
Log in
naderlibrary.com
