Controlled Asset
of the New World Order?
Noam Chomsky
Chomsky Dismisses 911
Conspiracy Theories As 'Dubious'
12-13-6
Controlled Asset of the New World Order?
Noam Chomsky and the Pro-Israel Lobby:
Fourteen Erroneous Theses
James Petras April 3, 2006
Conspiracy Theories As 'Dubious'
12-13-6
- The following is an exchange between a ZNet Sustainer and Noam Chomsky, which took place in the Sustainer Web Board where Noam hosts a forum...
- ZNet Sustainer: Dear Noam, There is much documentation observed and uncovered by the 911 families themselves suggesting a criminal conspiracy within the Bush Administration to cover-up the 9/11 attacks (see DVD, 9/11: Press for Truth). Additionally, much evidence has been put forward to question the official version of events. This has come in part from Paul Thompson, an activist who has creatively established the 9/11 Timeline, a free 9/11 investigative database for activist researchers, which now, according to The Village Voice's James Ridgeway, rivals the 9/11 Commission's report in accuracy and lucidity (see,
- http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0416,mondo1,52830,6.html ,
- or www.cooperativeresearch.org ).
- Noam Chomsky: Hard for me to respond to the rest of the letter, because I am not persuaded by the assumption that much documentation and other evidence has been uncovered. To determine that, we'd have to investigate the alleged evidence. Take, say, the physical evidence. There are ways to assess that: submit it to specialists -- of whom there are thousands -- who have the requisite background in civil-mechanical engineering, materials science, building construction, etc., for review and analysis; and one cannot gain the required knowledge by surfing the internet. In fact, that's been done, by the professional association of civil engineers. Or, take the course pursued by anyone who thinks they have made a genuine discovery: submit it to a serious journal for peer review and publication. To my knowledge, there isn't a single submission.
- ZNet Sustainer: A question that arises for me is that regardless of this issue, how do I as an activist prevent myself from getting distracted by such things as conspiracy theories instead of focusing on the bigger picture of the institutional analysis of private profit over people?
- Noam Chomsky: I think this reaches the heart of the matter. One of the major consequences of the 9/11 movement has been to draw enormous amounts of energy and effort away from activism directed to real and ongoing crimes of state, and their institutional background, crimes that are far more serious than blowing up the WTC would be, if there were any credibility to that thesis. That is, I suspect, why the 9/11 movement is treated far more tolerantly by centers of power than is the norm for serious critical and activist work. How do you personally set priorities? That's of course up to you. I've explained my priorities often, in print as well as elsewhere, but we have to make our own judgments.
- ZNet Sustainer: In a sense, profit over people is the real conspiracy, yes, yet not a conspiracy at all rather institutional reality? At the same time, if the core of conspiracy theories are accurate, which is challenging to pin down, though increasingly possible, does it not fit into the same motivations of furthering institutional aims of public subsidizes to private tyrannies? I mean, through the 9/11attacks, Bush Et Al. has been able to justify massive increases in defense spending for a "war without end," and Israel has been given the green light to do virtually whatever it wants since now 'the Americans are in the same fight.' Furthermore, there has been a substantial rollback of civil rights in our nation, with the most extreme example being strong attempt to terminate habeas corpus.
- Noam Chomsky: Can't answer for the same reasons. I don't see any reason to accept the presuppositions. As for the consequences, in one of my first interviews after 9/11 I pointed out the obvious: every power system in the world was going to exploit it for its own interests: the Russians in Chechnya, China against the Uighurs, Israel in the occupied territories,... etc., and states would exploit the opportunity to control their own populations more fully through "prevention of terrorism acts" and the like. By the "who gains" argument, every power system in the world could be assigned responsibility for 9/11.
- ZNet Sustianer: This begs the question: if 9/11 was an inside job, then what's to say that Bush Et Al., if cornered or not, wouldn't resort to another more heinous attack of grander proportions in the age of nuclear terrorism which by its very nature would petrify populations the world over, leading citizens to cower under the Bush umbrella of power.
- Noam Chomsky: Wrong question, in my opinion. They were carrying out far more serious crimes, against Americans as well, before 9/11 -- crimes that literally threaten human survival. They may well resort to further crimes if activists here prefer not to deal with them and to focus their attention on arcane and dubious theories about 9/11.
- ZNet Sustainer: Considering that in the US there are stage-managed elections, public relations propaganda wars, and a military-industrial-education-prison-etc. complex, does something like this sound far-fetched?
- Noam Chomsky: I think that's the wrong way to look at it. Everything you mention goes back far before 9/11, and hasn't changed that much since. More evidence that the 9/11 movement is diverting energy and attention away from far more serious crimes -- and in this case crimes that are quite real and easily demonstrated.
- ZNet Sustainer:Considering the long history of false flag operations to wrongly justify wars, our most recent precedent being WMD in Iraq, The Gulf of Tonkin in Vietnam, going back much further to Pearl Harbor (FDR knowingly allowing the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbor which is different from false flag operations), to the 1898 Spanish-American War, to the 1846 Mexican-American War, to Andrew Jackson's seizing of Seminole land in 1812 (aka Florida).
- Noam Chomsky: The concept of "false flag operation" is not a very serious one, in my opinion. None of the examples you describe, or any other in history, has even a remote resemblance to the alleged 9/11 conspiracy. I'd suggest that you look at each of them carefully.
- ZNet Sustainer: Lastly, as the world's leading terror state, would it not surprise anyone if the US was capable of such an action? Would it surprise you? Do you think that so-called conspiracy theorists have anything worthy to present?
- Noam Chomsky: I think the Bush administration would have had to be utterly insane to try anything like what is alleged, for their own narrow interests, and do not think that serious evidence has been provided to support claims about actions that would not only be outlandish, for their own interests, but that have no remote historical parallel. The effects, however, are all too clear, namely, what I just mentioned: diverting activism and commitment away from the very serious ongoing crimes of state.
- http://blog.zmag.org/node/2779
Reproduced from: www.Rense.com
Controlled Asset of the New World Order?
Noam Chomsky is often hailed as America’s premier dissident intellectual, a fearless purveyor of truth fighting against media propaganda, murderous U.S. foreign policy, and the crimes of profit-hungry transnational corporations.
He enjoys a slavish cult-like following from millions leftist students, journalists, and activists worldwide who fawn over his dense books as if they were scripture. To them, Chomsky is the supreme deity, a priestly master whose logic cannot be questioned.
However as one begins to examine the interviews and writings of Chomsky, a different picture emerges. His books, so vociferously lauded in leftist circles, appear to be calculated disinformation designed to distract and confuse honest activists. Since the 1960's, Chomsky has acted as the premier Left gatekeeper, using his elevated status to cover up the major crimes of the global elite.
His formula over the years has stayed consistent: blame "America" and "corporations" while failing to examine the hidden Globalist overclass which pulls the strings, using the U.S. as an engine of creation and destruction. Then after pinning all the worlds ills on American imperialism, Chomsky offers the solution of world government under the United Nations.
In his book "The Conspirator’s Hierarchy," Dr. John Coleman named Chomsky as a deep cover CIA agent working to undermine social protest groups. Certainly Dr. Coleman’s claims appear validated by an honest review of Chomsky’s role as a Left gatekeeper.
Since 9-11, he has steadfastly refused to discuss the evidence of government complicity and prior knowledge. Furthermore he claims that the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), Bilderberg Committee, and Trilateral Commission are "nothing organizations." When critiquing poverty, he never mentions the Federal Reserve and their role in manipulating the cycle of debt.
Similarly, he claims the CIA was never a rogue organization and is an innocent scapegoat; that JFK was killed by the lone assassin Lee Harvey Oswald; that the obvious vote fraud in 2004 did not occur; and that peak oil is real and good for humanity.
What he does advocate is population control, gun control, support for U.N.E.S.C.O., and the end of national sovereignty in favor of a one-world government under the UN. In other words, the major goals of the New World Order.
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 known 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.
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 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:
1) 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. 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 MO 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.
2) What about the unprecedented NORAD stand down on 9-11 which broke standard operation procedure? Over 67 times in 2001, NORAD had dispatched jets when they deviated from their flight path. In 1999, when golfer Payne Stewart’s single engine Lear in 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 give 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."
3) 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 ABCNEWS 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.
Chomsky denial of government complicity in the crimes of September 11 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 <>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 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, 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 President 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 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 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.
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 & front corporations while speaking in glittering generalities.
In the world of Left gatekeepers, the New World Order does not exist. There are no elite plan 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 board 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, 348)
The CFR, funded by Wall Street and the Rockefellers after WW II, 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 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. 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, 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 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,
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 bin Laden, 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.
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.
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 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 fits 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.
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 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 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 C.I.A. is basically just an obedient branch of the White House. I mean sure, the C.I.A. 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 C.I.A. 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 C.I.A. did it, and we can throw some of them to the wolves if we need to. That's basically the role of the C.I.A., 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.
Therefore is it any surprise the 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 anomalies 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 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 Bissel; 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 te shadow government takeover after his assassination.
What about Chomsky’s claims that the CIA never acts as a rogue elephant? Do they hold up?
Chomsky has never publicly acknowledged the covert CIA mind control programs known as MK ULTRA and its many offshoots. This program alone shows how the CIA was indeed a rogue elephant, as they ran illegal campaign of propaganda, brainwashing, sex slavery, and poisoning of citizens.
In 1946, Globalist bagman Harry Truman began a covert plan 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, Mortin Bormann and Josef Mengele among others owed their freedom to this program.
Those same men would later aid CIA coups in Angentina, 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 been 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 kidnaped 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, which usually fetch over $300 a piece.
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?
The Monarch Project of prostituting children deserves further mention (although Chomsky would disagree). In 1988 Vice President Bush was caught having 15 year-old call boy 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, Craig Spence, was suicided in his hotel with piano wire before he could testify. Book 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 of like the "The Finders" in Washington DC, where customs agents discovered a CIA warehouse full of child porn and satanic torture, stand as yet further evidence.
In the forrmer Yugloslavia, CIA front company Dyncorp has been convicted of operating in the human slave trade and using their C-130's to ship many of the 200,000 women and children smuggled out every year. Furthermore, mainstream news outlets have shown evidence of UN 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 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.
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 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 discusses the effects of sodium fluoride, nor the lead and arsenic used in water as silent weapons of pacification. 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?
Controlled Asset of the New World Order Part II
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, 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.
Chomsky and his 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 GlaxoSmithKline, 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 majors 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 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 NSM 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. (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?
Another one of the great successes of the Left gatekeeper has been pushing for unconstitutional gun control agenda through their publications like The Nation, Z Magazine, The Progressive, and their internet kin at DemocracyNow! & 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 mock s 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.
As masters of propaganda, the Globalists have uses 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 UN 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 understimated, and that the catastrophic effects are actually going to set in 10 years from now, and not 100 years from now or something. Well, given the state of the popular movements we have today, we’d probably have a fascist takeover-with everybody agreeing to it, because that would be the only method for survival that anyone could think of. I’d even agree to it, because there’s just no other alternatives right now. (Understanding Power, 388)
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
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. 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 years 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.
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?
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 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?
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 Isreali-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 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 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.
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 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 and wrote in a GOP fundraising letter that he was "committed to delivering electoral votes to the President."
The Diebold 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.
Chomsky plays the left gatekeeper role perfectly, presenting a false dialectic of the evil American imperialist as the antagonist aggressor, contrasted by the savior UN world government as the benevolent deux ex machina.
This false propaganda model, pitting the imperialist U.S. against the godly UN fits the classic MO of "poisoning the well." Essentially, Chomsky acts as a re-direct agent: he acknowledges many crimes of American foreign policy and then offers world government and international law as the solution.
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.
Like other "anarchist" agent provacatuers 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." (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. Lucky for him, Chomsky has been publicly rewarded for his faithful service to the UN cause. In Febraury 2004 he received the Award of Excellence at the UN Correspondents Association Club in New York. Previous winners included Globalist assets like Mikhail Gorbachev.
Since Chomsky is an avowed global government cheerleader, is it any surprise he supports some of the worst UN programs? U.N.E.S.C.O, the nightmare UN vehicle posing as an "aid" organization, finds a strong advocate with Chomsky.
Long a pet project of the Malthusian-obsessed Rockefeller clan, U.N.E.S.C.O 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 "UN World Heritage" sites. The first U.N.E.S.C.O 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 UN, endorses the goals of U.N.E.S.C.O wholeheartedly and lambastes the evil conservatives who question its motives:
U.N.E.S.C.O-because it’s working for the Third World-we practically put them out of business. The United States launched a huge propaganda campaign against U.N.E.S.C.O. 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 U.N.E.S.C.O. and make it stop doing things it was doing around the Third World, like improving literacy and health care and so on. (86)
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 method.
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, and Arthur Sulzberger of The New York Times, Alfred Friendly of the Washington Post, and Joseph Harrison Christian Science Monitor.
Shouldn’t this 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.
Furthermore, 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.
Chomsky and his gatekeeper contemporaries are perfect devises for the Globalists because they help define the limits of the false left-right paradigm. Much like David Horowitz, a former Leftist, currently does for the radical Right. Is it a surprise that he edited a book called "The Anti-Chomsky Reader?" It should only be natural since they both serve the same role of gatekeeper.
Puppets like Horowitz, Michael Savage, Sean Hannity, Michele Malkin, William Kristol, William F. Buckley and their kin serve as Right Gatekeepers. They criticize the failures of liberals and Democrats and then call for Bush worshipping, illegal wars, fascist government, and giving up all of our Constitutional rights for "security." In doing so they pollute the conservative movement and help marginalize true conservatives voices like Alex Jones, Ron Paul, and groups like Gun Owners of America.
Chomsky and his gatekeepers do the same thing. They write about the crimes of American imperialism and then call for population control, gun control, global government under the UN, and a totally socialized Brave New World society.
The Left gatekeepers must manage the delicate tight rope act of appearing radical while in actuality calling for worldwide enslavement and murder. In all likelihood they get a little help from the propaganda scientists at the venerable Tavistock institute in London and adjuncts of the CIA’s Mockingbird program; clearly the Left’s denial of 9-11 truths has been too coordinated too have simply been a freak occurrence.
In the mainstream it is the same with the staged battles between pawns like Democratic operative Al Franken and Republican Ann Coulter.
All of this is designed to create a tight spectrum, a masterfully crafted false paradigm to enslave the mind and give the people false choices. Thus at either extreme of the spectrum and all points in between, from Chomsky to Horowitz, one finds they are endorsing total enslavement and global government. This is the genius of the New World Order, their complete castration of free political will through carefully managed propaganda agents. The rest of the media jackals serve as willing accomplices, mere useful idiots and power hungry sycophants with massive egos and more concern for their career than the truth.
Noam Chomsky and his Left Gatekeeper associates must be actively exposed for their role in the propaganda system. For nearly 40 years since they infiltrated the activist movement, these Left gatekeepers have made the activist movements impotent, territorial, confused, and ineffective. Thus instead of understanding their enslavement, many activists end up calling for tighter chains by echoing Chomsky’s calls for gun control, population control, and a world government under the UN. They end up critiquing the Iraq disaster without seeing government involvement in 9-11 and the CIA/MI-6/Mossad creation known as Al-Qaeda.
Noam Chomsky and his clique of re-direct agents mercilessly push real activists into dead-end solutions. Until they are vocally exposed, the Left will continue to remain a managed asset of the New World Order.
Last updated 02/10/2005
Reproduced gratefully from: The Truthseeker
Following are my summary comments on my correspondence with Noam Chomsky (1989-1995). I wrote this in September 2000. It was also published in the Fall-Winter 2000/2001 issue (#36) of John Kelin's Fair Play online magazine http://home.rmi.net/~jkelin/fp.html
Michael D. Morrissey
Chomsky and AIDS
In my first letter to Chomsky, in April 1989, I included my review of the Turner film, The Men Who Killed Kennedy, which I had seen a few months earlier and had so turned my head around. He replied (5/15/89) that the review was "interesting" and that he "didn't know about the events" I described.
In retrospect, this is a puzzling remark. Three years later (3/3/92) he told me he had "read a good bit of the critical literature" (meaning critical of the Warren Report), so I suppose he did this reading in the meantime, the Gulf War notwithstanding.
I learned in 1995, however, after reading Ray Marcus's Appendix B (1995, self-published), that Chomsky had been well informed about the evidence of high-level conspiracy in the assassination twenty years before I wrote to him.
Marcus tells the story of trying to enlist the support of a number of progressive intellectuals in reopening the JFK case in 1969:
I first met with Noam Chomsky. Soon after our discussions began, he asked his secretary to cancel his remaining appointments for the day. The scheduled one-hour meeting stretched to 3-4 hours. Chomsky showed great interest in the material. We mutually agreed to a follow-up session later in the week. Then I met with Gar Alperovitz [a professor at Harvard]. At the end of our one-hour meeting, he said he would take an active part in the effort if Chomsky would lead it...
[The second meeting] again lasted much of an afternoon. The discussion ranged beyond evidentiary items to other aspects of the case. I told Chomsky of Alperovitz' offer to assist him if he decided to lead an effort to reopen. After the meeting, as they drove me back to my apartment, Bromberger [another MIT professor who had attended the meeting] expressed the view that, "If they are strong enough to kill the president, and strong enough to cover it up, then they are too strong to confront directly...if they feel sufficiently threatened., they may move to open totalitarian" ("they" was not further defined).
As we have seen from previous reactions by I.F. Stone, A.L. Wirin, and Carey McWilliams, this was similar to the fears expressed or implied by many leftist intellectuals among those who nevertheless professed faith in the Warren Report. From Bromberger, I was hearing it for the first time from someone who believed the report to be false.
I phoned Vince Salandria, of whom I had spoken to Chomsky, and asked him to send Chomsky his research and thinking. Salandria told me he was skeptical that Chomsky would actually get involved, based on his previous experiences with such left-oriented people. He reasoned that had they entertained any such intentions, they would have acted on them long before this. Nevertheless, he agreed to send the material.
Upon returning to Los Angeles, I wrote a lengthy letter to Chomsky summing up my overview of the case to that time, and stating as cogently as I could the arguments for his active involvement. He responded on April 18, 1969:
Just a quick note. I got your long letter, and some material from Salandria. I'll read both carefully. But I won't be able to decide anything until I return from England, in mid-June. Right now things are simply too rushed, and I'm too harassed to give serious thought to anything. I'll be in touch with you then. I don't know what the odds are. I'm still open-minded (and I hope will remain so).
From the context of our previous meetings it was clear that what Chomsky "...won't be able to decide" until he returned from England was not the question of whether or not there was a conspiracy--that he had given every indication of having already decided in the affirmative--but whether or not he wished to participate actively, even to assume a leading role, in the movement to reopen the case.
I never heard from him again, and Chomsky did not join such a movement. On the contrary, in recent years he has on a number of occasions gone on record attacking the critics' position and supporting the Warren Report (pp. 67-68).
What "events" had I described in my little review that Chomsky "didn't know about," after being informed by Marcus and Salandria twenty years earlier?
There is a telling parallel to this behavior in Chomsky's reaction to the AIDS origin issue.
In late summer 1989, I sent Chomsky an early (1986) paper by Segal in English and a copy of his first book, Aids: Erreger aus dem Genlabor ("AIDS: Germ from the Pentagon," Berlin: Simon und Leutner, 1987), which, though in German, I thought he would be able to read. (After all, I had to pass a German reading exam to qualify for my Ph.D. in linguistics, and he is the most famous linguist in the world!)
He thanked me (8/26/89) for "the surprising and very interesting material," without further comment.
I had "surprised" him with the "very interesting" argument that the Pentagon had created AIDS, and this was all he had to say? It was my turn to be surprised.
On Sept. 14, 1989 I sent him a copy of an article I had written summarizing Segal's theory ("Is AIDS Man-Made?"). He thanked me (9/22/89) for the "information," which he said was "most intriguing," but again had no further comment.
On Nov. 29, 1989, I sent Chomsky a photocopy of the MacArthur testimony from the Congressional Record (see "Informing the Press" in "Was There an AIDS Contract?"). He replied (12/28/89):
Thanks also for the material from the Hearings. Sends a chill up the spine. This is very far from my field, and I have no scientific judgment. But it is hard for me to believe that one can't obtain a scientific judgment from some knowledgeable and unprejudiced source. I don't know people directly involved in AIDS research, but there are plenty of them around.
A year later, on Nov. 30, 1990, I sent him another article about Segal, focussing on the MacArthur testimony ("Burying the Public Record"). Chomsky's reply (12/17/90) was: "Quite a story." These were his last words on the subject to me.
A "chill up the spine," but the man who calls Washington the "terrorist capital of the world" has no more to say on the subject.
The parallel is clear. In 1969, he learns from Marcus and Salandria about the evidence for conspiracy in the assassination, but has not a word more to say about the subject until twenty years later, when I write to him, at which time he professes "surprise" to hear about it. In 1989, he also expresses surprise and horror at the idea that the "terrorist" US government may have created AIDS, but has nothing further to say on this subject either.
This behavior strikes me as very much out of character--at least out of the character that I thought, from reading his books, that Chomsky possessed.
There is another significant parallel. Chomsky's trust in the integrity and objectivity of the "scientific community" (in quotes because I think it is more like the Mafia than a community) is astonishing, and again totally out of character for a man who is considered by many to be the "leading intellectual dissident" in the country.
In 1989 he assures me that "knowledgeable and unprejudiced" sources can answer the question of the origin of AIDS (although he obviously does not wish to pursue the question, despite a "chill up the spine").
A couple of years later, Chomsky reveals his absolute faith in the National Academy of Sciences. In dismissing the notion of conspiracy in the JFK assassination, he gives this example of conspiracy logic (July 1, 1992):
Thus when the National Academy of Sciences refutes by careful experiment the one reason offered by the House Committee to question the Warren Report, we can simply conclude that the scientists are in on the conspiracy. Anyone who knows them personally knows that this is laughable...
It is hard to remember, reading this, that the author is Noam Chomsky, author of many books and articles excoriating other academics and journalists, not to mention politicians and government officials, for their conformist, propagandized mentality (e.g., Manufacturing Consent). But in these lines we learn not only that it is "laughable" to doubt the judgment of a member of the National Academy of Scientists, but also, implicitly, that the House Select Committee on Assassinations 1979 report is trustworthy.
No one who has read "a good bit of the literature" could maintain such faith in either of these institutions--even before Gaeton Fonzi's definitive exposé of the HSCA's thoroughly compromised "investigation" (The Last Investigation, NY: Thunder's Mouth Press, 1993). No one, at least, who is not either incredibly naive, or the worst example of the kind of propagandized intellectual that Chomsky has so often (and effectively and correctly) warned us about.
Chomsky and CAIB/CAQ
Chomsky suggested that I send my review of the Turner film ("The Men Who Killed Kennedy") to CovertAction Information Bulletin (now Quarterly). This was the first I had heard of it.
One of CAIB's editors, Bill Vornberger, answered on 10/25/89 that they could not print my review because they were planning to run a review of Jim Garrison's On the Trail of the Assassins, which had just come out, in their next issue. This review never appeared, and as far as I know CAIB/CAB has never published anything about the Kennedy assassination.
Thus the first obvious question: Why has a journal devoted to exposing the misdeeds of the CIA so conspicuously avoided the subject of the JFK assassination, when a large portion of the general public believes the CIA was involved, and especially since the journal's longtime editors, Bill Schaap and Ellen Ray, were also the editors at Sheridan Square Press, which published Garrison's book, and the editors of Lies Of Our Times, a political monthly (now defunct) that published favorable (and reasonable) reviews of the Stone film?
Chomsky has always been a supporter of CAIB/CAQ; his photo adorns the magazine's subscription inserts. "Quite a good rag," he told me (May 15, 1989). "I write for it a lot."
Here again is a statement which in retrospect I find very puzzling. If I had bothered to check, I would have found that Chomsky had published only two articles in CAIB--actually only one, since the second one (No. 32, summer 1989) was simply a shortened version of the first (No. 26, summer 1986), and they were identically titled ("Libya in US Demonology").
Why did Schaap and Ray publish virtually the same article twice within three years? They had never done such a thing before, and they haven't since. Why would Chomsky refer to this one article, published twice, as "a lot"? How could he write for it "a lot," if it was only one article?
On May 21, 1992, referring to Alexander Cockburn's review of the Stone film in The Nation, Chomsky wrote to me:
But so far, his account is the only one in print that does justice to the factual record. Perhaps I should abstain from comment on this, since I did a lot of the background research for it (though what he wrote is his way of using it).
I would like to know how many professors, especially famous professors, do "background research" for journalists. Chomsky is the only one I have ever heard of.
Maybe this is the way to understand his remark about having written "a lot" for CAIB, although only one article had appeared under his name. If he does "background research" for Alexander Cockburn, why shouldn't he do it for others?
Although CAIB/CAQ has strictly avoided the assassination in print, Vornberger told me in the same letter that "we are very much aware of the fact that Kennedy was killed by members of a conspiracy." "In fact," Vornberger continued, "it is our opinion that these men were current or former employees of the CIA." Vornberger also said "we highly recommend" Jim Garrison's On the Trail of the Assassins.
The question screaming at us here is: If that's what they think, why haven't they written about it?
CAIB/CAQ and AIDS
I also sent "Burying the Public Record," which Chomsky found to be "quite a story," to Lies Of Our Times. Bill Schaap replied (12/27/90) that they had "real problems with the Segal material," that "the most credible critic in this country of the standard medical establishment line is Dr. Peter Duesberg," and that although "incredibly significant," the AIDS origin issue was not, as I had called it, "'the biggest cover-up since JFK.'"
He said LOOT or CAIB would be interested in a "general piece on the failure of the media (U.S. and Western Europe) to cover alternative theories in general, which would not have to accept any particular theory, but would show how conferences which take the establishment line get considerable coverage whereas those which do not are barely, if at all, covered."
CAQ did not come out with an AIDS article until six years later, in their Fall 1996 (No. 58) issue. This article, "Tracking the Real Genocide," by David Gilbert, a prison inmate, hardly fulfilled Schaap's call for fair coverage of "alternative theories."
Gilbert offers a two-sentence summary of Segal's theory, failing to mention that Segal claims the virus escaped by accident, thus making it appear that Segal blamed the Pentagon for spreading it on purpose, which he did not. This gross misrepresentation of Segal is especially surprising considering what Schaap had written to me six years earlier (12/27/90):
We have real problems with the Segal material, even though we did, at CAIB, publish Dr. Lehrman's article which relied to some extent on it. (We do have his English monograph.) There was a logical fallacy in Lehrman's reliance, too, because he used Segal's theories to bolster his notion that the release of AIDS was deliberate, even though Segal believes that it was accidentally released.
But in 1996, Schaap allows Gilbert to get away with this blatant misrepresentation.
What "problems," one must ask, did the CAIB editors have with the Segal material? Why did they have no problems with the Gilbert article, which they must have known was a travesty? Gilbert not only misrepresents Segal but fails completely to mention other dissident AIDS researchers, notably Robert Strecker and Alan Cantwell. He dismisses the science of the matter by asking his microbiologist friend Janet Stavnezer, who assured him that "the Segals' splice theory is scientifically impossible."
In the issue of CAQ following the Gilbert article (No. 59, Winter 1996), Nathaniel Lehrman writes in a letter to the editor that his 1987 article "Is AIDS Non-Infectious" (CAIB No. 28) "examined and demolished the Segal hypothesis of a synthetically created AIDS virus."
This is truly astonishing. It will be clear to anyone who reads the earlier article that exactly the opposite is true. In that article, Lehrman suggests that HIV, although it is only "closely associated " with AIDS [following Duesberg], might be "a laboratory-created, minimally infective agent intended to be blamed for the chemical poisoning it actually accompanies."
Far from "demolishing" Segal, Lehrman affirms and goes considerably beyond it, suggesting that AIDS was not only man-made, but made on purpose:
The information described here, and the history of CBW research, suggest that AIDS may indeed be another example of a deliberately created disease (p. 62).
How is one to understand such self-contradictions? Schaap tells me in 1990 that his magazine wants to give decent coverage to "alternative" theories like Segal's, and six years later he publishes an article that does just the opposite. Gilbert gives us "official AIDS doctrine," as Lehrman puts it, grossly misrepresenting Segal, and Lehrman responds with an even grosser misrepresentation of what he himself had written in the same magazine nine years earlier!
One thing is clear: the message, flawed as it is, from CAIB/CAQ is that theories of the artificial origin of AIDS are not to be taken seriously.
Chomsky and Vietnam
Chomsky's argument is that
- Vietnam policy did not change after the assassination (until 1968, of course)
- Only tactics changed, quite coincidentally, at the same time as the assassination, in response to the changed military situation.
- The change in tactics was first made by JFK, not LBJ.
1 is justified by Chomsky's definition of the word policy to mean "withdrawal if and only if victory is assured." This is his interpretation, from which he refuses to budge an inch, of one sentence in the McNamara-Taylor recommendations approved by NSAM 263:
This action [troop withdrawals] should be explained in low key as an initial step in a long-term program to replace U.S. personnel with trained Vietnamese without impairment of the war effort.
Chomsky insists that the last six words constitute an "explicit condition" of victory before any withdrawal would take place, and that this was the policy of both JFK and LBJ.
This is pure linguistics. Now, Chomsky is the greatest linguist in the world, but look at the linguistic facts he ignores in his interpretation:
First, the sentence can easily be understood to mean "This is the way we should explain it, but not necessarily the whole truth." Obviously, McNamara and Taylor (and JFK) would not have wanted it to look like they were simply abandoning the South Vietnamese.
More importantly, the phrase "without impairment of the war effort" is not an explicit condition, even if the most famous linguist in the world says it is. Consider:
My plan is to wash the windows without hurting the plants.
Does this mean (Chomsky's interpretation)
My plan is to wash the windows if and only if I can do so without hurting the plants.
or does it mean, as I am quite certain it does,
My plan is to wash the windows and not hurt the plants (and I think I can do so).
This is what the sentence means, and it is what McNamara and Taylor meant: "The plan--at least the way we should explain the plan--is to withdraw and do so without impairment of the war effort (which as we have said should be taken over completely by the Vietnamese by the end of 1965)."
But Chomsky wants us to understand it as: "The plan is to withdraw if and only if victory is assured."
Who is right? You be the judge.
The second argument is meant to back up the first. If the policy never changed, it does not matter when the tactics changed, whether under JFK or LBJ, but we would still be left with the troublesome coincidence that the change in tactics (in fact a reversal, from withdrawal to escalation, from not fighting the war to fighting the war) took place immediately after the assassination.
But lo and behold, on Jan. 31, 1991, right out of the blue, apparently, a draft of NSAM 273 appears from the black box that houses "national security" secrets, with no explanation as to why it was being released 13 years after the final document was released (NSAM 273 was declassified in 1978), or who or what was causing it to be released (an interesting question in itself, as is the question of its authenticity).
This is all Chomsky needs for his third argument: If anyone should insist that even a reversal of tactics, if not of policy, so close on the heels of the murder of the head of state in charge of both the policy and the tactics, could be suspicious, thanks to the Bundy draft we now know that the person behind the change in tactics was not Johnson, but Kennedy.
Why? Because Bundy wrote the draft on Nov. 21, one day before the assassination! Therefore, Chomsky concludes, JFK would have signed it (although he never saw it or discussed it with Bundy or anyone else). Therefore, Chomsky further concludes, the people who say NSAM 273 shows a change in policy (Peter Dale Scott, John Newman, Arthur Schlesinger) are right, but wrong about who was responsible for it.
Chomsky's third argument actually contradicts the first. It's like saying, "I don't care what flavor it is, but make sure it's vanilla." If "tactical" changes don't matter, they don't matter. If they don't matter, there is no reason to make the further point--dubious in itself--that JFK made the change. By adding this third argument, Chomsky allows for the possibility that the "tactical" change was indeed significant, which destroys the premise expressed in the first argument.
What does all this mean?
What is the message we are hearing from Chomsky and CAIB/CAQ? It is clear:
No AIDS conspiracy
No assassination conspiracy
No connection between Vietnam and the assassination
Surely it cannot escape our attention that this is precisely the same message we have been hearing from the government, from the mainstream press, and the so-called "scientific community." Nor should it escape our attention, as I think even this brief summary shows, that the argumentation presented to support these conclusions is patently false in each case.
Of course it is not necessarily wrong to agree with the government. But when "radical dissidents" agree so completely with the government, on such important questions, and the reasoning employed is so clearly wrong, the warning bells should sound.
Ding dong.
Reproduced gratefully from Michael D. Morrissey's Homepage
Noam Chomsky and the Pro-Israel Lobby: Fourteen Erroneous Theses James Petras
April 3, 2006
shamireaders@yahoogroups.com
"…Reflexes that ordinarily spring automatically to the defense of open debate and free enquiry shut down – at least among much of America’s political elite – once the subject turns to Israel, and above all the pro-Israel lobby’s role in shaping US foreign policy…Moral blackmail – the fear that any criticism of Israeli policy and US support for it will lead to charges of anti-Semitism – is a powerful disincentive to publish dissenting views. It is also leading to the silencing of policy debate on American university campuses, partly as the result of targeted campaigns against the dissenters…Nothing, moreover, is more damaging to US interests than the inability to have a proper debate about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict…Bullying Americans into consensus on Israeli policy is bad for Israel and makes it impossible for America to articulate its own national interests…." Financial Times, Editorial, Saturday, April 01, 2006.
Introduction
Noam Chomsky has been called the US leading intellectual by pundits and even some sectors of the mass media. He has a large audience throughout the world especially in academic circles, in large part because of his vocal criticism of US foreign policy and many of the injustices resulting from those policies. Chomsky has nonetheless been reviled by all of the major Jewish and pro-Israel organizations and media for his criticism of Israeli policy toward the Palestinians even as he has defended the existence of the Zionist state of Israel. Despite his respected reputation for documenting, dissecting and exposing the hypocrisy of the US and European regimes and acutely analyzing the intellectual deceptions of imperial apologists, these analytical virtues are totally absent when it comes to discussing the formulation of US foreign policy in the Middle East, particularly the role of his own ethnic group, the Jewish Pro-Israel lobby and their Zionist supporters in the government. This political blindness is not unknown or uncommon. History is replete of intellectual critics of all imperialisms except their own, the abuses of power by others, but not of one’s own kin and kind. Chomsky’s long history denying the power and role of the pro-Israel lobby in decisively shaping US Middle East policy culminated in his recent conjoining with the US Zionist propaganda machine attacking a study critical of the Israeli lobby. I am referring to the essay published by the London Review of Books entitled "The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy" by Professor John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Professor Stephan Walt, the purged Academic Dean of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. (A complete version of the study was published by the Kennedy School of Government in March 2006.)
Chomsky’s speeches and writing on the Lobby emphasizes several dubious propositions.
1) The pro-Israel Lobby is just like any other lobby; it has no special influence or place in US politics.
2) The power of the groups backing the Israel lobby are no more powerful than other influential pressure groups
3) The Lobby’s agenda succeeds because it coincides with the interests of the dominant powers and interests of the US State.
4) The Lobby’s weakness is demonstrated by the fact that Israel is 'merely a tool’ of US empire building to be used when needed and otherwise marginalized.
5) The major forces shaping US Middle East policy are "big oil" and the "military-industrial complex", neither of which is connected to the pro-Israel lobby.
6) The interests of the US generally coincide with the interests of Israel
7) The Iraq War, the threats to Syria and Iran are primarily a product of "oil interests" and the "military-industrial complex" and not the role of the pro-Israel lobby or its collaborators in the Pentagon and other government agencies.
While in general Chomsky has deliberately refrained from specifically discussing the pro-Israel lobby in his speeches, interviews and publications analyzing US policy toward the Middle East, but when he does, he follows the above-mentioned repertory.
The problem of war and peace in the Middle East and the role of the Israel lobby is too serious to be marginalized as an after-thought. Even more important, the increasing censoring of free speech and erosion of our civil liberties, academic freedom by an aggressive lobby, with powerful legislative and White House backers, is a threat to our already limited democracy.
It is incumbent therefore to examine the fourteen erroneous theses of the highly respected Professor Chomsky in order to move ahead and confront the Lobby’s threats to peace abroad and civil liberties at home.
Fourteen Theses
1) Chomsky claims that the Lobby is just another lobby in Washington. Yet he fails to observe that the lobby has secured the biggest Congressional majorities in favor of allocating three times the annual foreign aid designated to all of Africa, Asia and Latin America to Israel (over 100 billion dollars over the past 40 years). The Lobby has 150 full time functionaries working for the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), accompanied by an army of lobbyists from all the major Jewish organizations (Anti-Defamation League, American Jewish Committee, American Jewish Congress, etc.) and the nation-wide, regional and local Jewish federations which hew closely to the line of the "majors" and are active in policy and local opinion on Israel and promote and finance legislative candidates on the basis of their adherence to the Lobby’s party line. No other lobby combines the wealth, grass roots networks, media access, legislative muscle and single-minded purpose of the pro-Israel lobby.
2) Chomsky fails to analyze the near unanimous congressional majorities which yearly support all the pro-Israel military, economic, immigration privileges and aid promoted by the Lobby. He fails to examine the list of over 100 successful legislative initiatives publicized yearly by AIPAC even in years of budgetary crisis, disintegrating domestic health services and war induced military losses.
3) Chomsky’s cliché-ridden attribution of war aims to "Big Oil" is totally unsubstantiated. In fact the US-Middle East wars prejudice the oil interests in several strategic senses. The wars generate generalized hostility to oil companies with long-term relations with Arab countries. The wars result in undermining new contracts opening in Arab countries for US oil investments. US oil companies have been much friendlier to peacefully resolving conflicts than Israel and especially its Lobbyists as any reading of the specialized oil industry journals and spokespeople emphasize. Chomsky chooses to totally ignore the pro-war activities and propaganda of the leading Jewish pro-Israel organizations and the absence of pro-war proposals in Big Oil’s media, and their beleaguered attempt to continue linkages with Arab regimes opposed to Israel’s belligerent hegemonic ambitions. Contrary to Chomsky, by going to war in the Middle East, the US sacrifices the vital interests of the oil companies in favor of Israel’s quest for Middle East hegemony at the call and behest of the pro-Israel lobby. In the lobbying contest there is absolutely no contest between the pro-Israel power bloc and the oil companies when it comes to favoring Israeli interests over oil interests, whether the issue is war or oil contracts. Chomsky never examines the comparative strength of the two lobbies regarding US policy toward the Middle East. In general this usually busy researcher devoted to uncovering obscure documentation is particularly lax when it come to uncovering readily available documents, which shred his assertions about Big Oil and the Israel Lobby.
4) Chomsky refuses to analyze the diplomatic disadvantages that accrue to the US in vetoing Security Council resolutions condemning Israel’s systematic violations of human rights. Neither the military-industrial complex nor Big Oil has a stranglehold on US voting behavior in the UN. The pro-Israel lobbies are the only major lobby pressuring for the vetoes against the US’ closest allies, world public opinion and at the cost of whatever role the US could play as a 'mediator’ between the Arabic-Islamic world and Israel.
5) Chomsky fails to discuss the role of the Lobby in electing Congress-people, their funding of pro-Israel candidates and the over fifty-million dollars they spend on the Parties, candidates and propaganda campaigns. The result is a 90% congressional vote on high priority items pushed by the Lobby and affiliated local and regional pro-Israel federations.
6) Nor does he undertake to analyze the cases of candidates defeated by the Lobby, the abject apologies extracted from Congress-people who have dared to question the policies and tactics of the Lobby, and the intimidation effect of its 'exemplary punishments’ on the rest of Congress. The "snowball" effect of punishment and payoffs is one reason for the unprecedented majorities in favor of all of AIPAC’s initiatives. Chomsky’s feeble attempts to equate the AIPAC’s pro-Israel initiatives with broader US policy interests is patently absurd to anyone who studies the alignment of policy groups associated with designing, pressuring, backing and co-sponsoring the AIPAC’s measures: The reach of the Jewish lobby far exceeds its electoral constituency – as the one million dollar slush fund to defeat incumbent Georgia Congresswoman, Cynthia McKinny, demonstrates. That she was subsequently re-elected on the basis of low keying her criticism of Israel reveals the Lobby’s impact even on consequential Democrats.
7) Chomsky ignores the unmatchable power of elite convocation which the Lobby has. The AIPAC annual meeting draws all the major leaders in Congress, key members of the Cabinet, over half of all members of Congress who pledge unconditional support for Israel and even identify Israel’s interests as US interests. No other lobby can secure this degree of attendance of the political elite, this degree of abject servility, for so many years, among both major parties. What is particularly important is the "Jewish electorate" is less than 5% of the total electorate, while practicing Jews number less than 2% of the population of which not all are 'Israel Firsters’. None of the major lobbies like the NRA, AARP, the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Chamber of Commerce can convoke such a vast array of political leaders, let alone secure their unconditional support for favorable pro-Israel legislation and Executive orders. No less an authority as the Prime Minister of Israel, Ariel Sharon, boasted of the power of the pro-Israel lobby over US Middle East policy. Chomsky merely asserts that the Pro-Israel lobby is just like any other lobby, without any serious effort to compare their relative influence, power of convocation and bi-partisan support, or effectiveness in securing high priority legislation.
8) In his analysis of the run-up to the US-Iraq War, Chomsky’s otherwise meticulous review of foreign policy documents, analysis of political linkages between policymakers and power centers is totally abandoned in favor of impressionistic commentaries completely devoid of any empirical basis. The principal governmental architects of the war, the intellectual promoters of the war, their publicly enunciated published strategies for the war were all deeply attached to the Israel lobby and worked for the Israeli state. Wolfowitz, number 2 in the Pentagon, Douglas Feith, number 3 in the Pentagon, Richard Perle, head of the Defense Board, Elliot Abrams in charge of Middle East affairs for the National Security Council, and dozens of other key operatives in the government and ideologues in the mass media were life-long fanatical activists in favor of Israel, some of whom had lost security clearances in previous administrations for handing over documents to the Israeli government. Chomsky ignores the key strategy documents written by Perle, Feith and other ZionCons in 1996 demanding bellicose action against Iraq, Iran and Syria, which they subsequently implemented when they took power with Bush’s election. Chomsky totally ignores the disinformation office set up in the Pentagon by ultra Zionist Douglas Feith – the so-called 'Office of Special Plans’ – run by fellow ZionCon Abram Shumsky - to channel bogus "data" to the White House – bypassing and discrediting CIA and military intelligence which contradicted their disinformation. Non-Zionist specialist in the Pentagon’s Middle East office, Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski, described in great detail the easy and constant flow of Mossad and Israeli military officers in and out of Feith’s office while critical US experts were virtually barred. None of these key policymakers promoting the war had any direct connection to the military-industrial complex or Big Oil, but all were deeply and actively tied to the State of Israel and backed by the Lobby. Astonishingly Chomsky, famous for his criticism of intellectuals enamored with imperial power and uncritical academics, pursues a similar path when it concerns pro-Israel intellectuals in power and their Zionist academic colleagues. The problem is not only the "lobby" pressuring from outside, but their counterparts within the State.
9) Chomsky frequently derides the half-hearted criticism by liberals of US foreign policy, yet he nowhere raises a single peep about the absolute silence of Jewish progressives about the major role of the Lobby in promoting the invasion of Iraq. At no point does he engage in debate or criticism of the scores of Israel First academic supporters of war with Iraq, Iran or Syria. Instead his criticism of the war revolves around the role of Party leaders, the Bush Administration etc… without any attempt to understand the organized basis and ideological mentors of the militarists.
10) Chomsky fails to analyze the impact of the concerted and uninterrupted campaign organized by all major US pro-Israel lobbies and personalities to silence criticism of Israel and the Lobby’s support for the war. Chomsky’s refusal to criticize the Lobby’s abuse of anti-Semitism to destroy our civil liberties, hound academics out of the universities and other positions for criticizing Israel and the Lobby is most evident in the recent smear campaign of Professors Walt and Mearsheimer. While the Lobby successfully pressured Harvard to disclaim Professor Walt and eventually force his resignation from the Deanship at the Kennedy School at Harvard, Chomsky joined the Lobby in condemning their extensive critical scholarship and meticulous analysis. At no point does Chomsky deal with the central facts of their analysis about the Lobby’s contemporary power over US Middle East policy. The irony is Chomsky himself an occasional victim of academic Zionist hatchet jobs; this time he is on the givers’ end.
11) Chomsky fails to assess the power of the Lobby in comparison with other institutional forces. For example top US Generals have frequently complained that Israeli armed forces receive new high tech military hardware before it has become operational in the US. Thanks to the Lobby, their complaints are rarely heeded. US defense industries (some of whom have joint production contracts with Israeli military industries) have bitterly complained of Israel’s unfair competition, violation of trade agreements and the illegal sale of high tech weaponry to China. Under threat of losing all their lucrative ties with the Pentagon, Israel cancelled sales to China, while the Lobby looked on… During the run-up to the US invasion of Iraq, many active and retired military officials and CIA analysts opposed the War, questioned the assumptions and projections of the pro-Israel ideologues in the Pentagon like Wolfwitz, Feith, Perle and in the National Security Council, the State Department and the Vice President’s office (Irving 'ZionCon’ Libby). They were over-ruled, their advice dismissed by the ZionCons and belittled by their ideological backers writing in the major print media. The position of the ZionCons in the government successfully overcame their institutional critics in large part because their opinion and policies toward the war were uncritically accepted by the mass media and particularly by the New York Times whose primary war propagandist, Judith Miller, has close links with the Lobby. These are well known historical linkages and debates which a close reader of the mass media like Chomsky was aware of , but deliberately chose to omit and deny, substituting more 'selective’ criticism of the Iraq war based on the exclusion of vital facts.
12) In what passes for Chomsky’s "refutation" of the power of the Lobby is a superficial historical review of US-Israel relations citing the occasional conflict of interests in which, even more occasionally, the pro-Israel lobby failed to get its way. Chomsky’s historical arguments resemble a lawyer’s brief more than a comprehensive review of the power of the Lobby. For example, while in 1956 the US objected to the joint French-British-Israeli attack on Egypt, over the next 50 years the US financed and supplied the Israeli war machine to the tune of $70 billion dollars, thanks largely to the pressure of the Lobby. In 1967, the Israeli air force bombed the US intelligence gathering ship, the USS Liberty, in international waters and strafed to US Naval personnel killing or wounding over 200 sailors and officers. The Johnson Administration, in a historically unprecedented move, refused to retaliate and silenced the survivors of the unprovoked attack with threats of 'court-martial’. No subsequent administration has ever raised the issue, let alone conducted an official Congressional investigation, even as they escalated aid to Israel and prepared to use nuclear weapons to defend Israel when it seem to be losing the Yom Kippur War in 1973. The US defense of Israel led to the very costly Arab oil boycott, which brought on a massive increase in the price of oil and the animosity of former Arab allies threatening global monetary stability. In other words, in this as in many other cases, the pro-Israel lobby was more influential than the US armed forces in shaping US response to an Israeli act of aggression against American service men operating in international waters. In recent years, the power of the Lobby has seriously inhibited the FBI’s prosecution of the scores of Israeli spies who entered the US in 2001. The most that was done was their quiet deportation. The recent arrest of two AIPAC officials for handing confidential government documents over to Israeli embassy officials has led the pro-Israel lobby to mobilize a massive media campaign in their defense, converting an act of espionage against the US into an 'exercise of free speech’. Editorials and op-ed articles in favor of dismissal of the charges have appeared in most of the leading newspapers in what must be the most unprecedented campaign in favor of agents of a foreign government in US history. The power of the propaganda reach of the Lobby far exceeds any countervailing power, even though the case against the AIPAC officials is very strong, including the testimony of the key Pentagon official convicted of handing them the documents.
13) Chomsky, a highly reputable critic of the bias of the mass media, attributes corporate ties to their anti-workers news reports. However when it comes to the overwhelming pro-Israel bias he has never analyzed the influence of the Israel lobby, the link between the pro-Israel media elite and the pro-Israel bias. Merely a blind spot or a case of ideologically driven intellectual amnesia…?
14) Chomsky cites Israel’s importance for US imperial strategy in weakening Arab nationalism, its role in providing military aid and military advisers to totalitarian terrorist regimes (Guatemala, Argentina, Colombia, Chile, El Salvador, and so on) when the US Congress imposes restrictions to direct US involvement. There is little doubt that Israel serves US imperial purposes, especially in situations where bloody politics are involved. But Israel did so because it benefited from doing so – it increased military revenues, gained backers favoring Israel’s colonial policies, provided markets for Israeli arms dealers etc. However, a more comprehensive analysis of US interests demonstrates that the costs of supporting Israel far exceed the occasional benefit, whether we consider advantages to US imperial goals or even more so from the vantage point of a democratic foreign policy. With regard to the costly and destructive wars against Iraq, following Israel’s lead and its lobbies, the pro-Israel policy has severely undermined US military capacity to defend the empire, has led to a loss of prestige and discredited US claims to be a champion of freedom and democracy. From the viewpoint of democratic foreign policy it has strengthened the militarist wing of the government and undermined democratic freedoms at home. Israel benefits, of course, because the war destroyed a major secular adversary and allowed it to tighten its stranglehold on the Occupied Territories.
The unconditional commitment to the Israeli colonial state has eroded US relations with the richest and most populous states in the Arab and Islamic world. In market terms the difference is between hundreds of billions of dollars in sales versus defending a receiver of massive US aid handouts. The economic losses far outweigh any small-scale questionable military benefits. The Arab states are net buyers of US military hardware. The Israeli arms industry is a stiff competitor.
US oil and gas companies are net losers in terms of investments, profits and markets because of the US ties to Israel which, because of its small market, has little to offer in each of the above categories.
Finally Israel’s ethnic cleansing of Palestinians and the Lobby’s effective campaign to secure US vetoes against international resolutions puts the US on the side of widespread, legalized torture, legalized extrajudicial executions and illegal massive population displacement. The end result is the weakening of international law and increased volatility in an area of great strategic importance. Chomsky takes no account of the geo-strategic and energy costs, the losses in our domestic freedoms resulting directly from the Middle East wars for Israel, and even less of the rise of a virulent form of Zionist Neo-McCarthyism spreading throughout our academic, artistic and other public and private institutions. If anything demonstrates the Zionists’ growing power and authoritarian reach, the brutal and successful campaign against Professors Mearsheimer and Walt confirm it, in spades.
Conclusion
In normal times one would give little attention to academic polemics unless they have important political consequences. In this case, however, Noam Chomsky is an icon for the US anti-war movements and what stands for intellectual dissent. That he has chosen to absolve the pro-Israel lobby and its affiliated groups and media auxiliaries is an important political event, especially when questions of war and peace hang in the balance, when the majority of Americans oppose the war. Giving a 'free ride’ to the principle authors, architects and lobbyists in favor of the war is a positive obstacle to achieving clarity about who we are fighting and why. To ignore the pro-Israel lobby is to allow it a free hand in pushing for the invasion of Iran and Syria. Worse, to distract from their responsibility by pointing to bogus enemies is to weaken our understanding not only of the war, but also of the enemies of freedom in this country. Most of all, it allows a foreign government a privileged position in dictating our Middle East policy, while proposing police state methods and legislation to inhibit debate and dissent. Let me conclude by saying that the peace and justice movements, at home and abroad, are bigger than any individual or intellectual – no matter what their past credentials.
Yesterday the major Zionist organizations told us who we may or may not criticize in the Middle East, today they tell us who we may criticize in the United States, tomorrow they will tell us to bend our heads and submit to their lies and deceptions in order to engage in new wars of conquest at the service of a morally repugnant colonial regime.
ZNet | Foreign Policy
The Israel Lobby?
I've received many requests to comment on the article by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt (henceforth M-W), published in the London Review of Books, which has been circulating extensively on the internet and has elicited a storm of controversy. A few thoughts on the matter follow.
It was, as noted, published in the London Review of Books, which is far more open to discussion on these issues than US journals -- a matter of relevance (to which I'll return) to the alleged influence of what M-W call "the Lobby." An article in the Jewish journal Forward quotes M as saying that the article was commissioned by a US journal, but rejected, and that "the pro-Israel lobby is so powerful that he and co-author Stephen Walt would never have been able to place their report in a American-based scientific publication." But despite the fact that it appeared in England, the M-W article aroused the anticipated hysterical reaction from the usual supporters of state violence here, from the Wall St Journal to Alan Dershowitz, sometimes in ways that would instantly expose the authors to ridicule if they were not lining up (as usual) with power.
M-W deserve credit for taking a position that is sure to elicit tantrums and fanatical lies and denunciations, but it's worth noting that there is nothing unusual about that. Take any topic that has risen to the level of Holy Writ among "the herd of independent minds" (to borrow Harold Rosenberg's famous description of intellectuals): for example, anything having to do with the Balkan wars, which played a huge role in the extraordinary campaigns of self-adulation that disfigured intellectual discourse towards the end of the millennium, going well beyond even historical precedents, which are ugly enough. Naturally, it is of extraordinary importance to the herd to protect that self-image, much of it based on deceit and fabrication. Therefore, any attempt even to bring up plain (undisputed, surely relevant) facts is either ignored (M-W can't be ignored), or sets off most impressive tantrums, slanders, fabrications and deceit, and the other standard reactions. Very easy to demonstrate, and by no means limited to these cases. Those without experience in critical analysis of conventional doctrine can be very seriously misled by the particular case of the Middle East(ME).
But recognizing that M-W took a courageous stand, which merits praise, we still have to ask how convincing their thesis is. Not very, in my opinion. I've reviewed elsewhere what the record (historical and documentary) seems to me to show about the main sources of US ME policy, in books and articles for the past 40 years, and can't try to repeat here. M-W make as good a case as one can, I suppose, for the power of the Lobby, but I don't think it provides any reason to modify what has always seemed to me a more plausible interpretation. Notice incidentally that what is at stake is a rather subtle matter: weighing the impact of several factors which (all agree) interact in determining state policy: in particular, (A) strategic-economic interests of concentrations of domestic power in the tight state-corporate linkage, and (B) the Lobby.
The M-W thesis is that (B) overwhelmingly predominates. To evaluate the thesis, we have to distinguish between two quite different matters, which they tend to conflate: (1) the alleged failures of US ME policy; (2) the role of The Lobby in bringing about these consequences. Insofar as the stands of the Lobby conform to (A), the two factors are very difficult to disentagle. And there is plenty of conformity.
Let's look at (1), and ask the obvious question: for whom has policy been a failure for the past 60 years? The energy corporations? Hardly. They have made "profits beyond the dreams of avarice" (quoting John Blair, who directed the most important government inquiries into the industry, in the '70s), and still do, and the ME is their leading cash cow. Has it been a failure for US grand strategy based on control of what the State Department described 60 years ago as the "stupendous source of strategic power" of ME oil and the immense wealth from this unparalleled "material prize"? Hardly. The US has substantially maintained control -- and the significant reverses, such as the overthrow of the Shah, were not the result of the initiatives of the Lobby. And as noted, the energy corporations prospered. Furthermore, those extraordinary successes had to overcome plenty of barriers: primarily, as elsewhere in the world, what internal documents call "radical nationalism," meaning independent nationalism. As elsewhere in the world, it's been convenient to phrase these concerns in terms of "defense against the USSR," but the pretext usually collapses quickly on inquiry, in the ME as elsewhere. And in fact the claim was conceded to be false, officially, shortly after the fall of the Berlin Wall, when Bush's National Security Strategy (1990) called for maintaining the forces aimed at the ME, where the serious "threats to our interests... could not be laid at the Kremlin's door" -- now lost as a pretext for pursuing about the same policies as before. And the same was true pretty much throughout the world.
That at once raises another question about the M-W thesis. What were "the Lobbies" that led to pursuing very similar policies throughout the world? Consider the year 1958, a very critical year in world affairs. In 1958, the Eisenhower administration identified the three leading challenges to the US as the ME, North Africa, and Indonesia -- all oil producers, all Islamic. North Africa was taken care of by Algerian (formal) independence. Indonesia and the were taken care of by Suharto's murderous slaughter (1965) and Israel's destruction of Arab secular nationalism (Nasser, 1967). In the ME, that established the close US-Israeli alliance and confirmed the judgment of US intelligence in 1958 that a "logical corollary" of opposition to "radical nationalism" (meaning, secular independent nationalism) is "support for Israel" as the one reliable US base in the region (along with Turkey, which entered into close relations with Israel in the same year). Suharto's coup aroused virtual euphoria, and he remained "our kind of guy" (as the Clinton administration called him) until he could no longer keep control in 1998, through a hideous record that compares well with Saddam Hussein -- who was also "our kind of guy" until he disobeyed orders in 1990. What was the Indonesia Lobby? The Saddam Lobby? And the question generalizes around the world. Unless these questions are faced, the issue (1) cannot be seriously addressed.
When we do investigate (1), we find that US policies in the ME are quite similar to those pursued elsewhere in the world, and have been a remarkable success, in the face of many difficulties: 60 years is a long time for planning success. It's true that Bush II has weakened the US position, not only in the ME, but that's an entirely separate matter.
That leads to (2). As noted, the US-Israeli alliance was firmed up precisely when Israel performed a huge service to the US-Saudis-Energy corporations by smashing secular Arab nationalism, which threatened to divert resources to domestic needs. That's also when the Lobby takes off (apart from the Christian evangelical component, by far the most numerous and arguably the most influential part, but that's mostly the 90s). And it's also when the intellectual-political class began their love affair with Israel, previously of little interest to them. They are a very influential part of the Lobby because of their role in media, scholarship, etc. From that point on it's hard to distinguish "national interest" (in the usual perverse sense of the phrase) from the effects of the Lobby. I've run through the record of Israeli services to the US, to the present, elsewhere, and won't review it again here.
M-W focus on AIPAC and the evangelicals, but they recognize that the Lobby includes most of the political-intellectual class -- at which point the thesis loses much of its content. They also have a highly selective use of evidence (and much of the evidence is assertion). Take, as one example, arms sales to China, which they bring up as undercutting US interests. But they fail to mention that when the US objected, Israel was compelled to back down: under Clinton in 2000, and again in 2005, in this case with the Washington neocon regime going out of its way to humiliate Israel. Without a peep from The Lobby, in either case, though it was a serious blow to Israel. There's a lot more like that. Take the worst crime in Israel's history, its invasion of Lebanon in 1982 with the goal of destroying the secular nationalist PLO and ending its embarrassing calls for political settlement, and imposing a client Maronite regime. The Reagan administration strongly supported the invasion through its worst atrocities, but a few months later (August), when the atrocities were becoming so severe that even NYT Beirut correspondent Thomas Friedman was complaining about them, and they were beginning to harm the US "national interest," Reagan ordered Israel to call off the invasion, then entered to complete the removal of the PLO from Lebanon, an outcome very welcome to both Israel and the US (and consistent with general US opposition to independent nationalism). The outcome was not entirely what the US-Israel wanted, but the relevant observation here is that the Reaganites supported the aggression and atrocities when that stand was conducive to the "national interest," and terminated them when it no longer was (then entering to finish the main job). That's pretty normal.
Another problem that M-W do not address is the role of the energy corporations. They are hardly marginal in US political life -- transparently in the Bush administration, but in fact always. How can they be so impotent in the face of the Lobby? As ME scholar Stephen Zunes has rightly pointed out, "there are far more powerful interests that have a stake in what happens in the Persian Gulf region than does AIPAC [or the Lobby generally], such as the oil companies, the arms industry and other special interests whose lobbying influence and campaign contributions far surpass that of the much-vaunted Zionist lobby and its allied donors to congressional races."
Do the energy corporations fail to understand their interests, or are they part of the Lobby too? By now, what's the distinction between (1) and (2), apart from the margins?
Also to be explained, again, is why US ME policy is so similar to its policies elsewhere -- to which, incidentally, Israel has made important contributions, e.g., in helping the executive branch to evade congressional barriers to carrying out massive terror in Central America, to evade embargoes against South Africa and Rhodesia, and much else. All of which again makes it even more difficult to separate (2) from (1) -- the latter, pretty much uniform, in essentials, throughout the world.
I won't run through the other arguments, but I don't feel that they have much force, on examination.
The thesis M-W propose does however have plenty of appeal. The reason, I think, is that it leaves the US government untouched on its high pinnacle of nobility, "Wilsonian idealism," etc., merely in the grip of an all-powerful force that it cannot escape. It's rather like attributing the crimes of the past 60 years to "exaggerated Cold War illusions," etc. Convenient, but not too convincing. In either case.
NC
http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=9999§ionID=11
Many thanks to Israel Shamir www.israelshamir.net
:: Article nr. 22210 sent on 03-apr-2006 09:20 ECT
:: The address of this page is : www.uruknet.info?p=22210
:: The incoming address of this article is : groups.yahoo.com/group/shamireaders/message/696
:: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Uruknet .
By Ken Adachi - Editor
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/noamchomskyindex.shtml
12-31-6
|
Reproduced from: www.Rense.com
Interview With Professor
Robert Faurisson
At The Guest House of the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Islamic Republic of Iran
Introduction by
Michael A. Hoffman II
1-25-8
THE POWER
OF ISRAEL IN THE UNITED STATES
By James Petras Book Review
James Petras is Professor
Emeritus of Sociology
at Binghamton University, New York.
He's a noted academic figure on the US Left
and a well-respected Latin American expert
and longtime chronicler of the region's popular struggles.
He's also an advisor to the landless workers in Brazil
and the unemployed workers movement in Argentina.
I'm a
Leftist AND I Support Israel!
.....Left-wing, Right-wing,
Chicken-wing,
we think her message is a good example
of the normative Jewish BLIND SPOT,
across the Jewish political spectrum....