My working hypothesis is that Chomsky resembled Russell in being theoretical, rather than practical, but with the additional Jewish component. In both cases there are (in my view) question marks about the permanent value of their unpolitical work. And in both cases there are question marks about where their information came from, and their motives. I assume both Russell and Chomsky had genuine humanitarian concerns. What do we find?
[1] Brief comment on Linguistics.
This is my 1997 piece 'AntiNoamy' or 'AntiNoamianism' on why linguistics has proved a bit of a dead end.
And here's my transcription of a 1995 lecture on linguistics, 'Minimalist Explorations', given by Chomsky in London: Minimalist Explorations. I wonder if Chomsky's ridiculous bracketing of English with Swahili (not naturally even a written language) was a test for the audience, to see if they were gullible enough to accept it. In fact, they were. This section is inserted just to show I have some idea about Chomskyan linguistics, which in my view shows the same pattern of artificial funding and hype as other identifiably Jewish movements.
[2] Chomsky and Russell's Vietnam War Crimes Tribunal
Russell Vietnam War Crimes Tribunal report
This is an archive copy of my posting - 39 chapters and intro of a book pubished by Allen Lane; there was another different book which I couldn't trace. Posted with copyright permission in 1997. (There's a zip file called archived here Vietnam warcrime.zip - unzips to give linked chapters ).
There's an introductory chapter by Chomsky, and a second piece, 'After Pinkville'. As far as I know the Vietnam War issue was Chomsky's first activism, although he was influenced when young by the Spanish Civil War and Germany. In my opinion, Russell was absolutely right in his concern. The question is the extent to which the issue was understood.
[3] History of Chomsky and 'Revisionism'
It's a fact that Chomsky has nothing to do with 'conspiracy theories' - on the Kennedy assassination, he said 'people get killed every day'. He was adamant 9/11 was as presented; he took the same view about Oklahoma and McVeigh. He became famous for writing a small introduction on free speech to a book by Faurisson, but it's entirely clear he took no interest in 'Holocaust' revisionism. Any one of these points is sufficient to dismiss him as a serious commentator. Moreover the part played by Jews in the US, and the associated corruption, is never ever mentioned by him, though it must be obvious to him.
[4] Chomsky on propaganda - it must be obvious to Chomsky that Jews control the media (including of course films and TV) so the unbalanced presentation of the Vietnam War by trash like 'Full Metal Jacket', Stallone, Hanks etc is 100% intentional. The true genocidal impact of the USA is still barely known in the USA, though this is perhaps less so in other parts of the world, including China. Why doesn't Chomsky mention this? What he says about propaganda is in Manufacturing Consent where the issue is buried --
I've made a repeat attempt to tackle this book, which I've always had reservations about.
[1] The main theory - 'propaganda model' - is only 35 pages, less than a tenth of the book - it looks like
the initial seed which has been padded out.
[2] The 'model' is: five 'filters', though another is sneaked in. These are (1) Ownership of media [this is pre-Internet, and mostly refers to print]. (2) Advertising and its withdrawal, direction etc. (3) 'Sourcing'. This is almost entirely state sources, including academics and 'think tanks'. (4) Flak and enforcers. (5) 'Anticommunism as a control mechanism. Then (6) in effect biasing the report, clearly shown when switching sides.
The rest of the book is examples: (i) bogus elections, in El Salvador, Guatemaa and Nicaragua. (ii) 'The
KGB-Bulgarian Plot to Kill the Pope'. (iii) Indo-China wars - this section is about half the whole book.
So what's the problem? I'll be brief and schematic:
** Although Chomsky emphasises the money-making press, the fact is (pp 19-23) that for example the Pentagon's publishing was 'sixteen times larger than the nation's biggest publisher'. The USAF, US Chamber of Commerce etc etc and 150,000 'professional' PR people would appear to dwarf the press, if I'm reading this book correctly. In other words, in the unlikely event that the publishing combines tried to become open and honest, their output would still be a tiny fraction of the total 'source'.
** Chomsky has a persistent tendency to assume organisations have a genuine purpose. He (as many have noted) has no truck with 9/11, NASA moon frauds, and so on, which are of course hugely expensive frauds. And yet, if you consider the huge military spending, why should it happen to be needed year on year? It's perfectly possible they bombed and burned Vietnamese just as a time-filling makework exercise.
** The whole idea of 'maufacturing consent' seems wrong - the slogan is out of kilter with the facts. What 'consent' have you, reader, given for mass immigration, for example? Or bombing Kosovo? Or invading Iraq? Absolutely none. 'Manufacturing stupidity' or 'manufacturing indifference' may be nearer the mark; but nothing really is 'manufactured'.
** There's a whole section on bogus elections, but Chomsky doesn't seem to compare this with the USA's first-past-the-post system, which has naturally morphed into two big parties. Democracy is a remote ideal, indeed, in the USA too.
** On 'communism', Chomsky never mentions the Jewish funding or personnel, which marks it out as entirely distinct from genuine humanitarian movements. Nor does he mention Mossad plots.
** Chomsky gives figures e.g. (p. 50) 10,000 deaths in El Salvador in 1980, 'disappearances' in Guatemala estimated at 40,000. Out of very roughly 5M and 8M populations at that time. It's an unpleasant thing to say, but knife, gun, and drug crime, infant mortality and so on are rife too.
** The final half of the book, on the Vietnam War, is important as of course it's largely censored. However, again, what consent did ordinary Americans give to it? And what effect has Chomsky actually had in practice, for example, prosecuting Kissinger, or getting reparations?
I don't think the 'propaganda model' even begins to describe the reality. However the book may be valuable in opening peoples' eyes to military mass murders. Hence 3 stars.
[5] Another look at Chomsky on Vietnam - his book Backroom Boys.
Suggests a new theory of why 'America' was involved in Vietnam, 6 Oct 2010
I was a fan of Chomsky, who seemed at the time to be doing something about the Vietnam War. Chomsky was a participant in Bertrand Russell's War Crimes Tribunal, in 1967, an attempt to publicise facts about American atrocities in Vietnam.
'The Backroom Boys' is dated 1973 - later than, but a commentary on, the Pentagon Papers (published 1971).
It's a typical Chomsky political book - no consistent thread of argument, no chronology, many jumps from one topic to another, no signposting in the form of headings, and atrocity stories which is fact are understated - as Chomsky must know from Russell's Tribunal. In my view Chomsky presents a solidly crypto-Jewish world view. For example, he opposes armies marching to war - except against Germany. He opposes autocracy, but says little about the 'Communist' USSR; he makes no attempt to distinguish socialism from its Jewish deformation; he never mentions Jewish invention of the USSR. He dislikes poverty in India, but says China is 'Communist' and supposedly has better figures for e.g. life expectation. He dislikes apartheid, but says nothing about Jewish control of minerals in South Africa. He criticises the New York Times, but says nothing about Jewish control.
What I'm suggesting is that Kissinger, who seems to have been in control of US foreign policy at that time, was of course a puppet; his aim was to extend Rothschild control over south east Asia's currencies, to parasitise a permanent percentage from them. This is exactly what happened to National Socialist Germany, in which Hitler had explicitly thrown off that style of finance.
This does not explain why the US armed forces went along with genocide; maybe they were stupid, or sadistic, or wanted money and status. But the motive force was Kissinger and money. This is the hypothesis I wanted to test.
Is this consistent with Chomsky's book? I think it is. Chomsky criticises corporations, but never (as far as I know) criticises finance/ the Fed. He criticises the Army, but says nothing about Kissinger. He says nothing about the racist basis of Judaism, and its influence. He says nothing about Jewish media lies - which of course helped keep people in the dark about the US since 1954, when Dien Bien Phu was lost by the French.
I think Chomsky's role was to muffle and hide the Jewish element in committing genocide in Vietnam. Read this book carefully and decide for yourself.
[6] Chomsky and Nuclear War and other nuclear - or 'nuclear' - issues
By Googling 'Chomsky nuclear war' we find quite few Chomsky sites - who maintains them is not made very clear. However the content is extraordinarily similar to Russell in the 1960s. It's almost as though Chomsky dusts off his copies and rewords them in his own Americanesque style.
Thus we find Russell talked about 'completely faulty radar' which Chomsky echoes - any moment a full nuke strike might be launched. He never gives sources for these claims. Is it credible that - with satellites, internet style communications, better radar, and spies, that there's been no change since the 1950s?
Russell often remarked on the possibility of extra-terrestrial intelligences or God despairing of the silliness on mankind - 'I'm sorry I was so half-hearted at the time of Noah', wrote Russell in a short story.
The probabilistic element - the odds may be remote of one incident being fatal, but with repetition the odds move up to near-certainty - is in Russell, who quoted the behaviour of insurance companies as supporting evidence. All this is in Chomsky.
Chomsky appears to be technology-free, as some people word it. I.e. he simply has no idea whether what he's been told is plausible. This makes him ideal as a conduit, of course.
The most up-to-date parts of Chomsky deal with treaties, threats (mostly by the USA), changes in attitude and dogma, and debates and the views of assorted diplomats and military types. Some of the best passages are where he summarises (for example) the history of what happened to Iran - various coups and so on - although these can't be assumed to be reliable, since he accepts the Jewish 'revolution' idea, even where it's obviously implausible.
I can't find any evidence that Chomsky has ever been exposed to the ideas of nuke revisionism, as of course most people aren't - my book reviews above pretty predate them. The problem is, Chomsky has never accepted any other such ideas, or even taken the trouble to look into them. So there's certainly no chance he'd say anything about these ideas.
Following Occam's Razor, the simplest hypothesis is that Chomsky is a 'useful idiot', useful in the sense of being a pretend outlet to weaken genuine humanitarian feeling. Another hypothesis is that this has all been worked out, and is an act. [Added Aug 2012 - monitor]
[7] Chomsky and the New World Order.
This is a talk delivered by Chomsky in 1995. Noam Chomsky: The New World Order. This was a ticket-only event which aroused quite a bit of interest. Or perhaps the interest was media-generated. With permission of 'Liberty'.
