TEN YEARS LATER THE WHOLE WORLD IS UNDER MILITARY HOUSE ARREST THANKS TO 5G AND BILL AND MELINDA GATES FOUNDATION THROUGH A BETH ISRAEL HOAX!
ACHTUNG!
Noam Chomsky, Closet CapitalistNAHUM CHOMSKY IS A PENTAGON PAID JEWISH MARXIST COMMUNIST AND ZIONIST TO CONTROL PEOPLE'S MINDS, AND HE HAS BEEN DOING THIS REMARKABLY WELL WITH THE MESMERISED PEOPLE ALWAYS UNABLE TO JUMP TO ACTION IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. AND THEY ARE UNDER SUCH AN HYPNOTIC TRANCE THAT THEIR MINDS ARE COMPLETELY CLOSED!
CHOMSKY SAYS EVERYTHING THAT MAKES SENSE BECAUSE IT IS TRUE EXCEPT WHAT IS REALLY IMPORTANT! THIS IS WHY I NEVER SAW HIM CENSORED LIKE PEOPLE LIKE ME ARE ON A REGULAR BASIS!
DID THE US AMERICAN JEW PR. HOWARD ZINN NOT TELL THE TRUTH TO US? HE ALWAYS DID, BUT WHY DO WE BEHAVE AS IF WE NEED MORE AND MORE OF THE SAME DRUG? BECAUSE THE DRUG IS NOT MEANT TO CURE THE DISEASE WE ARE SUFFERING FROM, BUT TO DUMB US DOWN DEEPER AND DEEPER.
- I DON'T WATCH TELEVISION
- I DON'T GO TO THE CINEMA, PORN AND SEX SHOPS, GAMBLING DENS, BROTHELS, PUBS, TOURING THE WORLD...
- I DON'T SUPPORT USURY, BIG PHARMA, 5G, MONSANTO AND ANYTHING THAT IS GENETICALLY MODIFIED, VACCINES, FLUORIDE AND MERCURY IN PRODUCTS THAT END UP IN OUR ORGANISM, ETC.
I DO NOT REQUIRE A PhD TO FIND OUT THE SOLUTION TO OUR DAILY PROBLEMS, AND I JUST DO IT, BUT TO A GREAT COST, BUT THAT I WAS ABLE TO ENDURE!
NAHUM IS NOT AN IDIOT; HE IS AN ACTOR, ONE OF THE BEST, A WHITE MAGICIAN HIDING THE BLACK MAGIC USED BY THE SYSTEM!
BAFSNoam Chomsky, Closet CapitalistNoam Chomsky a Crypto Zionist!
World Jul 26, 2010“The Jewish religion died 200 years ago. Now there is nothing that unifies the Jews around the world apart from Holocaust,” Yeshayahy Leibowitz, a observant orthodox Jew philosopher.
Professor Dr. Noam Chomsky made headlines when he was refused entry by the Israeli guards at the Allenby Bridge on his way from Amman (Jordan) to Ramallah (West Bank) where he was scheduled to lecture on US foreign policy at Bir Zeit University.The “official” reason was that Chomsky is a ‘Self-Hating, Israel-Threatening (S.H.I.T)’ Jew and thus a threat to the Zionist entity. In fact, Chomsky in real life doesn’t even come closer to those ‘allegations”.
Noam Chomsky, although, is a strong critic of US foreign policy – but he has never supported armed struggle against Israel. He also favors the so-called ‘two-state’ solution and believes in Israel’s right to exist as ‘Jewish state’. Chomsky never publicly questioned the Zionist version of the holocaust (‘Six Million Died’).
Chomsky is against academic boycott of Israel. Chomsky doesn’t believe that the US foreign policy is controlled by the Jewish groups especially AIPAC. Chomsky also doesn’t like Israel being compared with the apartheid South Africa.
Roger Tucker, Jew Editor/Publisher of “One Democratic State” website – in a recent article, titled “Open Letter to Uri Avnery, Noam Chomsky and Jimmy Carter”, claimed that none of them is friend to Palestinian victims of the foreign Zionist Jew settlers because in fact they themselves are ‘Crypto-Zionists’ hiding behind the facade of ‘humanism’.
According to Roger Tucker the the so-called “Two state solution” supporters are a bunch of odd bedfellows. It has Uri Avnery’s Gush shalom along with hardcore Israeli Zionist government officials, the ‘Israel-First’ American neocons, Republicans, the Christian Zionists, the puppet Fatah (Mahmoud Abbas) unelected government and somewhat reluctant European nations.
“Noam Chomsky’s analyses of Israeli-Palestinian conflict and shifting sands of the Middle East has been non-parceil. And yet he is another closet Zionist (like Uri Avnery and Jimmy Carter). What a shame,” wrote Roger Tucker.
Jeff Blankfort, an American writer and KZYX Radio host on international affairs, wrote in Chomsky and Palestine: Asset or Liability:
“At the end of the day, it is evident that Chomsky’s affection for Israel, his sojourn on a kibbutz, his Jewish identity, and his early experiences with anti-Semitism to which he occasionally refers have colored his approach to every aspect of Israel’s conflict with the Palestinians and explain his defense of Israel. That is his right, of course, but not to pretend at the same that he is an advocate for justice in Palestine. That same background may also explain his resistance to acknowledging the very obvious power of the pro-Israel lobby over US Middle East policy which he, like many others who share a similar history, interpret as “blaming the Jews,” a most taboo subject. It is, without a doubt, far more comfortable for him and his followers to continue insisting that US support for Israel is based on it being a “strategic asset” for the United States even when an increasing number of mainstream observers who are not linked to AIPAC or the Zionist establishment have judged it to be a liability. Should not Chomsky himself, on the basis of his own statements, be judged as to whether he is an asset or a liability for the Palestinian cause? If they have not already done so, serious supporters of that cause, including Palestinians, need to ask themselves that question”.
Avram Noam Chomsky (b. 1928) is child of committed Zionist parents. His father William Chomsky was a Jew immigrant from Ukraine while his mother Elsie Chomsky was from Belarus. In his early career as a writer, Noam chomsky was honored by pro-Israel Jewish groups for being the US, top author. Chomsky even lived in a Jewish settlement (kibbutz) in 1953 – built on the land stolen from Palestinian Muslim owners. He recalled his experience at the kibbutz “extremely attractive” and “I probably would have lived there myself – for how long, it hard to guess”.
***************
BAFS - Refer to Benjamin Merhav's "The Treachery of Noam Chomsky"
Noam Chomsky, Closet Capitalist(Article 21)
By Benjamin Merhav <benmerhav@yahoo.com.au> Australia
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/noamchomskyandzionism29apr06.shtml
April 29, 2006
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/noamchomskyandzionism29apr06.shtml
April 29, 2006
More on the Treachery of Noam Chomsky, Article 21 by Benjamin Merhav (April 29, 2006)
Posted at www.treacheryof.blogspot.com/
Posted at www.treacheryof.blogspot.com/
Those on the Left who have opposed Noam Chomsky's loyalty to zionism, but still trusted
him as an "anti-imperialist intellectual", would have to find for him a new excuse if they would still
insist on trusting this zionist bourgeois intellectual. The following journalists' reports expose
Noam Chomsky for what he is in reality : a zionist and a supporter of USA imperialism, and
they both come from the enemy's own mouth, namely, from an Israeli daily paper run by
fanatical zionists, and from a New York paper reporting from West Point Military Academy.
Let us start with the zionist report, and follow up with the report from West Point.
Under the title, "Noam Chomsky, Champion of Israel?", a former military reporter for The
Jerusalem Post opens his report on Chomsky in the 22nd April issue of the same zionist paper as follows :
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1143498893816&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1143498893816&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%
"Noam Chomsky, champion of
Israel?
By ERIK SCHECHTER
By ERIK SCHECHTER
What do Noam Chomsky and the neocons have in common? They both stand accused of
protecting the enormously powerful pro-Israel lobby in Washington from legitimate criticism.
That's right, hell has frozen over. Professor Chomsky - the far-left MIT linguist who has
consistently (and often quite viciously) criticized Israel since the early 1970s - is apparently a big
softie when it comes to Zion.
Or so say assorted left-wing critics.
The brouhaha began in late March when two American academics published in The London
Review of Books a paper critical of the Israel lobby. John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt
argued that neither idealism nor hard-nosed practicality justified American support of the Jewish
state. Nevertheless, a "loose coalition of individuals and organizations" has been steering US
policy in that direction for years.
Though hardly a novel idea, the essay caused a wave of controversy because the authors were
not your run-of-the-mill, paranoid kooks. Mearsheimer sits on the international academic
advisory board at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, at Bar-Ilan University, and both
he and Walt are leading lights of the realist school of international relations. Their critique simply
could not go unanswered.
Indeed, following the publication of the article, professors and pundits of all stripes took to their keyboards.
Now, I will not address the many errors of the M-W piece or explain how arguing that lobbies
drive foreign policy upends the whole realist paradigm; that's been done elsewhere and by
people far smarter than me. What's interesting is where Noam Chomsky stepped out on the
controversy.
Writing in Z Magazine, the aging anarchist commended
Mearsheimer and Walt for their "courageous stand" but then
attacked their notion of an informal, far-flung lobby as an empty
label. "M-W focus on AIPAC and the evangelicals," wrote Chomsky,
"but they recognize that
the Lobby includes most of the political-intellectual class - at
which point the thesis loses much
of its content."
Max Boot, a neoconservative fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, noted the very same
thing when he quipped, "In Mearsheimer-Walt's telling, the Israel lobby seems to include just
about every American politician, think tank and newspaper." Now who could have imagined
Chomsky manning the same barricade as the neocons?"
The second report is from the West Point correspondent of The Journal News, a New
York newspaper, as follows:
http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060421/NEWS03/604210331/
1024/NEWS08&template=printart
http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060421/NEWS03/604210331/
1024/NEWS08&template=printart
Foreign-policy critic speaks at West Point
By ALICE GOMSTYN
THE JOURNAL NEWS
(Original Publication: April 21, 2006)
THE JOURNAL NEWS
(Original Publication: April 21, 2006)
WEST POINT — The U.S. Military Academy at West Point was host last night to one of the
world's foremost critics of American foreign policy.
Noam Chomsky, the Institute Professor Emeritus of Linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, spoke at the academy as part of its Distinguished Lecture Series.
More than 500 people attended the lecture, most of them cadets who could someday serve in
the Iraq war.
Last night, they heard the gray-haired scholar explain that, in his view, that the war in Iraq is
unjust.
Chomsky, who spoke on the issue in response to a question from a cadet, said that while the
war could be called preventive, it was still an act of aggression by the United States that most
people in the world didn't support.
He added that Iran might legitimately have grounds for its own preventive war.
"If preventative war is legitimate under these circumstances, it's legitimate for everybody," he
said.
Ian McDougall of Boxborough, Mass., a cadet who attended the lecture, wouldn't say whether
he agreed with Chomsky. But he did enjoy the lecture, he said.
"Agree or disagree with the points, he's certainly very well-read," said McDougall, 20.
The bulk of Chomsky's remarks revolved around "Just War Theory" — a theory, he said, that
modern scholarship hasn't sufficiently explained. Scholars who discuss the theory, he said, name
wars they believe are "just" without providing arguments to support the label.
Chomsky, who spoke for roughly a half-hour before taking questions from the audience, also
questioned which historic military acts could be considered pre-emptive in nature. For instance,
he said, before Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor — which prompted the United States' entry into
World War II — U.S. journals were publishing reports on America preparing fighter planes that could burn Japan's wooden cities to the ground. Should Japan's attack, he asked, then be considered pre-emptive?
World War II — U.S. journals were publishing reports on America preparing fighter planes that could burn Japan's wooden cities to the ground. Should Japan's attack, he asked, then be considered pre-emptive?
Still, he added: "Does that justify Pearl Harbor? Not in 10 million years."
Chomsky also discussed Israel's military conflict with Lebanon, the war in Afghanistan, Saddam
Hussein's violations of human rights, and the United States' onetime support for the former Iraqi
dictator.
At the end of his presentation, the military academy's class of 2008 presented Chomsky with a
framed picture of a part of the campus.
Lt. Col. Casey Neff, a staff member for the academy's commandant's office, said he too
enjoyed Chomsky's lecture.
Neff said Chomsky was at West Point to state a position and provoke debate.
The free speech of Chomsky and others, he said, "is one of the things we're here to defend." (All emphasis added).
Noam Chomsky, Closet CapitalistMORE ON THE TREACHERY OF NOAM CHOMSKY (article 1) by Benjamin Merhav
MORE ON THE TREACHERY OF NOAM CHOMSKY (article 1)
April 30, 2007
by Benjamin Merhav
Born
into and raised by a “deeply Zionist”(in his own words) family, Noam
Chomsky has remained loyal to zionism* all his life, albeit under the
cover and pretence of a “Left guru in the West. This contradiction
,between Chomsky’s loyalty to zionism and his well publicised “Left
views”, is only one of several contradictory and absurd behaviours of
his ,which merit the question : is Noam Chomsky an impostor ?
The
other contradictions are related to the first one, but each of them is
an absurdity/deception on its own. Thus, for example,while publishing
books and articles which purport to criticise the USA foreign policies,
its imperialist military interventions in other countries in particular,
he had been holding for many years a well paid senior teaching position
at MIT, which is the brain centre of the USA military-industrial
complex under the control of and financed by the Pentagon. All of which
expose another Chomsky absurdity, namely ,his persistent push into the
ranks of Anarchist groups around the world by purporting to act as their
guru, as if he himself has been nothing but a dedicated Anarchist all
his life. Since zionism has been central to Noam Chomsky’s activities
and views it would be necessary to take firstly a close (yet brief) look
at zionism and at the zionist apartheid regime of Israel so that the
implications are grasped correctly. Zionism, political zionism, is a
form of fascism. From its beginning it was looking for imperialist
patronage in exchange for service to the British empire**. After the 2nd
WW the patronage of zionism shifted to the world’s centre of finance
capital, the USA plutocracy. To serve its new patrons zionism would have
to spearhead the global expansion of the USA rulers,namely, the huge
USA transnational corporations. This job of spearheading the global rule
(not just in the Middle East) for the huge USA transnational
corporations has been undetaken by the zionist apartheid regime of
Israel with great zest (albeit with great secrecy), and to the grateful
acclaim of the USA rulers. Hence their continued sponsorship by the
latter of this racist regime, which in turn encourages further zionist
impunity (like its production and deployment of WMD), and more
perpetration of zionist war crimes and zionist crimes against humanity
in Palestine and elsewhere around the world. Acting as the spearhead for
the USA transnational corporations does not, in itself, make the
zionist apartheid regime of Israel a fascist regime, nor zionism a
fascist ideology. Even their racist feature do not make them necessarily
fascist, but combined with the militaristic worship of force/power; and
with zionist aggressive territorial expansionism manifested by
periodical invasions of neighbouring countries; and with a zionist
political system in Israel where all political parties are zionist (with
the exception of an Arab minority whose representatives are under
constant threat of expulsion or arrest whenever they fail to toe the
zionist line); and with no independent trade union organisation ( the
Histadrut is a zionist organisation which has a “department for trade
union affairs”) ; and with fascist legislation like the Emergency
Regulations(Defence), 1945; and with over 10,000 political prisoners who
have been tortured, then detained in bad conditions, and many of them
without trial, for years ; the zionist apartheid regime of Israel is a
fascist regime with a fascist ideology and fascist policies. The
judiciary there follows the zionist line too ,of course, and the recent
case of Tali Fahima, an Israeli woman peace activist of jewish
background, who has been detained without trial,tortured, incarcerated
in solitary confinement, and only after one year in prison her trial
begins in secrecy, proves the fascist character of the regime too. There
is freedom there only for fanatical zionists, and only partial and
conditional freedom for Israeli citizens who are not fanatical zionists.
A
very important fascist episode in the history of zionism is the active
collaboration of the top zionist hierarchy with the fascist regimes of
Mussolini and Hitler before, during, and after the 2nd WW (when top Nazi
war criminals were saved from the gallows due to the intervention of
the zionist hierarchy). That collaboration began in the early 1920s by
Vladimir Jabotinsky, the founder of fanatical zionism ,who befriended
and supported Mussolini. That friendship culminated in the military
training by the Black Shirts of Jabotinsky’s youth followers (Betar),
some 135 of them. However, the hierarchy of “mainstream Zionism” did not
lag behind Jabotinsky. As soon as Mussolini imposed his rule in Rome,
all the rest of the top zionist hierarchy went on a pilgrimage to Rome,
to meet Mussolini. They continued to court Mussolini well into the mid
’30s, even after his invasion of Ethiopia, and after his alliance with
Hitler (see Lenni Brenner’s books about zionist collaboration with the
fascist regimes of Mussolini and Hitler). Then, during the war, was the
zionist collaboration with the Hitler regime, which began before the war
with the Ha’avara agreement, culminating in the collaboration in the
mass murder of Jews in Hungary, as would be revealed during the Kastner
trial in Israel during 1954-1955 (see Perfidy by Ben Hecht).
So
you would think that a person like Noam Chomsky, who claims to be
anti-fascist and anti-imperialist, would condemn zionism, and the
zionist apartheid regime of Israel, but he has not,and he never wrote a
single sentence which condemns zionism or the zionist apartheid regime
of Israel. Moreover, he has many zionist friends there in Israel, and he
used to spend his vacations in his beloved zionist kibbutz there. Then
there is the other above metioned absurdity, namely, what was this “Left
guru”doing at MIT, the USA brain centre of the military industrial
complex, where he had been holding a teaching position for so many
years, and with not a single criticism against it ? To answer this
question we would need to take a brief look at MIT. In an article
titled, MIT Research Heavily Dependent on Defense Department Funding,
D.J. Glenn, writes that “MIT is the number one non-profit Department of
Defense contractor in the nation…” and he concludes by saying : ” The
fact that (MIT) chooses to devote less than 20% of research effort to
things other than more efficient means to kill is more than disgusting,
it is criminal.”
(see www-tech.mit.edu/V109/N7/glenn.07o.html). Another author, B. Feldman, under the title, MIT&The Air Forc writes that :
“If
an estimated 3,565 civilians were, indeed, killed between October 8,
2001 and Christmas Day 2001 as a result of the U.S. Air Force’s military
campaign in Afghanistan, then an argument might be made that MIT shares
some moral responsibility for these Afghan civilian deaths. And if 2002
brings another escalation in U.S. Air Force military activity in Iraq,
it might be productive for anti-racist/anti-war folks in the U.S. to
again demand that MIT end its collaborative relationship with the U.S.
Air Force, once and for all.” (www.questionsquestions.net/docs0209/1112
__mit.html) And in reply to a reader’s question he states as follows :
“Although
MIT Professssor Chomsky has been on the payroll of the 12th-largest
recipient of US Air Force war contracts in recent years, the article
isn’t asserting “that Chomsky is a controlled person.” But there is
evidence that Z magazine was unwilling to print an article about MIT’s
links to the U.S. Air Force’s space warfare preparations and to the
Pentagon’s think-tank, the Institute for Defense Analyses, a few years
ago. ”
(www.questionsquestions.net/docs0209/0920_response.html)
The
question which begs itself again then is what is the “guru of the Left”
doing in MIT ? If the answer is that he had been just earning his
livelihood, than it isa manifestly false answer, not only because it was
his choice (he could have gone to another university), but also because
he had been there for many years as a senior lecturer, and the bosses
of the institution had been very proud to have him there. This cynicism
is very typical of Chomsky. He says he supports the Palestinian cause,
yet he makes best of friends with the zionists. Anything which suits his
ego and his selfish interests is good, and if it does not he either
ignores it or goes against it. Zionism is , presumably, part of his ego
or else it suits his selfish interests, so why go against it ?
All
of which bring us to his contradictory attitudes to military draft
(conscription) in the USA. In an article titled, Noam Chomsky Vs Noam
Chomsky, Frank Speiser quotes Chomsky as follows :
“I
might add, for what it’s worth, that although I was actively involved
in organizing and supporting resistance (including support for draft
resisters) in the 60s, and was saved from a likely prison sentence only
by the Tet offensive, I was never opposed to the draft. If there is to
be an army, it would be best, I think, for it to be mainly a citizen’s
army. In part for the reasons that the top command oppose that option.”
In a plutocracy like the USA, the centre of world capitalism, there can
be no “citizens’ army”, because the army – be they conscripts or
mercenaries – is an instrument of the ruling class, not of the people.
As a “guru of the Left” he certainly knows that, or is it, perhaps, his
position with IMT that made him advocate compulsory military
conscription to the USA army ?
Let
us return now to his attitudes to zionism. As I mentioned before, Noam
Chomsky has been immersed in zionism from the day he was born, and he
has never been willing to even attempt to reconsider his zionist
outlook. Take ,for example, the zionist theory of the “Jewish nation”.
It never occurred to him, or to his cronies, that it is a plain zionist
propaganda lie, and a big lie at that ! There is no “Jewish nation”,
only a Jewish religion. The first efforts of T. Herzl, the founder
political zionism, had not been directed towards the zionist
colonisation of Palestine, but to convince his congress “delegates” that
they are all part of the “Jewish nation”. Why ? Because Palestine could
have been replaced by another geographic location (like Uganda, for
example), whereas it was more important for zionism to show the world
that there is a “Jewish nation” that needs a “homeland” where it can
establish its own state. When Noam Chomsky visited Australia a few years
ago he gave an interview to The Australian Jewish News, the local
zionist rag, and this mouthpiece of zionism in Australia was very happy
to give the interview a prominent place ! Chomsky too was friendly to
his zionist host because if it is “the Jewish news”, then they are
automatically his buddies, even if they are fanatical zionists ! It is a
fact that Chomsky never declared himself as an anti-zionist, because he
is not opposed to zionismnor to the zionist apartheid regime of Israel.
On the USA invasion and occupation of Iraq, a colossal war crime
against the Arab people of Iraq, Noam Chomsky expressed his support for
the zionist-USA plan of “elections”. Ghali Hassan, in his article, Iraq
Elections And The Liberal Elites : A Response to Noam Chomsky
,(countercurrents.org) ,quotes Chomsky as follows : “In Iraq, the
January elections were successful and praiseworthy. However, the main
success is being reported only marginally: The United States was
compelled to allow them to take place. That is a real triumph, not of
the bomb-throwers, but of non-violent resistance by the people, secular
as well as Islamist, for whom Grand Ayatollah Al Sistani is a symbol”
(Khaleej Times Online, 4 March 2005).
Commenting on Chomsky’s statement Ghali Hassan wrote :
“Mr.
Chomsky is either completely out of touch with reality in Iraq, or
simply ignorant of the legitimate rights of the Iraqi people to
self-determination. Firstly, the elections were a farce. The majority of
the 14 million eligible Iraqis to vote have boycotted the elections.
Since the invasion and Occupation of Iraq, Iraqis have protested and
requested immediate free and fair elections, however, the Bush
administration ‘stifled, delayed, manipulated and otherwise thwarted the
democratic aspiration of the Iraqi people’. The US administration
turned down the idea of elections, claiming that technical problems
would permit elections in two years at the earliest. Prominent Iraqi
politicians and patriots, and UN officials who are familiar with the
conditions there immediately refuted this argument. (See note [1] for
detail). According to Joachim Guilliard of German Campaign against the
Embargo on Iraq, “Another important element of the US strategy was that
the elections took place under the ‘Transitional Administrative Law
(TAL)’” drawn up by pro-Israel US jurists, such as the 32-year old
pro-Israel Noah Feldman of New York University.”
However,
the most obvious zionist orientation of Chomsky can be seen in his
attitude to the Israel-Palestine conflict. Thus, for example, his
treacherous support for the “Geneva Accord” has been exposed last year
by Noah Cohen, in his article, Noam Chomsky and “Left” Apologetics for
Injustice in Palestine, ( http://www.ifamericansknew.org) as follows:
“Chomsky’s
concept of “realism” has a striking resemblance to the colonial
discourse of “manifest destiny”: Good or bad, right or wrong—so the
argument goes—these are the facts on the ground; this is the way of
history. In the name of this “realism,” activists and intellectuals in
the international community have simultaneously asserted themselves as
pro-Palestinian, and yet taken it upon themselves to concede every
fundamental right to which the Palestinian people lay claim. In pointing
to the Geneva Accords as a legitimate compromise, Chomsky concedes all
of the following rights on their behalf: the right to reclaim
sovereignty over the land stolen from them in 1948; the right of
refugees even to return to this land; the right to reclaim the most
densely settled land in the West Bank; the right to freedom of movement
within the new Palestinian “state” (since the West Bank settlements—to
be declared permanently a part of “Israel”—cut that territory into
isolated cantons, and these cantons are in turn separated from Gaza);
the right to full sovereignty over borders and airspace; the right to
maintain an independent military capable of self-defense; the right to
full control of resources.
In
general, this means that the “best possible compromise,” that promises
to “lead to something better,” requires first that Palestinians
officially concede all of the material conditions on which the right to
self-determination depends. It’s hard to see how these concessions could
possibly lead to “something better.” I had some personal experience
with Chomsky’s treachery too, when his loyalty to zionism and to the
zionist apartheid regime of Israel was exposed to me for the first time.
It happened during 1986-7, when the Israeli nuclear whistle-blower,
Mordechai Vanunu, was kidnapped by the zionist Gestapo from Europe
,where he presented full proof of Israel’s underground nuclear bombs
factory in Dimona to a London newspaper. Knowing the vengeful methods of
the zionist Gestapo I feared for Vanunu’s life, and I immediately began
to sound the alarm bells by contacting people and organisations to
alert them to the impending danger. Soon I managed to make contact with
Vanunu’s girlfriend, Judy Zimmet, who lived in Boston, and I advised her
to contact Noam Chomsky, who lived not far from her place, and ask for
his support for Vanunu by demanding his immediate release from the
Israeli prison. She reported back to me that she was very disappointed
following her meeting with him because he refused to commit himself to
do anything for Vanunu. In fact, Noam Chomsky has not done anything to
help Vanunu to this day !( except for some late lip service that did not
help Vanunu at all). Isn’t it time the people on the Left, all over the
world, wake up to the treachery of Noam Chomsky and of his cronies
before they inflict more damage on the Left ?
*I do not spell zionism with a capital Z for the same reasons that I do not spell fascism with a capital F.
**In his address to the fourth zionist congress in London, 1900, T. Herzl , the founder of political zionism, stated:
“It
is of increasing importance to the nations of civilization that on the
road to Asia – the shortest road to Asia – there would be set up a post
of civilization, which would be at the service of civilized mankind.
This post is Palestine…and the Jews will be prepared to defend this post
with blood and substance.”
(The Balfour Declaration, by Leonard Stein, London,1961, at p.19).worldpeace365
NOAM CHOMSKY: Do as I say not as I do.
Note: I saved this article many years ago, but I did not save the link. Sorry.
NOAM CHOMSKY: Do as I say not as I do. Social Parasite, Economic Protectionist, Amoral Defense Contractor
I never thought a self-described socialist dissident and anti-imperialist crusader could be so thin-skinned.
I had sent Noam Chomsky several e-mails, questioning him in a mild but insistent way about his personal wealth, investments, and legal maneuvers to avoid paying taxes. What I got back was a stream of invective and some of the most creative logic I have ever seen in my life. No wonder he is considered one of the most important linguists in the world; he’s adept at twisting words.
Noam Chomsky doesn’t look like your typical revolutionary. The soft-spoken MIT professor is thin and poorly dressed, with a shy smile and gentle manner. But when he speaks or writes about America, the Pentagon, and capitalism, this self-appointed “champion of the ordinary guy” erupts as if the wrath of God had descended from heaven.
Chomsky doesn’t think America is a free country: “The American electoral system is a series of four-year dictatorships.” There is no real free press, only “brainwashing under freedom.” In his book What Uncle Sam Really Wants, he describes an America on par with Nazi Germany. “Legally speaking,” he says, “there’s a very solid case for impeaching every American president since the Second World War. They’ve all been either outright war criminals or involved in serious war crimes.” His views on capitalism? Put it up there with Nazism. Don’t even ask about the Pentagon. It’s the most vile institution on the face of the earth.
Chomsky may sound like a crank, but he’s a crank taken seriously around the world. Hundreds of thousands of college students read his books. Michael Moore has claimed him as a mentor of sorts, and the leadership of the AFL-CIO has gone to him for political advice. The Guardian declares that he “ranks with Marx, Shakespeare, and the Bible as one of the most quoted sources in the humanities.” Robert Barsky, in a glowing biography, claims that Chomsky “will be for future generations what Galileo, Descartes, Newton, Mozart or Picasso have been for ours.”(1)
Though he originally made his name as a professor of linguistics, his political radicalism has made him a superstar. He is embraced by entertainers and actors as some kind of modern-day Buddha. Bono, of the band U2, calls him “the Elvis of Academia.” On Saturday Night Live, a cast member carried a copy of his collected works during one skit in obvious homage to him. In the film Good Will Hunting, Matt Damon played a brilliant young man who quotes Chomsky like some Old Testament prophet. The rock band Pearl Jam even featured Chomsky at some of their concerts. With thousands packed into a concert hall, the slender Chomsky would come out onstage and ruminate on the horrors of American capitalism. Other rock bands have proclaimed him their hero, and one even named itself “Chomsky” in veneration.
Chomsky regularly lectures before thousands of people. In Blue State strongholds like Berkeley, California, and Cambridge, Massachusetts, hundreds are turned away at the door. Even in Texas, the heart of Bush Country, a recent campus appearance brought two thousand to the auditorium. David Barsamian, host of Alternative Radio, explains that the professor “is for many of us our rabbi, our preacher, our rinpoche, our pundit, our imam, our sensei.”(2)
Chomsky plays the part. He dresses simply, proclaims his lack of interest in material things, and holds forth like a modern-day Gandhi. His low-key, deliberate manner is part of his secret. MIT colleague Steven Pinker recalls, “My first impression of him was, like many people, one of awe.”(3)
Despite his voluminous output, Chomsky’s message is remarkably simple: Do you see horror and evil in the world? Capitalism and the American military-industrial complex are to blame. He has charged that the crimes of democratic capitalism are “monstrously worse” than those of communism.(4) Spin magazine has called him “a capitalist’s worst nightmare.” He considers the United States a “police state.”
Chomsky often calls himself an “American dissident,” comparing himself to dissidents in the former Soviet Union. He calls his critics “commissars” and says their tactics are familiar to any student of police state behavior. When asked by a reporter why he is ignored by official Washington, he said, “It’s been done throughout history. How were dissidents treated in the Soviet Union?”(5) (Hint: They weren’t “ignored”; they were harassed or imprisoned by the KGB.) Yet despite its manifest absurdity, visions of Chomsky as some sort of American Sakharov have caught on. In Great Britain he has been welcomed by Labor MPs and called America’s “dissident-in-chief.”
But Chomsky’s image and persona, carefully cultivated and encouraged by his followers over the decades, is nothing more than a well-constructed charade. Chomsky has built a highly successful career by abandoning the very ideas and principles he claims to hold dear. Indeed, his greatest accomplishment is not intellectual but entrepreneurial: He has figured out how to make a nice living as a self-described “anarchist-socialist” dissident in a capitalist society. Disdaining the petty contradictions that limit other men’s achievements, he has marketed himself as a courageous truth-teller constantly threatened with censorship while publishing dozens of books and holding a tenured position at one of the world’s most prestigious universities. Most audaciously, he has enriched himself by taking millions from the Pentagon while denouncing it as the epitome of evil.
This hypocrisy is particularly stunning because he first entered the national political stage in 1967 with an impassioned article in the New York Review of Books called “The Responsibility of Intellectuals,” in which he challenged the nation’s writers and thinkers “to speak the truth and to expose lies.” He attacked establishment figures like Arthur Schlesinger Jr. and Henry Kissinger, claiming that they demonstrated a “hypocritical moralism” by professing to be something they were not. Chomsky long ago embraced the leftist notion that the personal is political, and that intellectuals should be held strictly accountable for what they say and do. His advice to young people in a recent interview: “Think for yourselves, and observe elementary moral principles, such as taking responsibility for your actions, or inactions.”(6)
Chomsky has made a career out of scrutinizing and passing judgment on others. But he has always worked to avoid similar scrutiny. As he told a National Public Radio (NPR) interviewer, he was not going to discuss “the house, the children, personal life–anything like that . . . This is not about a person. It’s about ideas and principles.” But in a very real way it is all about Chomsky. Is this self-professed American Sakharov really who he claims to be? Does he live by the “moral truisms” with which he has pummeled others over the past four decades?
Let’s start with Chomsky’s bête noire, the American military.
To hear Chomsky describe it, the Pentagon has got to be one of the most evil institutions in world history. He has called it several times “the most hideous institution on this earth” and declares that it “constitutes a menace to human life.”(7) More to the point, the military has no business being on college campuses, whether recruiting, providing money for research, or helping students pay for college. Professors shouldn’t work with the Pentagon, he has said, and instead should fight racism, poverty, and repression.(8) Universities shouldn’t take Pentagon research money because it ends up serving the Pentagon’s sinister goal of “militarizing” American society.(9) He’s also against college students getting ROTC scholarships, and from Vietnam to the Gulf War he has helped in efforts to drive the program off college campuses.(10)
So imagine my surprise when I discovered Chomsky’s lucrative secret: He himself has been paid millions by the Pentagon over the last forty years. Conveniently, he also claims that it is morally acceptable.
Chomsky’s entrance into the world of academe came in 1955 when he received his PhD. He was already a political radical, having determined at the age of ten that capitalism and the American military-industrial complex were dangerous and repugnant. You might think that Chomsky, being a linguist, worked for the MIT Linguistics Department when he joined the faculty. But in fact, Chomsky chose to work for the Research Laboratory of Electronics, which was funded entirely by the Pentagon and a few multinational corporations. Because of the largesse from this “menace to human life,” lab employees like Chomsky enjoyed a light teaching load, an extensive staff, and a salary that was roughly 30 percent higher than equivalent positions at other universities.
Over the next half century, Chomsky would make millions by cashing checks from “the most hideous institution on this earth.” He wrote his first book, Syntactic Structures, with grants from the U.S. Army (Signal Corps), the air force (Office of Scientific Research, Air Research, and Development Command), and the Office of Naval Research. Though Chomsky says that American corporations “are just as totalitarian as Bolshevism and fascism,” he apparently didn’t mind taking money from them, either, because the Eastman Kodak Corporation also provided financial support.
His next book, Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, was produced with money from the Joint Services Electronic Program (U.S. Army, U.S. Navy, and U.S. Air Force) as well as the U.S. Air Force Electronic Systems Division.
Serving this “fascist institution” (as he has repeatedly called it) became a family affair when his wife, Carol, also an accomplished linguist, signed on for Pentagon work participating in a DoD-funded project called “Baseball.”(11)
Why would the Pentagon fund research into linguistics? Were they simply interested in advancing science? Chomsky would call anyone who believed such a thing supremely naive. As Chomsky well knew, his work in linguistics was considered vital by the air force and others to improve their “increasingly large investment in so-called ‘command and control’ computer systems” that were being used “to support our forces in Vietnam.” As air force colonel Edmund P. Gaines put it in 1971, “Since the computer cannot ‘understand’ English, the commanders’ queries must be translated into a language that the computer can deal with; such languages resemble English very little, either in their form or in the ease with which they are learned and used.”(12)
Given Chomsky’s high profile and shrill rhetoric, it is amazing that he has never been called on this glaring hypocrisy. The one example I could find when it actually became an issue was back in 1967, when Chomsky famously challenged his fellow professors to take moral responsibility for their actions, denounce the Pentagon, and admit that they were compromised by advising the government. George Steiner, a professor at Columbia, wrote Chomsky a letter that was published in the New York Review of Books, asking him earnestly: What action do you urge? And he directly asked: “Will Noam Chomsky announce that he will stop teaching at MIT or anywhere in this country so long as torture and napalm go on?” Chomsky had urged people to avoid paying taxes, resist the draft, and protest the war. He even advocated civil violence as a possible solution. But Chomsky balked at Steiner’s suggestion. He could have publicly resigned, denounced the Pentagon, and taken a faculty position at any leading university in the country. But Chomsky wasn’t willing to give up his position. Since then, he has tried to avoid discussing the subject. Along the way, he has been paid a nice salary for more than four decades courtesy of the Pentagon.
Armed with evidence of Chomsky’s willingness to accept millions in salary and benefits from the Pentagon while trying to run ROTC off campus, I wrote him an e-mail asking him to explain himself. To his credit, Chomsky did respond. But what he sent back was less than convincing.
“I think we should be responsible for what we do, not for the bureaucratic question of who stamps the paycheck,” he wrote, adding provocatively, “Do you think you are not working for the Pentagon? Ask yourself about the origins of the computer and the Internet you are now using.”
Somehow, the fact that I use the Internet, which was created by the U.S. military, not only means that I am “working for the Pentagon,” it is the moral equivalent of Chomsky himself growing wealthy on Pentagon contracts. I don’t know about you, but I’m still waiting for my check.
Intriguingly, Chomsky seems to have taken me for someone even farther to the left than he is. Thus as our correspondence continued, he suddenly grew defensive and accused me of attacking “those who have not been living up to your exalted standards.”
But of course it was Chomsky himself who had created this “exalted” standard by condemning those who might consider taking grants or scholarships from the Pentagon.
When Chomsky appears on college campuses, he usually dresses in a rumpled shirt and jacket. He is identified with dozens of left-wing causes and professes to speak for the poor, the oppressed, and the “victims of capitalism.” But Chomsky is himself a shrewd capitalist, worth millions, with money in the dreaded and evil stock market, and at least one tax haven to cut down on those pesky inheritance taxes that he says are so important.
Chomsky describes himself as a “socialist” whose goal is a “post-capitalist society worth living in or fighting for.”(13) He has called capitalism a “grotesque catastrophe” and a doctrine “crafted to induce hopelessness, resignation, and despair.” When speaking about class struggle, Chomsky uses terms like “us” versus “them.” Them includes “the top ten percent of taxpayers” (the bracket he himself occupies). Us, he says with truly audacious dishonesty, includes the other 90 percent. He further polishes his radical credentials by boasting about how he loves to spend time with “unemployed working class, activists of one kind or another, those considered to be riff-raff.”(14)
Yet this man of the people, who is among the top 2 percent in the United States in net wealth, moved his family out of Cambridge, Massachusetts–hardly a working-class district to begin with–to the even more affluent wooded suburb of Lexington, where he was even less likely to mingle with blue-collar types. Moreover, he made the move around the time forced busing was being imposed on the Boston area; Lexington was exempt from the court order. Today, America’s leading socialist owns a home worth over $850,000 and a vacation home in Wellfleet, Massachusetts, valued in excess of $1.2 million. Chomsky’s home on the Cape is smack in the middle of a state park, which prevents any condos from going up nearby and obstructing his view. And don’t look for oppressed minorities in either neighborhood. This self-described admirer of the Black Panthers, who says intellectuals must combat “all forms of racism” and complains that America “excludes” blacks from large parts of the country, owns a home in a town with a black population of 1.1 percent.(15)
Chomsky is not lonely in Wellfleet. His close friend and fellow radical Howard Zinn, author of A People’s History of America, also makes his home there. Zinn has made a comfortable living over the years trumpeting his economic idea “that there should be no disproportions in the world,” that everyone should basically have the same amount of wealth. He is also quick to pull the trigger and use words like perpetual racism and racist segregation in American society.(16) For all of his talk, Zinn owns two homes in expensive lily-white Wellfleet and a third in multicultural Auburndale (minority population 3.3 percent). A bit disproportionate, don’t you think?
worldpeace365
Noam Chomsky, Closet Capitalist
Noam Chomsky, Closet Capitalistby Peter Schweizer
Monday, January 30, 2006
One of the most persistent themes in Noam Chomsky’s work has been class warfare. He has frequently lashed out against the “massive use of tax havens to shift the burden to the general population and away from the rich” and criticized the concentration of wealth in “trusts” by the wealthiest 1 percent. The American tax code is rigged with “complicated devices for ensuring that the poor—like 80 percent of the population—pay off the rich.”
But trusts can’t be all bad. After all, Chomsky, with a net worth north of $2,000,000, decided to create one for himself. A few years back he went to Boston’s venerable white-shoe law firm, Palmer and Dodge, and, with the help of a tax attorney specializing in “income-tax planning,” set up an irrevocable trust to protect his assets from Uncle Sam. He named his tax attorney (every socialist radical needs one!) and a daughter as trustees. To the Diane Chomsky Irrevocable Trust (named for another daughter) he has assigned the copyright of several of his books, including multiple international editions.
Chomsky favors the estate tax and massive income redistribution—just not the redistribution of his income. No reason to let radical politics get in the way of sound estate planning.
When I challenged Chomsky about his trust, he suddenly started to sound very bourgeois: “I don’t apologize for putting aside money for my children and grandchildren,” he wrote in one e-mail. Chomsky offered no explanation for why he condemns others who are equally proud of their provision for their children and who try to protect their assets from Uncle Sam. Although he did say that the tax shelter is okay because he and his family are “trying to help suffering people.”
Indeed, Chomsky is rich precisely because he has been such an enormously successful capitalist. Despite the anti-profit rhetoric, like any other corporate capitalist he has turned himself into a brand name. As John Lloyd puts it, writing critically in the lefty New Statesman, Chomsky is among those “open to being ‘commodified’—that is, to being simply one of the many wares of a capitalist media market place, in a way that the badly paid and overworked writers and journalists for the revolutionary parties could rarely be.”
Chomsky’s business works something like this. He gives speeches on college campuses around the country at $12,000 a pop, often dozens of times a year.
Can’t go and hear him in person? No problem: you can go online and download clips from earlier speeches—for a fee. You can hear Chomsky talk for one minute about “Property Rights”; it will cost you 79 cents. You can also buy a CD with clips from previous speeches for $12.99.
But books are Chomsky’s mainstay, and on the international market he has become a publishing phenomenon. The Chomsky brand means instant sales. As publicist Dana O’Hare of Pluto Press explains: “All we have to do is put Chomsky’s name on a book and it sells out immediately!”
Putting his name on a book should not be confused with writing a book because his most recent volumes are mainly transcriptions of speeches, or interviews that he has conducted over the years, put between covers and sold to the general public. You might call it multi-level marketing for radicals. Chomsky has admitted as much: “If you look at the things I write—articles for Z Magazine, or books for South End Press, or whatever—they are mostly based on talks and meetings and that kind of thing. But I’m kind of a parasite. I mean, I’m living off the activism of others. I’m happy to do it.”
Chomsky’s marketing efforts shortly after September 11 give new meaning to the term war profiteer. In the days after the tragedy, he raised his speaking fee from $9,000 to $12,000 because he was suddenly in greater demand.
He also cashed in by producing another instant book. Seven Stories Press, a small publisher, pulled together interviews conducted via e-mail that Chomsky gave in the three weeks following the attack on the Twin Towers and rushed the book to press. His controversial views were hot, particularly overseas. By early December 2001, the pushlisher had sold the foreign rights in 19 different languages. The book made the best-seller list in the United States, Canada, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, and New Zealand. It is safe to assume that he netted hundreds of thousands of dollars from this book alone.
Over the years, Chomsky has been particularly critical of private property rights, which he considers simply a tool of the rich, of no benefit to ordinary people. “When property rights are granted to power and privilege, it can be expected to be harmful to most,” Chomsky wrote on a discussion board for the Washington Post. Intellectual property rights are equally despicable. According to Chomsky, for example, drug companies who have spent hundreds of millions of dollars developing drugs shouldn’t have ownership rights to patents. Intellectual property rights, he argues, “have to do with protectionism.”
Protectionism is a bad thing—especially when it relates to other people. But when it comes to Chomsky’s own published work, this advocate of open intellectual property suddenly becomes very selfish. It would not be advisable to download the audio from one of his speeches without paying the fee, warns his record company, Alternative Tentacles. (Did Andrei Sakharov have a licensing agreement with a record company?) And when it comes to his articles, you’d better keep your hands off. Go to the official Noam Chomsky website (www.chomsky.info) and the warning is clear: “Material on this site is copyrighted by Noam Chomsky and/or Noam Chomsky and his collaborators. No material on this site may be reprinted or posted on other web sites without written permission.” However, the website does give you the opportunity to “sublicense” the material if you are interested.
Radicals used to think of their ideas as weapons; Chomsky sees them as a licensing opportunity.
Chomsky has even gone the extra mile to protect the copyright to some of his material by transferring ownership to his children. Profits from those works will thus be taxed at his children’s lower rate. He also extends the length of time that the family is able to hold onto the copyright and protect his intellectual assets.
In October 2002, radicals gathered in Philadelphia for a benefit entitled “Noam Chomsky: Media and Democracy.” Sponsored by the Greater Philadelphia Democratic Left, for a fee of $15 you could attend the speech and hear the great man ruminate on the evils of capitalism. For another $35, you could attend a post-talk reception and he would speak directly with you.
During the speech, Chomsky told the assembled crowd, “A democracy requires a free, independent, and inquiring media.” After the speech, Deborah Bolling, a writer for the lefty Philadelphia City Paper, tried to get an interview with Chomsky. She was turned away. To talk to Chomsky, she was told, this “free, independent, and inquiring” reporter needed to pay $35 to get into the private reception.
Corporate America is one of Chomsky’s demons. It’s hard to find anything positive he might say about American business. He paints an ominous vision of America suffering under the “unaccountable and deadly rule of corporations.” He has called corporations “private tyrannies” and declared that they are “just as totalitarian as Bolshevism and fascism.” Capitalism, in his words, is a “grotesque catastrophe.”
But a funny thing happened on the way to the retirement portfolio.
Chomsky, for all of his moral dudgeon against American corporations, finds that they make a pretty good investment. When he made investment decisions for his retirement plan at MIT, he chose not to go with a money market fund or even a government bond fund. Instead, he threw the money into blue chips and invested in the TIAA-CREF stock fund. A look at the stock fund portfolio quickly reveals that it invests in all sorts of businesses that Chomsky says he finds abhorrent: oil companies, military contractors, pharmaceuticals, you name it.
When I asked Chomsky about his investment portfolio he reverted to a “what else can I do?” defense: “Should I live in a cabin in Montana?” he asked. It was a clever rhetorical dodge. Chomsky was declaring that there is simply no way to avoid getting involved in the stock market short of complete withdrawal from the capitalist system. He certainly knows better. There are many alternative funds these days that allow you to invest your money in “green” or “socially responsible” enterprises. They just don’t yield the maximum available return.
This essay is adapted from the author’s new book Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy (Doubleday, 2005). Available from the Hoover Press is The Fall of the Berlin Wall, edited by Peter Schweizer. To order, call 800.935.2882 or visit http://www.hooverpress.org.
http://www.hoover.org/research/noam-chomsky-closet-capitalist
BRIAN ROSE:
"Noam Chomsky How To Protect Your Freedom Of Speech: Why The Government & Technology Companies Want To Silence You
·
June 30, 2020
American Theoretical Linguist
Noam Chomsky is an
intellectual prodigy who went on to earn a PhD
in linguistics at the University of Pennsylvania.
Since 1955, he has been a professor at MIT
and has produced groundbreaking, controversial theories on human linguistic
capacity. Chomsky is widely published, both on topics in his field and on
issues of dissent and U.S. foreign policy.
Just as World War II was
coming to a close, Chomsky began his studies at the University of Pennsylvania.
He found little use for his classes until he met Zellig
S. Harris, an American scholar touted for discovering structural
linguistics.
In 1955, the professorial staff at Massachusetts Institute
of Technology (MIT) invited Chomsky to join their ranks. Now a professor
emeritus, he worked in the school’s Department of
Linguistics & Philosophy for half a century before retiring from
active teaching in 2005. He has also been a visiting professor or lectured at a
range of other universities, including Columbia,
UCLA, Princeton and Cambridge, and holds honorary degrees from countless
others throughout the world.
During his career as a professor, Chomsky introduced
transformational grammar to the linguistics field. His theory asserts that
languages are innate and that the differences we see are only due to parameters
developed over time in our brains, helping to explain why children are able to
learn different languages more easily than adults. One of his most famous
contributions to linguistics is what his contemporaries have called the Chomsky
Hierarchy, a division of grammar into groups, moving up or down in their
expressive abilities. These ideas have had huge ramifications in fields such as
modern psychology and philosophy, both answering and raising questions about
human nature and how we process information.
Chomsky’s writings on linguistics include Current Issues in Linguistic Theory (1964), Aspects
of the Theory of Syntax (1965), The Sound Pattern of English (with Morris Halle, 1968), Language and Mind (1972), Studies on Semantics in Generative Grammar (1972), and Knowledge of Language (1986)."
HOW USEFUL AND TO WHOM, Noam Chomsky’s
writings have been on:
Linguistics,
Linguistic
Theory (1964),
Theory of Syntax (1965),
The
Sound Pattern of English (with
Morris Halle, 1968),
Language
and Mind (1972),
Studies
on Semantics in Generative Grammar (1972),
and
Knowledge
of Language (1986).
For sure, to TRUTH,
to at least some 1,8 billion Muslims of the flat and static Earth, to hundreds
of millions of honest truth-seekers, and to me personally: ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!
Noam Chomsky is NOT an "intellectual prodigy", but a bloody MIT (Massachusetts Institute of
Technology - MIT) Pentagon (Military Industrial Complex - MIC) paid Jewish Zionist
Communist!
Theories on human
linguistic capacity, my foot!
As a linguist, he is not even aware that his name NOAM is
wrongly spelt! I call him NAHUM or
NAWM! Further, Nahum is widely published,
so what? Pornography, lies, fake
science, and propaganda are always widely published, sometimes even with our
tax money!
My litmus test for Nahum was and remains: Palestine and Apartheid Israel! Even the "Holocaust" Hoax! As for linguistics, don't make me laugh! I sent him several emails as well as to
French Jew Marc-Alain Ouaknine questioning them for over 2 decades about the origins
of the HIBIRU ("HEBREW") dialect, and both never responded at all,
and they allow lies being told endlessly about that DEAD or almost dead Arabian-Phoenician-Berber-Egyptian
dialect!
Nahum's psychology and philosophy did nothing to the
world, but military might does control everything! And, who has military might? This is the real issue, and not linguistics
or Chomsky's "dissidence", which is meant to distract while he is
protected from all sides including by the ADL of the B'nai B'rith Jewish
Masonic Lodge as well as by the Pentagon!
What would be interesting to know is how much Monsieur
Nahum has written about or against the Talmudist Khazarian Mafia that runs US-world
politics, religions, and finances!
BAFS
Thursday 9th July 2020
No comments:
Post a Comment