January 25, 2009.
In an interview given to Iran's Press TV on Sat, 24 Jan 2009, titled “Chomsky: No change coming with Obama”, while belatedly expounding upon the theme reflected in that title – but unfortunately, only after the predictable fait accompli (see “Not-Voting is a 'YES' vote to Reject a Corrupt System which thrives on the facade of Elections and Democracy!”) when earlier he had advocated to vote Obama (see “In swing states vote Obama without illusions” and Mickey Z) – Noam Chomsky made the following statements in a question on the economic crisis:
“Nobody really knows. I mean, what is happening with the economy is not well understood. It is based on extremely opaque financial manipulations, which are quite hard to decode. I mean, the general process is understood, but whether the $800 billion, or probably larger government stimulus, will overcome this crisis, is not known.”
Chomsky might not know, but his claim “nobody really knows” is FALSE. So is the statement: “I mean, what is happening with the economy is not well understood.” And also this: “It is based on extremely opaque financial manipulations, which are quite hard to decode.”
Noam Chomsky would be excited to learn that his once nondescript student not only KNOWS, but has acquired the magical decoder that can “decode the opaque financial transactions” rather trivially. And he has done just that in “Monetary Conspiracy for World Government”. And gone a step further in “Monetary Reform: Who will bell the cat?” And to not guard his new found knowledge too covetously, he has disseminated that knowledge to all and sundry who might wish to drink from that wellspring of carefully compiled publicly available information in its full context in “Monetary Reform Bibliography”. The latter is subtitled “A self-study guide for uncovering the agendas behind the economics gibberish”.
A search of the afore-stated decoder quoted-strings with any internet search engine should solve the greatest source of misery and mystery on the planet rather trivially. It is disturbingly surprising to this scribe that a superlative mind like Noam Chomsky's can’t solve such a trivial puzzle, or has been denied access to the magical decoder by the higher providence which sustains him. It is in the same way that without access to a forensic decoder, the “arguably the most important intellectual alive” according to the New York Times, for the past 7 years has continued to blindly rely upon the mantra of the Pentagon and the White House – Bin Laden did 911 and that there is an external enemy called the “Islamists” – but with his ingenious contribution that that's just the blowback of a criminal foreign policy. To his credit, in almost all cases, Chomsky very accurately describes the diabolical themes in the carefully enacted puppetshows, such as how 'big bird is being awfully misanthropic and about to eat the cookie monsters favorite meal', as he has done once again in this Press TV interview.
My Providence, fortunately for me, has been far kinder to my arguably humbler and much inferior mind, or so it would appear. I can see the puppetmasters rather plainly, despite the semi-invisible strings cloaked in massive deception that might dazzle even the 'Amazing Kreskin'. If one is curious to know what is it that a nondescript rather ordinary former student of Noam Chomsky knows that his teacher doesn't, and what compels the student to ponder upon his teacher's amazing 'blindsight' before the world, please see Project Humanbeingsfirst’s monthly report on “Financial Terrorism January 2009” and replace Congressman Ron Paul’s name with Noam Chomsky’s for the passage which begins with:
“Congressman Ron Paul continually resists the temptation of putting his trigger-finger on these crimes against humanity as an inside job! Watch him do his repeat performance also with respect to 911 and the manufactured ‘war on terror’, as merely the blowback of a reckless foreign policy rather than an inside job with a fabricated enemy,”
Reproduced below following the excerpt, is the relevant portion of Chomsky's interview with Press TV. Either Press TV has limited cognitive and forensic capacities, like my favorite rebel-politician Chavez of Venezuela who held up one of Noam Chomsky’s famous books at the UN to draw attention to the criminal excesses of American imperialism but despite the opportunity and the open microphone on the world-stage, did not dare call 911 an 'inside job', nor dare connect the disparate global crises that are calculatingly hurtling the world towards 'one-world' government. Or, arguably, perhaps all have drank from the same globalists' table.
Are these rebel-leaders of dissent, deliberately being circumspect in not proclaiming the grotesque core-truths before the public even when each has huge numbers of fawning followers? Some rather compelling reasons for such inaction were outlined by W. Cleon Skousen in his forensic commentary on Prof. Carroll Quigley's 1966 revelations in “Tragedy and Hope” about the international banking establishment:
'The real value of Tragedy and Hope ... [is the] bold and boastful admission by Dr. Quigley that there actually exists a relatively small but powerful group which has succeeded in acquiring a choke-hold on the affairs of practically the entire human race. Of course we should be quick to recognize that no small group could wield such gigantic power unless millions of people in all walks of life were “in on the take” and were willing to knuckle down to the iron-clad regimentation of the ruthless bosses behind the scenes. As we shall see, the network has succeeded in building its power structure by using tremendous quantities of money (together with the vast influence it buys) to manipulate, intimidate, or corrupt millions of men and women and their institutions on a world-wide basis.' (W. Cleon Skousen, The Naked Capitalist, pg. 6)
But what is even more peculiar is that even presumably arch nemesis, like the Iranian government is of the United States government (and vice versa), and its most articulate President Ahmadinijad who is invited and granted visas to visit the United States and permitted to give long platitudinous speeches at the UN and at prestigious American University – speeches that are woefully devoid of any comprehension of Machiavellian political science or sophisticated Hegelian dialects – and who stand to directly benefit from exposing the United States' ruling-elite's fraud of 911 deception and their drive for world-government, remain conspicuously silent.
If one were to judge the Hegelian tree by its fruits, Press TV and the Iranian rulers appear to be in on the complex con-game of manufacturing tension, and that inescapable conclusion simply boggles the mind. In fact, it boggles the mind in no less measure than the discovery that fascism, nazism, and communism, were all manufactured with Anglo-American capital. Its blood-soaked owners traced to financial interests on Wall Street, and to the fraternity of International banksters. The same monied-interests, including many well known names whose descendants have played havoc in the world, had once tried to turn the United States into a fascist dictatorship by attempting to orchestrate a coup d'état with a private army. They were only thwarted by a conscionable US Marines' General whose services they had enlisted, Maj. General Smedley Butler. The same Anglo-American blood-stained hands are also behind creating and sustaining Israel and its tortuous creed of Zionism, as is repeatedly made self-evident, most recently by the 'harmless' appointment of Sandy Fisher, the deputy managing director of the International Monetary Fund, to the post of Governor of the Bank of Israel.
All “isms” of recent modernity, including Bin Laden's “Islamism”, are indubitably manufactured by the diabolical capitalists of the West. Is also “Iranism”? That thought finds some support among the imperial dissidents of the orthodox Iranian regime who repeatedly allege that Ayatollah Khoemeni was brought to power by Western Intelligence (having sheltered and protected him during his exile in France, what other conclusion these hungry homeless folks longing for their palaces can draw), but they are impossible to believe as anything other than the 'Ahmad Chalabis' of Iran.
No, this lack of bold pronouncements from the Iranian leadership – never mind Noam Chomsky or Chavez – when the rising dissident movement and scientific evidence right here in the United States demonstrates that expert controlled-demolition was the only scientifically tenable first-cause of the onset of the WTC-1, WTC-2, and WTC-7 buildings catastrophic explosion/collapse, is at a much deeper and diabolically hidden level. Even before evidence for controlled demolition had accumulated, the complete absence of NORAD's air defenses on the very day of the “new pearl harbor” to respond to the hijacked planes in the most armed to the teeth superpower state, most certainly should have indicated to any rational forensic mind that stand-down orders had been issued, and therefore, 911 was an 'inside job'. A military-level precision planned coup d'état on the peoples of the United States by its own insiders, with puppetshows to match. For Iran to not have called it as such, to not have pushed any resolutions to this effect in the United Nations when they have precariously stood at the brink of ostensibly being attacked by both the United States and Israel for the past several years, and not even deriving any propaganda value from it in its own nation's self-defense, is bizarre shortsightedness to say the least (see “Letter to Editor Press TV with a message to the Iranian Peoples”). Since no genuine statesmen can be so shortsighted in modern politics, and since being gullible patsies and morons does not fit the description, it begs the question why?
Why has even Russia not made such a move – they already experienced Georgia's aggression in Ossetia, and for the past several years have been experiencing NATO's systematic construction of the suffocating ring around Russia's security perimeter - and Mr. Putin is no slouch! He is even a blackbelt judomaster – one who knows how to exploit both the strengths and weaknesses of one's enemy.
The deafening silence among all the present rulers, presidents, prime ministers, military dictators, kings and their surrogates, of all the nations of the planet, speaks volumes in support of Skousen's analysis. Otherwise, for brilliant intellectuals and astute political antagonists to not harvest these things low hanging fruits and use them to their own advantage is outright absurd.
But wait, it might only come unraveled in 50 or 100 years once the world-government is won, and historians and intellectuals get to mint some distinction discovering the pink-panther gloves and rehearsing the fait accomplis of what is long-past. Just as they boldly do today of the extermination of the indigenous populations of this continent. It is considered high scholarship to quote from the colonists diaries and to expose how the natives' heads were chopped off for trophies and small-pox was spread among them with Gattling guns finishing them off. Personally, I have no need of such “wise” historians, scholars, intellectuals, theorists, and leaders for whom history has become mindless “recollections of our past”, and is not the “responsibility for the future”. I surely have no use for master criminals, and those who diabolically aid and abet them in their conquests. And I most assuredly, daily, several times each hour, bring the imprecation of Elie Wiesel upon all of them.
So examine this erudite exposition of the 'katputli tamasha' (puppetshow) without a single reference to 'fiat money as national debt' and the interests paid on it to private banksters in perpetuity (by present and future tax payers of this nation). Nor is there a single reference to the fact that the international banksters outright control the Federal Reserve System who are deliberately shrinking credit just as they did in the years of the Great Depression to calculatingly seed Great Depression II, nor any exposition of why the banksters would want to create a greater financial crises as if it was all a great cosmic mystery (see “Response to Financial Times Gideon Rachman's 'And now for a world government'”). Instead, some erudite academic gibberish is thrown as red herrings to the hungry searching for answers from the oracle:
“Press TV: Just finally Professor Chomsky, the US economy, of course where you are -that is dominating the news and the lives all Americans and arguably the people around the world- and this 825 billion dollar package. How do you think the Obama people are going to handle this?
Chomsky: Nobody really knows. I mean, what is happening with the economy is not well understood. It is based on extremely opaque financial manipulations, which are quite hard to decode. I mean, the general process is understood, but whether the $800 billion, or probably larger government stimulus, will overcome this crisis, is not known.
The first $350 billion have already been spent- that is the so-called part bailout but that went into the pockets of banks. They were supposed to start lending freely, but they just decided not to do it. They would rather enrich themselves, restore their own capital, and take over other banks- mergers and acquisition and so on.
Whether the next stimulus will have an effect depends very much on how it is handled, whether it is monitored, so that it is used for constructive purposes. [It relies] also on factors that are just not known, like how deep this crisis is going to be.
It is a worldwide crisis and it is very serious. It is suddenly striking that the ways that Western countries are approaching the crisis is exactly the same as the model that they enforce on the Third World when there is a crisis.
So when Indonesia has a crisis, Argentina and everyone else, they are supposed to raise interest rates very high and privatize the economy, and cut down on public spending, measures like that. In the West, it is the exact opposite: lower interest rates to zero, move towards nationalization if necessary, pour money into the economy, have huge debts.
That is exactly the opposite of how the Third World is supposed to pay off its debts, and that this seems to pass without comment is remarkable. These measures for the West are ones that might get the economy moving again, while it has been a disaster for others.”
The self-evident conclusion can only be seeded in a caveat lector. Can’t put one’s own brain on hold, never mind how small, just because some mighty oracles speak from the divine mountain. While it may perhaps be arguable that (excerpts are from “Responsibility of Intellectuals – Redux”)
“It is the responsibility of intellectuals to speak the truth and to expose lies”, and “Intellectuals are in a position to expose the lies of governments, to analyze actions according to their causes and motives and often hidden intentions. In the Western world, at least, they have the power that comes from political liberty, from access to information and freedom of expression”, and “the responsibility of a writer as a moral agent is to try to bring the truth about matters of human significance to an audience that can do something about them.”
It is also outright true that:
“There is no a priori reason to believe claims to morality by the intellectual, as asserted by Chomsky with the banal phrase 'the responsibility of a writer as a moral agent'.”
because it isn't entirely obvious:
“Why may the intellectual not be an exponent of Machiavelli in the service of the powerful, of 'power and its incantations', telling 'Nobel Lies' to serve the ruling interests? After all, those who run 'systems' also need intellectual and doctrinal backbone to carry them out, don't they?”
“Isn't it but manifest empiricism that since the Renaissance that preceded the industrial revolution, with the waning of kingdoms and aristocracies, feudalism and servitude, and the arrival of plebeian norms and free thinking that were the precursors of modern day 'populist democracy' in the West, new forms of plebeian intellectual regimentation and willing control (despite that being a nonsequitur) were invented in astute political philosophy to serve the interests of the ruling elite? From Machiavelli's "Prince", through Nietzsche's "ubermensch", to Strauss' "Nobel Lies" of modernity, are of course all intellectualism too, and in the very distinguished service of the ruling interests. So what's wrong with such intellectualism?”
Except of course,
“if such self-apportioned responsibility by the intellectual is merely a tool to serve an end, and not an end in itself. Just as it is a tool in the hands of the Machiavellian espousing the morality of supermen, if it becomes a tool in the hands of the intellectual espousing the banal morality, one not beyond good and evil, but specifically only intended to serve the plebeian.”
“The test of that is daily and constant", to be “administered by the plebeians themselves.”
Has Noam Chomsky passed this test? The following conclusions on the dissent of Noam Chomsky must surface publicly and be addressed by him directly if his intellectual legacy is not to be despoiled posthumously by charges of co-option. His failure to question the core-axioms of his own ruling-elite repeatedly at the most momentous events in any intellectual's life, is his tacit admission of complicity. From the assassination of JFK (where Chomsky strangely echoed the fundamental mantras of the establishment, of 'lone-gunman'), to 911 (where Chomsky again immediately echoed the fundamental doctrinal mantras of the establishment of 'Bin Laden and his merry band of 19 Muslim men'). And on both occasions, he sophistedly reasoned that it didn't matter who perpetuated those monumental terror acts – which have, by the way, dramatically altered the course of human history – when his reasoning hasn't been accepted by the skeptics. Chomsky obviously can't otherwise coherently respond to how did Bin Laden ever orchestrate the collapsing of WTC-7 into its own footprints at near free-fall speed, when no plane hit it (see “Letter to Noam Chomsky on Steven Jones seminal paper on the destruction of WTC”).
For an honest intellectual who has harped upon the “responsibility of intellectuals', that WTC-7 sudden collapse inexplicability, among several others (see Foreword, “Prisoners of the Cave”), should have been sufficient grounds for instantly rejecting the 'Ali Baba' axiom emanating from America's rulers (see “Ali Baba in Mumbai”). And especially when one has time and again described their malignant take-over of America as a criminal “rogue state” and “terrorist state”. Which rational mind accepts any criminal's and terrorist's testimony when one has already determined them as such? This is way beyond indoctrination. Way beyond mere difference of opinion among hotshot scholars. It is outright deceit of no less measure than the empire's own vulgar circus clowns who peddle its mantras for “doctrinal motivation”.
Chomsky called Bernard Lewis a “vulgar propagandist and not a scholar” (see interview on CBC Part 2, minute 5:50) for his unpardonable role in having created and perpetuated the mantras of empire for manufacturing consent among its sheeples. But Noam Chomsky himself perpetuates the very same axiom as Bernard Lewis, the “vulgar propagandist and not a scholar”, that Bin Laden did 911! This perpetuating the same core-lie among the dissent-space in the guise of critiquing the empire and its excesses, and being the contrarian to the manufacturing of consent and even theorizing about it in Goebbellian terms, is what one might call manufacturing dissent. It is far more sophisticated than vulgar propaganda, and requires far greater intellectual prowess and fast footwork to pull it off. It mainly relies on the lack of any long term memory and forensic skills among the followers even though, unlike the majority of masses who fall prey to the manufactured consent, they may have a higher questioning attitude and easily aroused to activism on moral causes. Cleverly controlling this smaller rebel team is the job of manufacturing dissent.
What brilliant dialectics of deception for herding all levels of sheep! Hitler had foreseen no need for the latter when he classified people of any society into three broad categories in Mein Kampf based on their susceptibility to propaganda, and advocated only the former for creating the 'united we stand' in his Third Reich from “the crowd of simpletons and the credulous ... when the voting papers of the masses are the deciding factor” (see “Weapons of Mass Deception – The Master Social Science”).
But in the Fourth Reich's version, between the high-priests of empire calculatingly manufacturing consent (by taking some well worn leaves out of Goebbells handbook who in turn took it from the American Edward Bernays', but it goes at least as far back as Plato's 'Myth of the Cave'), and the high-priests of the dissent space artfully manufacturing dissent (an art neglected by Hitler), these intellectuals of left and right, top and bottom, have the entire discourse space nicely constrained by retaining the same damn axioms of empire regardless of where you turn for an oracle. Then the chutzpah of Noam Chomsky – probably laughing at the suckers who lap it up and never apply it to him – to even explain how such constraining is useful to empire:
“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum — even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there’s free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.”
And isn't that amazing, that all these high-priests of scholarship hail from the same heritage as the banksters out to create world-government along with the owners of the presses and the media, and that the New York Times, from among the 200 million Christians in America, and at least a couple of billion in the Western world, never mind the rest of the inconsequential four billion humanity, could only find another Jew to bestow the title of “arguably the most important intellectual alive”, thus churning the honey for all the overzealous disgruntled flies to gather on from among their own kith? Is there no Christian scholar in the West worthy of such title?
How many backcovers of books has Chomsky adorned that title on, misleading even statesman like Chavez to wave his book in the UN as evidence of imperialism coming from the empire's own top priest?
We find people tripping over themselves to interview Noam Chomsky, and to hear him speak, and what does he end up reinforcing after all the “sense of free thinking” is stripped off to zoom into the unstated axioms of his dissent? The same thing as Bernard Lewis – the “vulgar propagandist and not a scholar” – “presuppositions of the system reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate”. And Chomsky imposes that limit on himself to preclude all challenges from anyone in the dissent space who isn't already dismissed as an overzealous 'kook'. His attitude towards 911 researchers and 'truthers' for example is entirely explained under this model of manufactured dissent. (Also see footnote [a10] in “Monetary Conspiracy for World Government” for another example of vigorous dissent packaging the same “presuppositions of the system” but to the massive accolades from anyone who watches that performance)
But Noam Chomsky's most egregious crime, as the most highly decorated intellectual of the dissent-space, is the crime of blatant omission. Of not exposing the first-principles of the economic fraud that is entirely based upon the first-principles of the nature and control of money. A control so enormous, and so diabolically astute, that there cannot be one greater. Its consolidation in the private hands of a small group of very identifiable global ruling-families who share Chomsky's Jewish heritage, and whose agenda for world-government is no privileged 'state-secret' but only cloaked in layers of deception, is just ripe for a decorated intellectual to dismantle. And yet, its unraveling has escaped the plethora of Noam Chomsky books that I have read that is filled with myriad of facts and narratives from already published public sources like the New York Times, and which have, incidentally, also made him enormously wealthy peddling his famed dissent ( see “Noam Chomsky, Closet Capitalist”, Hoover Institution ).
I am happy to eat crow, many crows, if Noam Chomsky can identify erroneous conclusions on my part and clarify matters convincingly. I am still an ordinary student, still eager to learn. But I don't hold out much promise from a much lauded octogenarian dissent-priest who has already lived his most productive years of dissent and already done much damage, especially since 911 as he traveled the world peddling the axioms of empire underneath the veneer of bashing its imperialism. Noam Chomsky's omissions have been outright criminal and indefensible. His platitudes on the “responsibility of intellectuals” outright hypocritical and laden with sophistry. His description of the crimes of empire entirely meaningless when they maintain the core-lies and never identify the real criminals with an intent to deceive and deflect attention. For ignorance is not a charge that can be credibly laid on the doorstep of Noam Chomsky any more than it can be laid on the doorstep of Bernard Lewis.
As someone who learnt his craft from his teacher, the moral platitudes that the teacher taught, which this scribe genuinely took to heart, make it incumbent upon me to scream that it is high time the victim civilizations, and those men and women of conscience rising to protest the crimes against humanity of their own modern rulers, wizened up to the dialectics of deception.
Stop seeking analysis and solutions from famously manufactured oracles. Socrates only existed in Plato's imagination. Use your own bloody head, however tiny. Six feet under, the maggots can't tell the size. But we may all live longer and happier before getting to the maggots if we were without our false leaders, without our false scholars, and without our false hope and our false sense of satisfaction that our moral dissent and protests in their traditional style made the whit of a difference to the tyrants or to their plans.
An ordinary Plebeian.
The author, an ordinary researcher and writer on contemporary geopolitics, a minor justice activist, grew up in Pakistan, studied EECS at MIT, engineered for a while in high-tech Silicon Valley (patents here), and retired early to pursue other responsible interests. His maiden 2003 book was rejected by six publishers and can be read on the web at http://PrisonersoftheCave.org. He may be reached at http://Humanbeingsfirst.org. Verbatim reproduction license at http://humanbeingsfirst.org/#Copyright.
01/27/2009 12:05:09 4479
Links fixed October 31, 2016 4500
Response to Press TV's Interview with Noam Chomsky 'No change coming with Obama' January 25 2009 11/11