The Cunning Dissent of Noam Chomsky Revisited in 2015 by Zahir Ebrahim

Caption Noam Chomsky, Pied Piper for type-2 demographics - the empire is bad crowd. Image Pied Piper of Hamelin via wikipedia.
Noam Chomsky is an integral part of the Democratic system of the West which permits dissent in the name of freedom and relies on the system of controlled dissent to diabolically limit its effectiveness as much as it relies on the system of engineered consent to make the public mind. To comprehend the cunning in the fabled dissent of Chomsky one must understand the system in complete depth.
Sunday, December 20, 2015 | Last Updated Tuesday, January 5, 2016
“Professor Noam Chomsky of MIT has made odd and frankly specious claims regarding skepticism of the government's official story of the September 11th, 2001 attacks ( His statements were misleading and have, in fact, misled many people who defer to him as an expert on these matters. ...
Professor Chomsky, as an authority on linguistics and on the clarity of words, should respond directly to these facts and to this public challenge. Either a 9/11 cover-up exists, which we must demand an end to as a free and open society; or else there is no government cover-up, and the 9/11 crimes have been solved.” --- A Public Challenge to Professor Noam Chomsky: Debating the September 11th Attack Evidence, Joe Giambrone, Dec 01, 2015, via Kevin Barrett's TruthJihad radio:
Challenging Professor Dr. Noam Chomsky is like challenging Professor Dr. Bernard Lewis, two peas in a pod, identical twins from the same tribe merely playing the Hegelian Dialectic of Dissent, the wwf-style wrestling tag team event in which the ostensibly vigorous opponents eat at the same elitist dinner table, the former from Pax Americana's MIT and the latter from Pax Americana's Princeton. They don't debate. They are propagandists, and they each have a public mission which is complementary to each other. The Hegelian Dialectic of Dissent is examined in complete depth as a Machiavellian political science instrument of making the public mind in Architecture of Modern Propaganda for Psychological Warfare:
So, here let's just focus on the dissent of my own former teacher at MIT, Professor Noam Chomsky, from whom I have learnt a great deal about many matters, including intellectual tools to parse deceit, including self-deceit. I have put those skills to good use over the past 15 years, since 9/11 when I started attending anti-war protest marches in 2002 after witnessing the horrendous destruction of Afghanistan, and to wielding these intellectual tools acquired from master philosophers and political scientists to disassemble their own propaganda spiels for making of the public mind since 2003, after America's FBI visited me at home looking for terrorists under my bed. I wrote of that affair in my maiden 2003 book Prisoners of the Cave which I even sent to my professor Noam Chomsky for his comments with many earnest questions, just like this good Samaritan Mr. Joe Giambrone has posed in the best of intentions.
Well, like this innocent fellow, I too was a tad green behind the ears at that time and had not quite figured out the full dynamics of manufactured dissent, its theoretical and philosophical underpinnings. And like this good fellow, I too got no comments back from my good old professor except to say that his in-basket was full at the moment and he may never get to my manuscript. Of course, I took that to mean that many more important people were in line ahead of me begging for his favors and doing him favors in turn in an incestuous self-reinforcement cycle of shoring each other up in the dissent-space for keeping the axioms of empire intact. Had professor Chomsky ever read my book, he would never have replied anyway. But over the years I kept engaging with my professor over email, continually learning remarkable new absurdities from him, until I actually figured it out. I figured out the Hegelian Dialectic of Dissent which made all absurdities and inconsistencies go away. This is very unfortunate actually, because my new understanding of how power actually flows in society to make the public mind, lost me many of my friends, confreres, and well-wishers. For I stopped suffering both propagandists and useful idiots.
Well, in this brief tract let's just examine the challenge that has been thrown once again to professor Noam Chomsky by this yet another well-intentioned American waking up from his deep slumber of mainstream USA in December 2015 and asking the preliminary simpleton questions that occur to any thoughtful mind when it first gives up its belief in tooth-fairies and pious governments. Note that I didn't say Santa Claus, because it is Christmas week after all, and we don't want to deprive any children reading this the Western civilization's wonderful gift of fantasy to sell more products.
Well, unfortunately, this good Samaritan mis-perceives. By throwing this open challenge to the foremost and “arguably the most important intellectual alive” (as per the New York Times), an anointment which has surely helped Noam Chomsky market more books to children and be more effective as their collection agent, our new protagonist of truth and justice perhaps imagines that there is some genuine issue here which needs to be resolved, just like I too once felt, way back in my early years of trying to think for myself. There isn't any issue my friends. Here is why.
Professor Noam Chomsky is rather straightforward to parse if you have the right master key to his dissent. That key is basically this: Chomsky will keep all the axioms of power intact as “divine truths”, and dissent vigorously with the effects that result from the imperial mobilization based on those axioms.
Caption Noam Chomsky, Pied Piper for type-2 demographics - the empire is bad crowd. Image Pied Piper of Hamelin via wikipedia.Caption Noam Chomsky, Pied Piper for type-2 demographics - the empire is bad crowd. Image Pied Piper of Hamelin via wikipedia.
This principle is the hallmark of manufactured dissent. It is neither random nor arbitrary, but principled and based on a keen understanding of human behavior in the aggregate. While the three trillion dollar advertising industry controls human behavior in the individual when they sell us lifestyles and its endless sexy products, unpopular policy-implementations and abhorrent policy prescriptions require controlling human behavior in the aggregate for “United We Stand”. Chomsky is the designated pied piper for type-2 people in society, using Hitler's classification of the public mind for categorization. Here are some passages from my essay which explains the dynamics of this master key to manufacturing dissent, Masters of Dissent and The Dying Songbird:
Begin Excerpt
For instance, just look for all those who share the common establishment “truth”: OBL and Al Qaeda successfully invaded the most armed to the teeth superpower in the world on 9/11, magically hijacked four airliners in the air with box-cutter knives within a matter of an hour, rammed them into two tall buildings and magically demolished three in a feat of demolition which before that day had never been carried out in the entire written history of mankind. All this was planned and orchestrated by an Islamofascist Ali Baba from the Hindu Kush mountains armed to the teeth with cellphones and AK-47s, in collaboration with an illusive database named “Al Qaeda”. The names of the believers of this fantastic fable in the who's who of dissent is surprising. These include some of the biggest and most celebrated names in dissent to keep company with the Neo-cons, the Pentagon, the State Department, the World Bank, the IMF, the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, the Royal Institute of International Affairs in London, the United Nations and all its member countries, and the Bush-Obama Administrations: Noam Chomsky, Francis Boyle, the late Howard Zinn, former Congressman Ron Paul, Congressman Dennis Kucinich, Scott Ritter, Dennis Halliday, Michael Moore, Helen Caldicott, Robert Fisk, John Pilger, Greg Palast, Amy Goodman, Daniel Ellsberg, Nelson Mandela, Arundhatti Roy of India, Tariq Ali and Pervez Hoodbhoy of Pakistan, etc.
Once the big lie is cleverly conceded to officialdom without question, all dissent with empire's barbaric acts against its proclaimed enemies is effectively made futile: “either you are with us or with the terrorists” (George W. Bush). Because, as the empire is now given the license to arguably claim, it is only protecting itself from the diabolically brilliant and most superior foe that is even able to penetrate the strongest superpower on earth's super militarized defenses on its own native soil! Then dissent all you want – so long as you keep that core lie intact in all your adumbration: “'No thank you.' We can let him know that the people of the world do not need to choose between a Malevolent Mickey Mouse and the Mad Mullahs.” (Arundhatti Roy). The argument is cleverly moved away from forensically examining the crime as Sherlock Holmes might do, to the best way to deal with the criminals by presupposing who the criminals are: 'they attack us because we have been over there ... I am suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us ... ' (former congressman Ron Paul). Thus both, the establishment chiefs manufacturing consent, and the dissent chiefs manufacturing dissent, end up continually reinforcing the same presuppositions of the system, the same big lie; the former by openly advocating the big lie, the latter by openly refraining from challenging the big lie. Both are propagandists; the former by commission, the latter by omission. British essayist Aldous Huxley captured the implication of silence and the crime of omission most elegantly in his Preface to Brave New World:
The greatest triumphs of propaganda have been accomplished, not by doing something, but by refraining from doing. Great is truth, but still greater, from a practical point of view, is silence about truth. By simply not mentioning certain subjects, by lowering what Mr. Churchill calls an “iron curtain” between the masses and such facts or arguments as the local political bosses regard as undesirable, totalitarian propagandists have influenced opinion much more effectively than they could have done by the most eloquent denunciations, the most compelling of logical rebuttals.’ — Aldous Huxley, Preface (circa 1946) to Brave New World, 1931, Harper, pg. 11
That is how the Superman herdsman leads the pack of useful idiots in manufactured dissent. He craftily lowers the “iron curtain” of ignorance between the masses and such facts or arguments as the system regards as undesirable or necessary to enforce. And he cleverly echoes the core lies of empire in toto, or presupposes them in his argumentative and tedious dissent. The focus is most craftily shifted from the crime to ex post facto anti-war critique of empire's “imperial mobilization” – after “imperial mobilization” is a fait accompli.
End Excerpt
Professor Noam Chomsky, Pax Americana scholar extraordinaire, will remain an enigma for many on his inexplicable stances in dissent, especially on both JFK and 9/11 where he most gullibly re-echoed and re-exported the axioms of empire with great vigor and was believed by his constituency, until one understands that dissent in free societies is permitted to exist by design of the Republic, unlike in dictatorships, as in Nazi Socialism for instance, or in Communism, or in military junta led societies and feudal kingdoms, etceteras. And because of that, dissent must not be permitted to become effective in derailing the unstated agendas and overt imperial mobilization of the rulers who continue to wield the real powers from behind the facade of elected governments.
Dissent is socially engineered by the architects of the public mind to exist in its most ineffective form so that while effectively sterile and impotent, it can still give the modern "democracy" mantra of Western civilization a renewed lease on la mission civilisatrice, the white man's burden if you will. After the waning of direct rule by the oligarchy or god appointed pontiffs in the West which democracy had replaced with such fanfare while keeping the real power pyramid essentially intact, the illusion of dissent has to be maintained for the domestic benefit of those crying for democracy, freedoms, liberty. So the masses are given the dissent-space that goes nowhere, except as a feel-good cathartic exercise for its useful idiots, and lucrative book publishing and speaking engagement business for its pied pipers. In order to achieve this behavior control of those who are no longer malleable by the mainstream media and the mainstream scholars, the new freedom to dissent must be led to control its length, breadth, and height, and cunningly channeled in specious pursuits to ensure that it does not interfere with the exercise of power by “history's actors” as their private prerogative.
The entire matter of dissent is in fact only Machiavellian political science at work no differently than it is at work for engineering consent among the masses. As the foremost political scientist and linguist in the dissent-space of Pax Americana, which means not just the developed West, but also its tin-pot vassals in the Global South, meaning, preeminent among those who control the global mind (political scientists of today who replaced the philosophers of antiquity) and the semantics of language (the linguists who give meaning to words and consequently inform the mind), Dr. Noam Chomsky serves the function of a most glorified pied piper for his own constituency with the finesse of a peerless expert technician. He is believed. By Whom? Once again from the Masters of Dissent and the Dying Songbird:
Begin Excerpt
Which is why the majority of well-intentioned activists who had previously escaped from the underground dungeons of the manufacturing consent factory are routinely trapped by this new elitist collection agency! It is elitist because it is often composed of the intellectual elite and the self-proclaimed avant-garde in intellectual thought who feel they are ahead of the herd if they don't buy the establishment's lies. Adolph Hitler perceptively understood this skeptical public mind and typecast it as the second majority group in a nation: “Second, those who no longer believe anything;”. The first and largest majority group he identified as: “First, those who believe everything they read;”, “the crowd of simpletons and the credulous”. Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf about the second group, type-2:
The second group is numerically smaller, being partly composed of those who were formerly in the first group and after a series of bitter disappointments are now prepared to believe nothing of what they see in print. They hate all newspapers. Either they do not read them at all or they become exceptionally annoyed at their contents, which they hold to be nothing but a congeries of lies and misstatements. These people are difficult to handle; for they will always be sceptical of the truth. Consequently, they are useless for any form of positive work.” (Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter X)
Hitler's phrase, “useless for any form of positive work”, was most perceptive – for these are the easily swayed audience by the baseless “conspiracy theories” invented by the agents and assets of the establishment. This audience, dominated almost entirely by the same most vocal peace activists and rabble rousers who march emotionally in anti-war protests on weekends and holidays, achieves precisely the intended purpose of the establishment: they foolishly defocus the energies of dissent from homing in onto the first cause of war-faring dystopia and the real criminals who pull the strings for its fabrication from behind the facade of elected governments.
End Excerpt
Precisely because of such perceptive understanding of the dynamics of making the public mind based on the native genius of each of the aggregate groupings, Professor Noam Chomsky of MIT leading the manufacturing of dissent-space appears no different than his tribe mates Professor Bernard Lewis of Princeton, et. al. leading the manufacturing of consent-space.
They each serve a different constituency on behalf of the same oligarchic rulers in the power pyramid. They each have their own marching orders. One lies by commission, tells brazen and vulgar lies to engineer the mainstream public's consent. The other lies by omission, by neglecting to challenge the axioms and Big lies of power while putting up the great show of vigorous dissent to corral the smaller numbers of dissenting public towards ineffectiveness of resistance. For manufacturing consent, the empire is projected as good. For manufacturing dissent, the empire is projected as bad. But the same external enemy is retained, and only re-incarnated either as “jihadis” and “Militant Islam” (consent), or “revolutionaries” and “blowback” (dissent). Neither manufacturers will ever extend their discourse to covert-ops, to forensic analysis of overarching agendas, and to a self-inflicted “inside job” similar to “operation canned goods” of the Third Reich! Noam Chomsky immediately characterized 9/11 as “blowback” and virtually instantly composed a booklet titled “9-11” in its aftermath along precisely the aforementioned template, successfully selling millions of copies in different languages worldwide. He quickly gathered all the type-2s and the prominent alternate media newscasters and editors in the United States of America to the point of view that 9/11 was a “blowback” due to America's own criminal excesses abroad, so that none among their flock might veer off into other directions of perceptively identifying the enemy by exposing the Big lie which even a modicum of commonsense was inviting one towards lest it derail America's imperial mobilization. Both the doctors, Bernard Lewis and Noam Chomsky, one protagonist of empire and the other its antagonist, cunningly collaborated on mis-identifying the enemy exactly as the empire wanted.
It cannot be stated anymore emphatically: both are propagandists, and that's just their job description. However, since Chomsky had used the vernacular “vulgar propagandist” for Bernard Lewis (in an interview to Evan Solomon, CBC, December 9, 2003), hmmmm, one is given to wonder whether one can apply the same vernacular to my good ol' professor Noam Chomsky? Why bother. The job description already identifies their respective roles without the need for any unpleasant invectives. We shall remain more civilized and sophisticated in this revisitation of the subject in this Christmas week of 2015. We have grown too you know. We simply reject their combined bullshit in toto and move-on.
After all, they are not holding a gun to our head. They are not forcing us to believe anything against our own free will, there is no room 101 and no one is coercing us to add two plus two to equal five. We are doing that corrupted addition ourselves. These leaders of propaganda are still only using their words, albeit in most convoluted and elaborate webs of deceit, to make our mind. And their only reason for success is because we are stupid. And when we are even semi-intelligent and quite capable of using our commonsense to do the arithmetic correctly, our moral cowardice prevents us from doing so. That's our failing, and the source of their parasitic strength. Take that one failing away, and they have nothing to stand on. No legs whatsoever. All these con men of Pax Americana manufacturing consent or dissent while living off of its largesses, Jews and Gentiles alike, anarchists and statists alike, moralists and nihilists alike, massa and his house niggers alike, come crashing down under the weight of their own pomposity. The secret of their parasitic strength is dissected in The Art and Science of Co-option:
Easier said than done of course. Because, that exercise to not conform to some narrative of some authority figure, is not made anymore easier for the type-2 masses of the dissentstream than it was for their former selves and for their colleagues whom they have now left behind as the type-1 masses of the mainstream. This mass of humanity is made from exactly the same mold, just with different authority figures in the lead. It is just as Hitler had correctly figured out and identified in Mein Kampf to make the fledgling Third Reich at the point of bayonet. His legatees are working assiduously to make a more permanent Fourth from the same raw material, but with a twist: with a measure of the public's own consent rather than entirely at the point of the bayonet.
Caption Type-3 Demographics: 'Third, those who critically examine what they read and form their judgments accordingly.' Image adapted from the web.Caption Type-3 Demographics: 'Third, those who critically examine what they read and form their judgments accordingly.' Labeled “conspiracy theorists”, this tiny minority is invited to enjoy State Hospitality Centers. See Anatomy of Conspiracy Theory by Zahir Ebrahim. Image adapted from the web.
The predators and shepherds proclaim the nature of the public's instincts as well as their own quite openly: “Some are sheep while others are wolves, we are the wolves”. So long as the sheep keep blaming the wolves, and refuse to recognize their own contribution to their own co-option, we empower these parasites --- for they don't care what we think. When has the shepherd ever considered what the sheep think as he produces mutton for his customers? If you stop being a sheep, and withhold your consent to be persuaded by the magic of the shepherd's whistle, the propagandists leave you alone. You are the type-3 in Hitler's classification of the public mind, quite immune to propaganda warfare and psy-ops: “Third, those who critically examine what they read and form their judgments accordingly.” Hitler characterized you as follows:
The third group is easily the smallest, being composed of real intellectuals whom natural aptitude and education have taught to think for themselves and who in all things try to form their own judgments, while at the same time carefully sifting what they read. They will not read any newspaper without using their own intelligence to collaborate with that of the writer and naturally this does not set writers an easy task. Journalists appreciate this type of reader only with a certain amount of reservation.” (Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter X)
But now the State invites you to its Hospitality Suites. You are now the terrorist! And if no evidence can be contrived, then you are deemed to be suffering from “emotional or mental illness” which is defined in the revised DSM manual as a psychiatric disorder called “oppositional defiant disorder”, a pattern of “negativistic, defiant, disobedient and hostile behavior toward authority figures”. You are the conspiracy theorist for heaven's sake. No not like the useful idiots chasing UFOs and free energy, but like the American intellectual and polyglot poet Ezra Pound, confined to St. Elizabeth hospital to recover from his mental illness of challenging the narratives of his own nation during the World Wars of the twentieth century. This is why controlled dissent exists in free societies --- because their rulers do not wish to have the Siberian Gulag like the USSR did, or the SS like the Third Reich did. The need to maintain illusions of democracy and free speech, and to promulgate these Western values throughout the colonized world necessitates the existence of dissent pied pipers. The State's bayonet is only necessary for the minuscule minority that is type-3 not already cowered into silence, and for the handful of recalcitrant type-2s who make a nuisance of themselves for the State with their uncontrolled anarchism. As long as they are controlled, they make good useful idiots to foment agitation, revolutions, chaos, and for being the agent provocateurs who lend pretext for enacting pre-planned agendas --- and that is largely the story of dissent today.
Virtually all rank and file of dissent in the West today, including a significant majority of their well-intentioned but foolish second-tier pied pipers on both the Left and the Right, are type-2, each gallantly led from the front by some Nietzschean Superman, the Übermensch, who each spin appropriate illusions to feed their respective masses. My dismantling of the Gatekeepers From Left to Right demonstrates the self-evident truth of the preceding observation:
This template for manufacturing dissent for Pax Americana is ubiquitous and shared among the Übermensch irrespective of their individual tribe, religion, or nation. Drawing upon another example from the Christian Right clearly outlines the common pen into which type-2 sheep are routinely herded by their respective shepherds. In a letter to Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, the former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration, and the incumbent darling of the Christian white supremacists' dissent who hold all Jews and minorities in strong disdain and therefore require one of their own ilk to be anointed as their rebel leader, I responded to his cunningly mis-identifying the enemy in the aftermath of the Mumbai terrorist attack: “The attack on Mumbai required radicalized Muslims”. Dr. Roberts used the same “blowback” propaganda template used so effectively by Noam Chomsky to explain all terror events blamed on Muslims, in his article of December 05, 2008: 'Washington Arrogance has Fomented a Muslim Revolution'.
'Your article is nonsense. It is the work of a disinformationist, if not an outright simpleton. It ignores black-ops entirely. It ignores the reality-space of creating pretexts for incremental faits accomplis for world-government. It blames the Mumbai terror event as the blowback for America's excesses. The wanton and meaningless terror act was nothing of the kind. There is also no revolution brewing among the Muslims “to throw off their Western oppressors.” Far from it. Your essay is merely a devious attempt to resurrect a boogieman that doesn't exist – along the lines of “clash of civilizations”, but replacing Bernard Lewis' “Islamic Triumphalism” with your “radicalized Muslims” due to oppression. It isn't clear why one should rejoice in Muslims being called “revolutionaries” for acts which are entirely terroristic, wanton, take the lives of innocent, and outright criminal. If anything, it is maligning an entire peoples. Still works wonders when the enemy is kept external.' --- Zahir Ebrahim's letter to Paul Craig Roberts, Dec 06, 2008
Most unfortunate that virtually all the so called rebel leaders and pied pipers of bloated consciences turn out to be expert propagandists of Pax Americana for their respective flock. They reside worldwide, are of different nationalities, come from many different professional backgrounds, each tuning his propaganda spiel to the social genius, mental capacity, and psychological and political propensity of his own flock.
But that is indeed the twisted reality of any modernity in which “Deception is a state of mind and the mind of the State” (James Jesus Angleton, Head of CIA Counter Intelligence, 1954-1974). Especially when its public does not quite share in the State's enthusiasm for 'la mission civilisatrice' under Pax Americana. The people have to be manipulated and corralled to engineer their consent and cripple their dissent. This is what Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski, America's former National Security Advisor under president Jimmy Carter, described of America's domestic demographics and its political inclinations in the decade preceding 9/11, in his templating book titled The Grand Chessboard – American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives:
The earlier empires were built by aristocratic political elites and were in most cases ruled by essentially authoritarian or absolutist regimes. The bulk of the populations of the imperial states were either politically indifferent, ... or infected by imperialist emotions ...a quest for national glory, 'the white man's burden', 'la mission civilisatrice', not to speak of the opportunities for personal profit – all served to mobilize support for imperial adventures to sustain essentially hierarchical imperial power pyramids. The attitude of American public toward the external projection of American power has been more ambivalent. The public supported America's engagement in WWII largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. .... After the Cold War had ended, the emergence of the United States as the single global power did not evoke much public gloating but rather elicited an inclination toward more limited definitions of American responsibilities abroad. Public opinion polls conducted in 1995 – 1996 indicated a general public preference for 'sharing' power with others, rather than for its monopolistic exercise.” (pgs. 24,25)
It is also a fact that America is too democratic at home to be autocratic abroad. This limits the use of America's power, especially its capacity for military intimidation. Never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy. But the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public's sense of domestic well-being. The economic self-denial (that is defense spending), and the human sacrifice (casualties even among professional soldiers) required in the effort are uncongenial to democratic instincts. Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization.” (pgs. 35,36)
Public opinion polls suggest that only a small minority (13 percent) of Americans favor the proposition that 'as the sole remaining superpower, the US should continue to be the preeminent world leader in solving international problems'. ... Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multicultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat. .... More generally, cultural change in America may also be uncongenial to the sustained exercise abroad of genuinely imperial power. That exercise requires a high degree of doctrinal motivation, intellectual commitment, and patriotic gratification. ... Mass communications have been playing a particularly important role in that regard, generating a strong revulsion against any selective use of force that entails even low levels of casualties .... In brief, the U.S. Policy goals must be un-apologetically twofold: to perpetuate America's own dominant position for at least a generation and preferably longer,” (pgs. 211-215)
Under that type of demographics of a superpower forging Pax Americana to “perpetuate America's own dominant position for at least a generation and preferably longer,” Dr. Brzezinski even brazenly suggested that social engineering the domestic public's mind is part and parcel of the exercise of imperial power abroad: “The economic self-denial (that is defense spending), and the human sacrifice (casualties even among professional soldiers) required in the effort are uncongenial to democratic instincts. Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization. ... More generally, cultural change in America may also be uncongenial to the sustained exercise abroad of genuinely imperial power. That exercise requires a high degree of doctrinal motivation, intellectual commitment, and patriotic gratification.” Doctrinal motivation is needed for each of the demographics, those who think empire good, and those who think empire bad. Each group is appropriately fed the doctrinal motivation that is best suited to their psychology and political convictions, to ultimately “United We Stand” each group with their own respective pied pipers. The type-2 has no more sense to see the Big lie than type-1 does, and thus both groups are held together United We Stand on the Big lie. Despite their opposite propensities to respectively believe empire is bad vs. empire is good, they are each led to the same pastures by their respective pied pipers. This architecture of total behavior control of the population irrespective of their demographics was most elegantly captured by essayist and novelist Aldous Huxley in his talk at the University of California, Berkeley, in 1962 as the ultimate in malevolent revolution:
You can do everything with bayonets except sit on them! If you are going to control any population for any length of time you must have some measure of consent. It's exceedingly difficult to see how pure terrorism can function indefinitely. It can function for a fairly long time, but I think sooner or later you have to bring in an element of persuasion. An element of getting people to consent to what is happening to them. Well, it seems to me that the nature of the Ultimate Revolution with which we are now faced is precisely this: that we are in process of developing a whole series of techniques which will enable the controlling oligarchy who have always existed and presumably always will exist, to get people actually to love their servitude! This is the, it seems to me the ultimate in malevolent revolution shall we say.” (Aldous Huxley, The Ultimate Revolution, 1962, minute 04:06,
There is, in fact, no effective solution for this social malady, that type-2 shall always exist right alongside type-1, and both minds must be expertly engineered according to their respective natural inclinations to conform to the imperial axioms du jour. It is indeed the demographics of humanity from time immemorial. Previously, both these types were easily controlled by the absolutist rules exercised at the point of the bayonet, and as Brzezinski captures it, “The bulk of the populations of the imperial states were either politically indifferent, ... or infected by imperialist emotions”, whereby, Machiavellianly engineering the consent of the masses wasn't much of an issue for either the throne or the pulpit. The onset of the so called liberal democracy under its illusions of freedoms has mushroomed the numbers of each in proportion to population growth, such that type-2 exercising their vocal chords can no longer be ignored and must be treated as an entirely separate constituency for social engineers. This requires its own control architecture, templates and first principles, which anyone is invited to exercise to come into the notice of empire as being voluntarily part of either side of the Hegelian Dialectic, engineered consent vs. manufactured dissent, to be foisted upon the public mind. The political acumen of these camps is pretty much identical qualitatively, the only difference being they each are now led by different styles of pied pipers best suited to their native genius. In the age of universal deceit, both these demographics remain ripe for harvest. In earlier ages they were united in following just one king. Now they merely have different kings who lead them to the same effective outcome: fait accompli of the agendas of “history's actors”. These kings are only doing their jobs for their own king-makers, the real powers behind the throne. And both doing it quite expertly too. This is how “history's actors” work, by their own admission:
'...“We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”...' (Ron Suskind, New York Times, Oct. 17, 2004)
Noam Chomsky has played his own part in the many acts of these “history's actors” from the very emergence of his dissent. His first one JFK assassination during president Johnson's administration which firmly established him in the camp of empire as the in crowd to be relied upon to corral those skeptics who may not buy the official “lone gun-man” version. And his crowning glory, 9/11. What a way to go for empire!
And what a self-sacrifice too, to have played the great antagonist of Pax Amercana in disguise, from her Vietnam War to South America's extortion to Palestine's occupation, for which none of the plaudits will accrue to him as the great benefactor of empire in the official annals of the history of the Fourth Reich in world government. Its historians and narrators and children will sing songs in praise of their founders, but continue to celebrate their Machiavellian moralist in his theatrical costume as “arguably the most important intellectual alive” during those early period of trials and tribulations on the hard road to world order when the world was forced to endure the genocidal transition between two ages. None shall notice how cleverly the propagandist kept all the presuppositions and axioms of empire in tact in his vigorous moral voice of dissent. That, he was in fact, the empire's own asset to mislead the type-2 demographics and was amply rewarded for it with lifetime employment in empire's most prestigious university, and with lucrative book publishing contracts, and lofty anointment from empire's own newspaper lending him credibility as the leading moral voice of the superpower, all of which were used to help set him up as the lead pied piper of conscience of the West. The dispossessed rushed to adopt him, and that includes the most dispossessed of them all in our times, the Palestinians.
What a way to be remembered --- for one's costume and stage shows and not for one's true self, all in the service of empire. That is indeed a self-sacrifice par excellence. I doubt if my good professor ever intends to take his costume off --- for that is indeed a nice remembrance, a Life of Dissent, when there may or may not be too much else of such global significance to show for the true self out of costume. But as Shakespeare put the perceptive words in his own thespian's mouth: “Yet I have known those which have walked in their sleep who have died holily in their beds.” (MacBeth 5:1:47-49).
Perhaps these words apply to Noam Chomsky as much as they apply to the Nietzschean Übermensch.
We have now been made painfully aware that in fact, Dr. Noam Chomsky is not a moral singularity for his vigorous voice of dissent against US foreign policy. But rather an integral part of the Democratic system of the West which propagandistically permits dissent in the name of freedom and relies on the system of controlled dissent to diabolically limit its effectiveness as much as it relies on the system of engineered consent to make the public mind. These perception management systems, ostensibly opposing each other, have their own well defined thought control principles by which they each function to sustain the necessary illusions of freedoms for the different types of demographics of the public mind. The superpower du jour, by the fiat of its un challengeable imperial power, promulgates its own values and control systems worldwide backed by the supremacy of its military, economic and intellectual armadas, and that has necessitated fabricating and universalizing different types of preeminent pied pipers for narrative control worldwide. Narrative control automatically leads to thought control, which in turn naturally leads to behavior control. The latter outcome is ultimately what is diligently sought by empire through full spectrum perception management. The public consenting to follow their respective pied pipers, marketed to them as experts and authority figures. The exercise of modern statecraft hinges on that paradigm for effective governance of the public mind. Noam Chomsky is one of those imperial pied pipers. Preeminent as a linguist, expertly skilled in both sophistry and political theory, and willing to do empire's dirty work of corralling the recalcitrant public mind without the encumbrances of a disturbed conscience.
No hemlock for this Socrates of empire for his lifetime of dissent; only lifetime of accolades, protection from misery with lifetime of employment, made Institute Professor in empire's own most famous institution, anointed “arguably the most important Intellectual alive” by empire's own mouthpiece, becoming the citation champ of empire, his books insulting empire's foreign policy waived from podium to podium by the victims of empire as the voice of the preeminent moralist of empire. The Nobel peace committee in Oslo hasn't been reading the cues properly for some reason, choosing the teenager Malala last year over Noam Chomsky. And Time too has repeatedly failed to put the good professor on its cover. Perhaps all that has been reserved for doling out in world government to create moral heroes in future history (when it is written) from the ashes of past history for the new starry-eyed generations of the future.
None sound of mind may doubt today that the noble pied piper of empire is anything but a Pax Americana fellow. Noam Chomsky's sacred axioms and the concomitant rewards for upholding imperial truths speak louder than his vigorous protestation of American foreign policy and Israeli settler policy. Just the pecuniary gain from dissent is warning sign sufficient – profiting from selling morality is a profession as old as hegemony, and bolder in vulgarity than the oldest profession on earth. For there is deceit in the “moral agent”, none in the prostitute. These simple standards alone are sufficient to adjudicate Dr. Noam Chomsky's standing in the all encompassing thought control system highlighted in this essay and examined in much greater depth in the references.
Thus, in fair conclusion based on the uncontested factual evidence before us, all such public challenges to Noam Chomsky et. al. by those no longer enamored of them, are in fact meaningless gestures. Except, when tried under the absolutist powers of "victor's justice” as was displayed at the Nuremberg and Tokyo Military Tribunals by the victors of World War II. The leading vulgar propagandist as I recall was [to be] offered the gallows by the victorious Allies, and he only just cheated the hang-man's noose by swallowing cyanide taking his wife and six children with him. But I think dissecting all propaganda craftsmanship in public in complete context of the system can help others make up their own mind on whether or not they wish to be part of the imperial scam that presents wolves in sheep clothing who become the public's shepherds. Which is why I have so boldly written this tract without mincing words. Dr. Noam Chomsky is still living among us (and may he continue to live long and prosper), and if he wishes to refute a fact that he finds in error here (lest it be said that I challenged my teacher when he could not offer any rebuttal), I will be happy to receive any corrections. The rest is only my opinion of course. I don't expect my teacher to be happy about it or respond to it. The reference lists my efforts since 2003 where I have deconstructed the omissions and expert propaganda craftsmanship of Noam Chomsky. You can read more about the nature of the demographics that these latter day elders of dissent have mastered how to harvest right out of Mein Kampf, in Manufacturing Dissent:
And you can read more about where the powers that be and their propagandists are cunningly taking the world one baby-step at a time, one Big Lie at a time, one fait accompli at a time, in Some Dare Call it Conspiracy on the Hard Road to World Order:
And no, you did not read any of that from the tireless and prolific pen of Noam Chomsky – but you ought to have! He would have done a far better job of exposing the lies when out of his thespian costume, and with far greater panache and syntactic eloquence, than his lowly student ever can. And I do thank him for teaching me. I hope I have lived up to his impeccable high standards of the Responsibility of Intellectuals: “It is the responsibility of intellectuals to speak the truth and to expose lies.”

Thank you.

Caption Noam Chomsky, Closet Capitalist, by Peter Schweizer, Hoover Institution, 30 January 2006. Image source
Caption Noam Chomsky, Closet Capitalist, by Peter Schweizer, Hoover Institution, 30 January 2006. Image source
[a] Noam Chomsky: A Life of Dissent by Robert F. Barsky, The MIT Press, July 1998, “Because Chomsky is given ample space to articulate his views on many of the major issues relating to his work, both linguistic and political, this book can also be seen as the autobiography that Chomsky says he will never write.”,
[b] Chomsky Is Citation Champ, MIT news bulletin, April 15, 1992, “Recent research on citations in three different citation indices show that Professor Chomsky is one of the most cited individuals in works published in the past 20 years. In fact, his 3,874 citations in the Arts and Humanities Citation Index between 1980 and 1992 make him the most cited living person in that period and the eighth most cited source overall--just behind famed psychiatrist Sigmund Freud and just ahead of philosopher Georg Hegel. Indeed, Professor Chomsky is in illustrious company. The top ten cited sources during the period were: Marx, Lenin, Shakespeare, Aristotle, the Bible, Plato, Freud, Chomsky, Hegel and Cicero.”
[c] Noam Chomsky, Closet Capitalist, by Peter Schweizer, Hoover Institution, January 30, 2006, Essay is adapted from the author’s book Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy (Doubleday, 2005). The conservative Hoover Institution critic quotes Noam Chomsky: “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.” Peter Schweizer further observes: “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 publisher 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.”
[d] 9-11 by Noam Chomsky, Seven Stories Press, November 2001. “9-11 was practically the only counter-narrative out there at a time when questions tended to be drowned out by a chorus, led by the entire United States Congress, of ‘God Bless America.’ . . . it is possible that, if the United States goes the way of nineteenth-century Britain, Chomsky's interpretation will be the standard among historians a hundred years from now.” —The New Yorker, quoted by Seven Stories Press, . The New York Times Books review, “THINK TANK; Surprise Best Seller Blames U.S.” by Micheal Massing, May 4, 2002, concluded: 'Hate the book or love it, readers keep buying it. As Mr. [Greg] Ruggiero of Seven Stories observed: “People want alternatives. In times of war, that's when people trust the media the least.”' And so the people turn to Noam Chomsky!
[e] Noam Chomsky interviewed by Evan Solomon, CBC, December 9, 2003 “... now, until Bernard Lewis tells us that, and that's only one piece of a long story, we know that he is just a vulgar propagandist and not a scholar. So yes, as long as we are supporting harsh brutal governments, blocking democracy and development, because of our interest in controlling the oil resources in the region, there will be a campaign of hatred against us”, part-2, minute 5:50,
[f] Noam Chomsky interviewed on Channel 2 News of Israel, 5/23/2010 (1/2), conducted in Amman, Jordan, May 23, 2010, after Chomsky was denied entry into the West Bank to speak at Birzeit University. “I don't regard myself as a critic of Israel. I regard myself as a supporter of Israel. The people who are harming Israel in my opinion, and I have said this many times, are those who claim to be supporting it. They are helping drive Israel towards moral degeneration, and possible ultimate destruction. I think support for Israel should be support for policies which are to its benefit.” (beginning 3:30) Chomsky went on to say: “Let's go back a step: you said I am calling for the destruction of Israel, or some words like that. I don't think it should exist as a Jewish state. Yah, I don't think the United States should exist as a Christian state. I don't think that Pakistan should exist as an Islamic state.” (beginning 5:30).
Zahir Ebrahim's writings in chronological order on Dr. Noam Chomsky's fabled dissent
[1] Prisoners of the Cave, Zahir Ebrahim, maiden book written April-June 2003, ; sympathetic reference is made to Noam Chomsky's anti-war intellectualism throughout the book, but the beginnings of shrewd au contraire challenge to Noam Chomsky echoing the same narrative as officialdom on 9/11 is in Chapter 2: ; au contraire challenge on Israel-Palestine is in Chapter 3: ; download PDF:
[2] The endless trail of red herrings, Zahir Ebrahim, February 28, 2007, the first formal deconstruction of Noam Chomsky's intellectualism on Israel-Palestine,
[3] Responsibility of Intellectuals – Redux: As seen by a Plebeian, Zahir Ebrahim, March 03, 2007, the first formal deconstruction of Noam Chomsky's narrative of the responsibility of intellectuals as “moral agents”,
[4] Zahir Ebrahim's Letter to Noam Chomsky: Steven Jones seminal paper on the destruction of WTC towers, April 21, 2008,
[5] Manufacturing Dissent: Weapons of Mass Deception – The Master Social Science, Zahir Ebrahim, June 01, 2008, outlines the need of statecraft for Machiavellianly controlling dissent to channel the type-2 demographics in Western style Democracy which constitutionally permits dissent,
[6] The Enduring Capitalist Conspiracy For World Government, Zahir Ebrahim, September 25, 2008, and its Addendum: The Monetary Conspiracy for World Government, November 23, 2008. Note what Noam Chomsky had perceptively observed of the instinct for primacy, as being principally natural rather than necessarily “conspiratorial”, in what I called the Chomsky-Ebrahim nomenclature of primacy:
Begin Excerpt
Noam Chomsky had once observed an insightful nature of such “conspiracies", as the open shared natural goals stemming from the very nature of its definition, which could therefore, no more be termed a conspiracy than both GM and Ford endeavoring to maximize their profits at all cost be termed a 'global corporate conspiracy'.
I have always added to that, the equally un-remarkable observation that a hungry lion anywhere in the world pouncing upon a lamb is similarly no global conspiracy by the world's lions to eat up all the lambs on the planet.
So when these 'divine' beings behave in their primal predatory natural manner across time and space, across evolution or creation, are they being “conspiratorial”? In the Chomsky-Ebrahim nomenclature, perhaps not.
End Excerpt
Also note the following key passages in the Addendum which show Dr. Noam Chomsky deliberately, and repeatedly, failing to connect the dots of the past to the dots of the present by speciously adding two plus two to equal five. He does so by way of crafty omissions such that he tells only half the story laboriously belaboring that which is already visible to all and sundry, and staying silent on matters not readily visible to the public mind which require an imposing intellect to unravel and for which the public mind looks up to their intellectuals for guidance. But alas, when the salt used for defrosting the road ice itself corrodes (a Persian proverb):
Begin Excerpt
Now, if Rep. Lucco of the Illinois legislature in 1978 can endeavor to “collate what you are talking about -- 1912 -- with 1978”, surely a sensibly learned person today might try to collate the same to 2008? How might one forensically bring to bear all such historical knowledge, including revelations by Norman Dodd, on the present financial crisis and the role of the Federal Reserve System? How does that relate to the blatantly undisguised drive for world government today? How does that relate to 911? But no! Not the Federal Reserve System Chairman, nor any of the Nobel Prize winning economists waxing more economics gibberish, will go there! [a7]
And forget about the mainstream presses, erudite pundits, and even lauded dissent-space politicians like Ron Paul, [a8] and intellectuals like Noam Chomsky [a9] [a10] and Howard Zinn [a11] – forever only rehearsing the crimes of the “rogue state” and 911 its “blowback” – doing so either. Their laudable emphasis on the facts that are visible like: (i) the American F16s and Apache Helicopters bombing civilians, or (ii) the crash of the stock market as a result of casino capitalism, and lamentable silence on the ones which are not readily visible like: (a) that which remains shrouded in conspiratorial secrecy for an overarching agenda and must be forensically uncovered from rational thinking and analysis, or (b) official narratives that are required to be kept intact, only ends up circuitously leading their own fawning flock, amidst great applause, to the pastures dutifully bounded by the same fences as the mainstream scholars! [a12] [a13] Their intellectualism, apparently, only extends to the government mandated axioms of “Bin Laden” and “Al-Qaeeda”, which are most obligingly, implicitly retained by them in their very learned dissenting discourses that valiantly document and courageously standup to the crimes of their own nation. [a14] [a15] And these intellectual are this scribe's own respected teachers! [a16]
Perhaps all these gadfly historians and men and women of letters who mainly delight in rehashing histories which are already faits accomplis, and in waxing moralizing sermons on being the privileged minority to whom “Western democracy provides the leisure, the facilities, and the training to seek the truth lying hidden behind the veil of distortion and misrepresentation, ... through which the events of current history are presented to us”, [a17] be graciously reminded of George Bernard Shaw's famous maxim “We are made wise not by the recollections of our past, but by the responsibility for our future”.
One wishing to learn more may review the pertinently culled reading list in the Monetary Reform Bibliography, and minimally peruse: “Monetary Reform: Who will bell the cat?”, and the Press Release “This may be a psy-op!”.
As Noam Chomsky once wrote, and quite correctly too, that “it takes a sentence to repeat lies and deceit, while it takes considerably more space to unravel them.” [a18] Elsewhere, he also wisely noted “It's always a good idea to start by asking about the facts. It's whenever you hear anything said very confidently, the first thing that should come to mind is, wait a minute, is that true?” [a19] Fortunately, many dedicated and quite ordinary peoples have learnt from Noam Chomsky's teachings, and have already done just that. They have diligently asked about the facts for all the official myths which are axiomatically rehearsed “very confidently” from the highest to the lowest pulpits across the land, and some of their truly intellectual works are cited in the Monetary Reform Bibliography.
The reader is also invited to ask the same question, “is that true”, of the 'who-dunit' axiom of the first 911 which “very confidently” narrated of an invasion from abroad; of the axiom of 'macro economics inevitability of this financial meltdown' that Warren Buffet termed “an economic Pearl Harbor”; and finally, of the axiom of 'the only solution for avoiding both types of 911s in the future, is world government controlled by the private central banks at the top of the pyramid'. The same pyramid-top which keeps the watchful-eye upon the world from the back of the world's reserve currency, the one dollar bill! It is an important question to ask, who effectively controls this reserve currency? For their identity is the identity of the watchful eye, the real emperors of the world! Upon their feet, lie the seeds of all the crimes against humanity in modern times. And upon whose beck and call, lies the “imperial mobilization” of the sole superpower state to preside over its own calculated demise, to create 'one world'!
End Excerpt
[7] Response to Press TV's Interview with Noam Chomsky 'No change coming with Obama', Zahir Ebrahim, January 25, 2009, . The Press TV interview is also evidence of how Dr. Noam Chomsky operates to serve the establishment. By lending credence to the presuppositions of the system that it is a “democracy” when it is most essential to bear witness to its mendacity – when the voting masses can actually take a stand against the presuppositions of the corrupt system itself during elections – and only ex post facto making the obviously ineffective statement of “no-change”, after the matter is already a fait accompli, after the new president has been elected with much fanfare, after conferring much legitimacy to the public's notion of “democratically” elected and representative government. Is the “no-change” really a surprise to Noam Chomsky, to the one anointed as “arguably the most important intellectual alive”? Did the foremost scholar of the West actually expect a significant change from the presidential elections that had him calling the American people to vote in them (with or without illusions)? What's wrong with this picture? Noam Chomsky evidently never found the opportunity to read this scribe's humble editorial: Some Dare Call it Conspiracy! Are You Among Them? by Zahir Ebrahim, April 19, 2009, . This abstruseness is a verifiable Noam Chomsky brand of dissent. It is observable in the lead-ups to American elections where the dissent-chief linguist dubiously argues that elections are somewhat meaningful playing word games (with or without illusions), and people should come out to vote, and not waste their vote on third party candidates but to only vote from among the candidates put up by the two largest political parties in the official two party American democracy! Ex post facto, the cunning scholar makes the banal back-peddling statement of “no-change”! See the alternative that surely leads to change dramatis if dissent-chiefs would only act their own self-proclaimed role as genuine “moral agents” and guide the public correctly on where the ruling power actually resides – not in the White House: Not-Voting is a 'YES' vote to Reject a Corrupt System which thrives on the facade of Elections and Democracy! by Zahir Ebrahim, October 22, 2008,
[8] A Note on the Mighty Wurlitzer - Architecture of Modern Propaganda for Psychological Warfare by Zahir Ebrahim, May 31, 2009, see the two subsections in the Case Study on Dynamics of Mantra Creation: The Hegelian Dialectic Militant Islam vs. Moderate Islam, and: The Hegelian Dialectic of Dissent,
[9] PAMPHLET: HOW TO RETURN TO PALESTINE THIS DAY FORWARD, by Zahir Ebrahim, 1st Edition May 15, 2010, 2nd Edition November 2012, expanded into the PAMPHLET: Undoing The Theft Of Palestine - From Genocide to Genesis in Zero Compromise, First Edition October 2013, 2nd printing September 2015. This Pamphlet takes the deconstruction of Noam Chomsky's dissent on the Zionist state a step further down the rabbit hole. It brings to light his omissions on the Balfour Declaration which virtually granted the Jewish State to the House of Rothschild; a most sacred name to the Jews that neither appears in the public presses, nor evidently appears to escape from Noam Chomsky's very vocal dissent chords; download pdf:
[10] See Zahir Ebrahim's Letter to Jeff Blankfort in response to 'Chomsky and Palestine: Asset or Liability?', July 22, 2010, for the common axiom shared between Chomsky and his prolific critic, smacking of a rigged wwf-wrestling match among the tribe members who present the illusion of vigorous challenge to each other while observing silence on topics that their tribal bosses want to keep away from the dumb goyim, .
The letter straightforwardly inquired of Chomsky's prolific critic: “Why does most everyone in the West ignore or outright downplay the Rothschilds' role in current affairs? ... The name Rothschild is almost a litmus test of co-option, at least to my mind. See who omits any analysis of the role of the Rothschilds; see who mentions them but not in current modernity context – only in past historical context like most anyone who dares mention their name today, including Quigley; and see who mentions them but also sullies their own punch – like the proverbial toad in a punch-bowl – by interjecting specious speculations and kookish conspiracy theories of blood-drinking lizards (David Icke), merovingian blood-lines (Grace Powers), gross generalizations of 'sky is falling' while blow-horning revolutions (Alex Jones), etc.”
Noam Chomsky never mentions the House of Rothschild, or bothers to perceptively analyze the question begging for the attention of intellectuals especially those who advocate for the Palestinian cause: “why should the Balfour declaration be addressed to a Rothschild?”. And neither does his critic Jeffrey Blankfort who offered this riposte in a posted comment on July 23rd, 2010: “Forgive me for not reading this all the way through but you give the House of Rothschild, now in its decline, far too much discredit for Israel's role and what might be called the Zionist International {ZI}–the combined organized Jewish communities too little.” And this reiteration of his silence on the elephant in the bedroom via emailed letter of Nov 10, 2010: “I do not mention the Rothschilds because I have yet to see a single shred of evidence that they control the world's money supply, the CFR, or anything else of such substance as to influence the way the world works. As far as I can tell whereas once members of the Rothschild banking family ran the banks of Western Europe, I see no evidence that they do so today. There are a number of other Jewish bankers who have surpassed them in influence and if the Rothschilds were as powerful today as you claim them to be, there would be some kind of trail to find at least a hint of what they have been doing.” See Pamphlet The Invisible House of Rothschild by Zahir Ebrahim, .
This tribe must really think that the goy is dumb jackass who needs Jewish pied pipers to help it navigate the world! As one Palestinian friend observed: “We run from Jew to Jew, they create the problem, and also argue the solution, they control the full spectrum of our discourse as well as our existence.” .
Noam Chomsky has time and again made it very clear himself how narrative control works in democratic societies: “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.” But of course it is not practiced by the elders of his tribe when their own dissident views are prominently splashed across the alternate media --- perish that thought! That bold effrontery before the dumb goy is reserved only for mainstream media. So don't be a dumb jackass regardless of who you are. Stop following your pied pipers. That goes for all foot soldiers and useful idiots of power, including Jews, Zionists, and Gentiles. The indoctrination is examined in: .
[11] See Zahir Ebrahim's Response to Francis Boyle's '2011: Prospects for Humanity?' – Unlimited Imperialism and Nation-States but no Secret Rule by Oligarchy for World Government!, January 07, 2011, for some uncanny resemblance between the two foremost dissent chiefs of United States of America, the noble Christian warrior of conscience rising to match wits with his Jewish moralist counterpart. And what truths do they share in common? The sacred truths of empire!
[12] Masters of Dissent and The Dying Songbird by Zahir Ebrahim, September 15, 2013, outlines the architecture, principles and techniques of thought control underlying Manufactured Dissent:
[13] Noam Chomsky: Songbird or Superman – You Decide! September 15, 2013. Zahir Ebrahim's analysis of the Top Ten Dissent Superman of the West and their Top Ten counterparts in the colonized East who follow in their massa's footsteps. Number One Dissent Superman in the contemporary world: Dr. Noam Chomsky. Judge for yourself:
[14] Open Letter to Noam Chomsky by Zahir Ebrahim April 09, 2014,
[15] The Cunning Dissent of Noam Chomsky Revisited in 2015 by Zahir Ebrahim,

First published Sunday, December 20, 2015 11:00 pm | Last Updated Tuesday, January 5, 2016 12:00 pm 10952

The Cunning Dissent of Noam Chomsky Revisited in 2015 by Zahir Ebrahim 27 / 27