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.
Zahir
Ebrahim | Project
Humanbeingsfirst.org
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 (http://youtu.be/3i9ra-i6Knc). 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:
http://www.truthjihadradio.blogspot.com/2015/12/joe-giambrone-challenges-chomsky-on-911.html
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.
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.' 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,
http://tinyurl.com/Huxley-Ultimate-Revolution)
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.
References
Caption Noam Chomsky, Closet Capitalist, by Peter Schweizer, Hoover Institution, 30 January 2006. Image source hoover.org
[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.”,
https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/noam-chomsky
[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.”
http://news.mit.edu/1992/citation-0415
[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.”
http://www.hoover.org/research/noam-chomsky-closet-capitalist
[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,
http://catalog.sevenstories.com/products/9-11-was-there-an-alternative
. 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!
http://nytimes.com/2002/05/04/books/think-tank-surprise-best-seller-blames-us.html
[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,
http://youtube.com/watch?v=bieFwutoqvA
[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).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb1Abfx2MPg
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, http://prisonersofthecave.org
; 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:
http://prisonersofthecave.blogspot.com/2007/04/chapter-2.html#Challenging-Noam-Chomsky-911
; au contraire challenge on Israel-Palestine
is in Chapter 3:
http://prisonersofthecave.blogspot.com/2007/04/chapter-3.html#Question-for-Noam-Chomsky-Israel-Palestine
; download PDF:
https://sites.google.com/site/humanbeingsfirst/download-pdf/prisonersofthecave-7th-anniversary-edition-ch9-abridged-04172010-print.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,
http://humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2007/03/endless-red-herrings.html
[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”,
http://humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2007/03/responsibility-of-intellectuals-redux.html
[4]
Zahir Ebrahim's Letter to Noam Chomsky: Steven Jones seminal
paper on the destruction of WTC towers, April 21, 2008,
http://humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2008/04/letter-noamchomsky-jones-paper.html
[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,
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2008/06/wmd-master-social-science.html
[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.
http://humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2008/09/capitalist-conspiracy-world-government.html#Addendum
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,
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2009/01/respto-chomskys-nochange-obama.html
. 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,
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2009/04/some-dare-call-it-conspiracy-garyallen.html
. 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,
http://humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2008/10/not-voting-is-yes-vote-to-reject-system.html
[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,
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2009/05/note-on-mighty-wurlitzer.html#Case-Study-Mantra-Creation-Islamofascism
[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:
https://sites.google.com/site/humanbeingsfirst/download-pdf/pamphlet-undoing-the-theft-of-palestine-zahirebrahim.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,
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2010/07/let-jeffblankfort-rothschilds-palestine.html
.
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,
http://humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/p/rothschild.html
.
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.”
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2009/11/rescuing-thestruggle-for-palestine.html
.
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:
http://humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/p/pamphlet-how-to-return-to-palestine.html
.
[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!
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2011/01/resp-francisboyle-2011-prospects-for.html
[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:
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2013/09/dying-songbird.html
[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:
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2013/09/songbird-or-superman.html#Noam-Chomsky
[14]
Open Letter to Noam Chomsky by Zahir Ebrahim April 09, 2014,
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2014/04/open-letter-noam-chomsky-by-zahirebrahim.html
[15]
The Cunning Dissent of Noam Chomsky Revisited in 2015 by
Zahir Ebrahim,
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2015/12/noam-chomsky-revisited-in-2015-by-zahir.html
Source
URL:
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2015/12/noam-chomsky-revisited-in-2015-by-zahir.html
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