MORE ON THE TREACHERY OF NOAM CHOMSKY, PART FIVE

2008-07-06T13:36:00.000-07:00

http://www.uncensoredmagazine.co.nz/news/2008/07/07/noam-chomsky-fails-911-litmus-test-again/

NOAM CHOMSKY FAILS 9.11 LITMUS TEST. AGAIN

Posted by: admin ⋅ July 7, 2008 ⋅ Post a comment
Tags: NOAM CHOMSKY Posted in: 911

That there’s something strange, mysterious, contradictory, absurd, about his refusal to see that anybody other than Lee Harvey Oswald might have killed JFK, his refusal to become involved in looking into, whatsoever, the assassinations of Martin Luther King and Robert F. Kennedy and Malcolm X, and then, of course, although a lot of people cut him slack and were in effect in denial about Chomsky on those decapitations of the Left… but 9/11 came along, it’s a Litmus test, I swear it’s a Litmus test for every individual, every organization… where do they stand on 9/11?

And of course he just proceeded to fail the 9/11 Litmus test entirely. And I think this has caused a lot of people to just say, to themselves, "There’s gotta be something really wrong with Chomsky." And apparently I’ve articulated it in this 15,000-word chapter.

And I do believe, that he is, an "agent of disinformation". Now, I don’t say "disinformation agent", which would imply that he is on the payroll of the CIA, which is something that I cannot prove, and I do not necessarily believe. But he certainly is an "agent of disinformation". And there are many kinds of disinformation, he engages in about 20 different kinds of nasty propaganda techniques himself, especially in his public lectures… dismissiveness is one of the trickiest cards that he plays in his public lectures. He’ll say things like, ‘Oh well, we don’t know who did 9/11, but it really doesn’t matter,’ and then he’ll just go on!

And that is a point where in a just, in an intellectually honest world, someone would say, "Hold it right there, Noam. Just hold it right there. WHY does it not matter, who did 9/11?"

But of course when he’s speaking before an adulatory crowd, they just accept this, he throws out these great dismissive phrases, and just continues on. And one of the tricks of his trade, is of course that he’s written this immense number of books, he’s incredibly prolific, I have 16 of his books myself, and in each of those books if you look toward the end, you’ll find these massive numbers of footnotes, and he’s renowned for tracking down these obscure facts from obscure journals and documents, and so people assume, when he’s doing public speaking, that everything he says is equally well-researched, equally well-footnoted, equally valid… and it’s not. He makes all sorts of just vague, sweeping generalizations, dismissive statements, complete mis-weighting of things, where something is very important he’ll dismiss as unimportant and vice-versa.

He throws up a smokescreen by way of always talking, and I don’t disagree with him on this… it’s an effective one, in any of his talks he’ll talk about Granada, he’ll talk about El Salvador, he’ll talk about East Timor… no question, he was blowing the whistle on those for a long time, he harks back to them, but you know what?

Source + Videos:
http://kennysideshow.blogspot.com/2008/07/noam-chomsky-fails-911-litmus-test.html

(Emphasis added - B.M.)

2008-05-29T16:44:00.000-07:00

MORE ON THE TREACHERY OF NOAM CHOMSKY (article 62), by Benjamin Merhav

This is once more about Norman Finkelstein, a crony of Noam Chomsky, the top zionist impostor in the USA. Like his mentor/model Chomsky ,Finkelstein has managed to confuse many people on the Left, including Palestinian intellectuals. I myself have lost a few of my readers because I dared to expose the two impostors.

The following article is also by a zionist, albeit he claims to support a one democratic state all over Palestine, rather than the 2 states "solution"which is supporetd by both Noam Chomsky and by Norman Finkelstein. If this author was anti-zionist he would have condemned the zionist apartheid regime of Israel, called for disbanding it, demand the immediate and unconditional return of all the Palestinian refugees, and demand that zionism should be made illegal, rather than advise the zionist govenment to listen to Finkelstein, and worry about "democracy" under the zionist apartheid regime of Israel.

Here is his article :

http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/50872.html

Norman Finkelstein and the Future of Israeli Democracy

by Mark A. LeVine

[Mr. LeVine is professor of modern Middle Eastern history, culture, and Islamic studies at the University of California, Irvine, and author of the forthcoming books: Heavy Metal Islam: Rock Religion and the Struggle for the Soul of Islam (Random House/Three Rivers Press, July 8, 2008), and An Impossible Peace: Oslo and the Burdens of History (Zed Books, in press).]

It was ironic, yet quite sad to hear that Norman Finkelstein was denied entry to Israel earlier this week and banned from visiting the country for ten years, after being accused by Israeli security officials of being a “security threat.”

Ironic because fifteen years ago I had what at the time seemed like the misfortune of having Finkelstein be the second reader for my Masters Thesis at New York University, whose topic was precisely the evolution of the discourse of security in Zionist thought and policy. I remember how proud I was when I turned in my first draft, and I remember even more strongly how disheartened I was when I received his comments—which were likely longer than the thesis itself, and completely rejected the basic premise of my arguments, and pointed to a vast literature on the history of the Zionist Labor and Revisionist movements that I had not read. It was not a pleasant experience, and I spent much of the summer reading instead of hanging out at Fire Island with friends, but there was no doubt that the final draft of the thesis was a far better exploration of the meaning of security in Zionism and Israeli political discourse than the first draft I turned in.

And not because it was “anti-Zionist” or “anti-Israel,” as it was neither. Rather, it was a far more comprehensively and accurately researched argument that better captured the historical grounding of the ideas I was studying.

The whole notion of Finkelstein being a “security threat” is utter nonsense, as his views on Zionism are positively mainstream and do not in any way threaten the idea of Israel as a Jewish state. He is as a matter of fact one of the few so-called “radical” scholars who is explicitly not anti-Zionist. Yes, he can be harshly critical of Israeli policies, and his willingness to elaborate at length on the minutae of Israeli policies in the Occupied Territories and how they violate international law and norms no doubt annoys the Israeli government as much as it does the organized Jewish community leadership in the US (many of whom would no doubt be happy if he were refused entry back into the US on similar grounds, and had to move to Canada).

On the issue of Finkelstein's support for Hezbollah's right to use violence to resist the large scale Israeli invasion of the country in 2006, I do not agree with his reading of Hezbollah, but his argument that the Lebanese, like Palestinians, have the right under international law to resist foreign invasion and occupation is supported by the reading of international law by most legal scholars I have spoken to who are experts on this issue. See his argument at http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=1489 for more on this controversial issue. Even if one disagrees with his reading, it hardly makes him a security threat to Israel, since by that reading the country should refuse entry to most every Egyptian, Jordanian, or other Arab citizen, or many Europeans for that matter.

But the reality is that Professor Finkelstein is on record endorsing a two-state solution, which is clearly not anti-Zionist. This puts him, I suppose, to the right of me--to take just one example--since I'm on record stating my belief (one, its worth mentioning, that mainstream Israeli scholars like Meron Benvenisti have argued for over a generation) that it's far too late for a two-state solution to be workable; and that at any rate, a binational option is more just for both peoples because it would allow each to realize a larger share of their national aspirations without infringing on the rights of the other than would two geographically separated territories.

So, what does that make me, an even bigger security threat to Israel than Finkelstein? Am I going to be unceremoniously turned away next time I come for an academic conference?--An act, by itself, which is against the notion of boycott that is so popular amongst many in the Left who nevertheless see nothing wrong with going to conferences in England (still occupying Northern Ireland, not to mention Iraq and Afghanistan), China (remember Tibet?), Russia (Chechnya anyone?) or working in the home of global imperialism, the good ol' US of A.

And what about all my Israeli colleagues who support the binational idea and work tireless to end the occupation? Are they soon to be “administratively detained” for long periods, without regular access to lawyers and family member? Perhaps to suffer a bit of “moderate physical pressure” like Palestinian (including citizens of the state) to reeducate them away from their dangerous views? Many of them Jewish American immigrants who immigrated to help build the Israel of Judaism's highest ideals, rather than the state that has veered so far from the democratic principles espoused in its Declaration of Independence and Basic Law. Should they expect to wind up on a mountain top tent in southern Lebanon? Or perhaps just lose their jobs in academia, or face regular harassment from the police, as already has happened.

It would be laughable if it wasn't so Orwelian for the State of Israel, the most powerful military machine in the Middle East and beyond, to refuse entry to a scholar of international renown—one who, like Edward Said and Noam Chomsky (neither of whom as far as I know, were ever denied entry to Israel), has many admirers among Israeli academics for his scholarship. Indeed, Finkelstein's supposedly controversial work on the "Holocaust industry" was seconded by one of the most senior Holocaust scholars in Israel, while many Israeli colleagues expressed the wish to be able to hire him in Israel when he was shamefully denied tenure last year at Purdue University.

Israel claims to be a democracy, and formally it is, as all citizens have the right to vote. But democratic countries do not stifle dissent. They do not refuse entry to scholars who criticize them on grounds of “security” unless, as I argued in my thesis all those years ago, the very notion of security is so highly politicized that it ultimately has very little to do with protecting the lives of its citizens and everything to do with preserving a certain political ideology that violates many of the principal tenets of human rights and dignity to which the state is sworn, through its most basic documents, to adhere.

Writing this, I can't help realizing that I'm describing a situation that exists as much in the US today as in Israel. As a member of the Committee on Academic Freedom of the Middle East Studies Association, I can write from experience that today many foreign scholars have been refused entry to the US because of their political views while for every highly politicized denial of tenure such as Finkelstein's, innumerable actions of censorship occur to less well known scholars, particularly those who work under contract and don't have any of the rights and protections of the tenure system.

More specific to Israel, scholars who espouse strong views against the occupation, or Zionism more broadly, have long faced harassment from their universities. This is particularly true of Palestinian professors, who find it almost impossible to get tenure if their writings in any way touch on issues related to the position of the Palestinian minority in the country (a good friend of mine, a law professor, recently left a major Israeli university because the administration continuously upped the ante for his tenure requirements even though he had published in leading journals several times the minimum number of articles necessary by the university's regulations to receive tenure. I have heard numerous other stories like this).

Others, Israeli Jews, complain of having to fight for tenure or for any sort of recognition and support from their universities, not because of their scholarship, not even because of their political views, but merely because they work on the Middle East but refuse to do so within the security-driven scholarly paradigm that has long dominated Middle Eastern and Islamic studies in Israel, where scholars have often lent their expertise in Arabic and Muslim/Arab cultures to the security services. Other have suffered retribution merely for supporting students and lecturers in the constant struggle for more funds for education and research and for freedom of research.

This political problem is tied to the economic troubles facing the Israeli university system. I regular hear complaints from Israeli colleagues that the Israeli university system is becoming increasingly privatized and corporatized—like its American counterpart—in a manner which is slowly starving traditional humanistic and social science fields for funds. In so doing, it's making it much harder for universities to fulfill one of their core mission in Israeli society, and any democracy for that matter: to imbue the principle of citizenship, public civility, and the search and respect for scientific truth and, to the extent possible, objective scholarship, in the next generation of citizens.

This is clearly a problem in the United States, but if our intellectual and political culture becomes increasingly course and unsophisticated, we can still survive as a nation (maybe). Israel, as its leaders routinely remind the world, is a very small country in a sea of autocracy and violence. Having a free and healthy public sphere, one where all sides of the most urgent political questions, can be heard and debated, is not just crucial to the health of Israeli democracy, it's crucial to the survival of Israel as the Jewish yet democratic state it claims to be.

There is little doubt that Professor Finkelstein would have offered a similarly detailed analysis of the political, intellectual and free speech implications of his banning from Israel to the soldiers and officials who refused him entry if they would have listened. But most likely they wouldn't have been very interested in his views. Indeed, that was the whole point of banning Finkelstein—so that Israelis do not have to hear a piercing critique of so many of their founding myths from one of their own, a Jew and the son of Holocaust survivors who is intimately familiar with the country's history, and who eviscerates Israel's justifications for its policies not with the aim of “destroying” Israel or threatening its security, but rather to enable the establishing the political and moral foundations for precisely the two-state solution that the government and security services say is Israel's only option for avoiding an Apartheid era South Africa future (as Prime Minister Ehud Olmert himself has warned).

If that is indeed the goal of the Israeli government, it would be wise to start listening to rather than silencing voices like Finkelstein, however much they might disagree with his analyses, before it's too late.

(Emphasis added - B.M.)

2008-05-22T12:37:00.000-07:00

MORE ON THE TREACHERY OF NOAM CHOMSKY
(article 61)
by Benjamin Merhav

Here is more about the Chomsky defence of the 9/11 official cover-up :

http://www.barrettforcongress.us/chomsky.htm
Noam Chomsky Does Not Want You to Read This

By Dr. Kevin Barrett

I have decided to go ahead and post my recent email correspondence with Noam Chomsky, without his permission, and against his wishes, despite his claim that by doing so I am violating his privacy, and despite my earlier statement to him that I would respect his privacy.

In my most recent newsletter (sign up by emailing me at kbarrett@merr.com) I explained that Chomsky had backed out of our scheduled interview on false pretenses, and that I was considering posting the correspondence, in which he falsely calls me a liar. I do not like being called a liar, and I would like to find out what others think about this when they read the email record.

There seems to be no legal objection to publication. One of my newsletter subscribers, Bill Scott, sent me his unsolicited opinion: "In the opinion of William Sumner Scott, Esquire of The Scott Law Firm, P. A. of Miami, FL, Prof Chomsky may be quoted without direct comment upon what he said or edits without his permission - his voluntary transmission of his email to me includes the right for me to republish was he said as long as my publication is accurate."

Whatever the law says, I would normally respect my email correspondents' right to privacy. But in Chomsky's case I am making an exception.

Chomsky has accused me of lying, based on this email record. If he is right, I need to know that, so I can apologize to him and avoid making the same kind of mistake in the future. If he is wrong, as I believe he is, I think his persistence in a clinging to a demonstrably false belief, as shown by this correspondence, needs to be taken into consideration by those who take seriously his statements on gravely important subjects, especially the 9/11 controversies.

Our correspondence, in which we largely agreed in our critiques of empire, "agreed to disagree" on 9/11, and scheduled a radio interview, hit two major snags, foundered, and finally sank.

The first snag was Chomsky's claim that I had promised to completely avoid bringing up the subject of 9/11 in our interview. In fact, had I made no such promise. I had simply suggested that we "emphasize our areas of agreement." When one emphasizes one aspect of a topic, that does not mean that one completely eliminates all mention of the other aspects. Chomksy's misreading of the email record, and his persistence in clinging to that misreading after I had called his attention to it, is symptomatic of the deep irrationality, tinged with reflexive hostility, that colors his attitude toward those who question the official version of 9/11. A psychologist might suspect that Chomsky has such a strong desire to avoid any discussion of the empirical facts of 9/11 that he misreads by projecting his desire upon words that clearly say the opposite. As the French saying goes, "il prend ses désirs pour des réalités" - he mistakes his desires for realities.

The other snag was the question of whether Chomsky thinks it really matters who did 9/11. He has been widely quoted as saying "it doesn't matter." Those quotes, along with Chomsky's unremitting hostility to the 9/11 truth movement, his blithe insistence that even if the World Trade Center was taken down by controlled demolition that would simply prove that Bin Laden did it, his complete refusal to examine and debate empirical evidence, and so on, seem to suggest that he thinks the truth about 9/11 is unimportant. When I posted those quotes, along with William Blum's million-dollar question - "Why doesn't Chomsky think it would be important to prove 9/11 was an inside job?" - Chomsky responded with an angry tirade, claiming that the "it doesn't matter" quotes were taken out of context, and that in fact he thinks it WOULD matter very much to prove that 9/11 was an inside job, because it would be important to convict Bush and Cheney. I responded by accepting his explanation about the quotes, and apologizing for taking them out of context. His response was another angry tirade. So I apologized again, and then a third time - eliciting more angry demands that I apologize, as if I had not already done so three times!

A charitable inference from Chomsky's statements is that he thinks the only reason it would be important to prove 9/11 was a false-flag attack is to convict Bush and Cheney before they leave office. Informed that 9/11 lawsuits such as Ellen Mariani's were quashed for "national security" reasons, Chomsky wrote: "Rather, you and your associates should file a lawsuit that does not request any evidence, and therefore won't hit a national security barrier. That conclusion follows directly from your assertions and charges. The TM has already delayed so long that it may not be worthwhile, but at least there are a few months left." (My emphasis.)

Chomsky ignores the obvious: 9/11 doubled the military budget overnight, stripped Americans of their liberties and destroyed their Constitution, launched two illegal Nazi-style wars of aggression, and justified the murder of more than one million Muslims because they are Muslims. None of this will magically end when Bush and Cheney step down. The military budget will not return to pre-9/11 levels. The Constitution will not be magically restored, and the many blatant unconstitutional acts, approved by Democrats as well as Republicans, will not magically vanish. The wars of aggression in Afghanistan, Iraq, and perhaps Pakistan and Iran - all psychologically justified by the demonization of the "Muslim" 9/11 patsies and by extension Muslims in general - will not magically end. The one-million-Muslim holocaust launched by 9/11 will not magically cease; it will in all probability expand, as oil prices rise and Israel's strategic situation becomes more precarious. And the use of murderous false-flag attacks to trigger wars, authoritarianism and genocide will not magically follow Bush and Cheney into the proverbial dustbin of history.

Only the full exposure of 9/11 truth - the truth that 9/11 was a false-flag attack designed to demonize Muslims and justify their mass murder, while destroying liberty and militarizing society - will undo all this damage, and then some. Full exposure of 9/11 truth will enrage Americans, who will demand that the military-industrial complex and its national security state be destroyed once and for all. It will enrage them into slashing the military budget by more than 90% and returning to a "defend the borders" rather than "conquer the world" posture. It will enrage them into demanding a return to Constitutional rule. It will enrage them into cutting US ties to Israel, and thereby restoring good relations with the Muslim peoples of the oil-producing lands.

For some reason, Chomsky does not seem to want this to happen. Why not? Read our correspondence, and the rest of Chomsky's writings on 9/11, along with "The Shame of Noam Chomsky and the Gatekeepers of the Left" in Barrie Zwicker's Towers of Deception...and see if you can figure it out. Maybe it will seem obvious to you, "so simple a five-year-old child could understand it." Well, to quote Groucho, please find me a five-year-old child, because I can't make heads or tails of it.

-Kevin Barrett, 5/22/08

(Emphasis added - B.M.)

2008-05-14T22:04:00.000-07:00

MORE ON THE TREACHERY OF NOAM CHOMSKY (article 60)by Benjamin Merhav

This is the 60th article in a series which has exposed the treachery of this zionist impostor.
It rather fits well into the zionist 60th celebration of the zionist apartheid regime of Israel.
It fits well not only because of the treachery of Noam Chomsky. It fits well because he had supported the zionist war of ethnic cleansing during 1948-49 (as well as the subsequent zionist blizkreig invasion of Arab lands in 1967), and to this day he has not condemned it nor the zionist apartheid regime of Israel.

Furthermore, as the following article is a new reminder, he has supported the official cover-up of 9/11 (as he did also with the cover-up of the JFK assassination in 1963, and in both cases the heavy involvement - if not instigation - by the zionist Gestapo is apparent).

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0805/S00100.htm

Chomsky to be facing 911 truth
Thursday, 8 May 2008, 4:45 pm
Column: Kevin Barrett

William Blum to Noam Chomsky: How Could It NOT Matter Whether 9/11 Was a False-Flag Op?
by Kevin Barrett

Noam Chomsky is widely considered America's leading scholarly critic of the crimes of empire. But William Blum, as Chomsky himself says, has written "far and a way the best book on the topic." That book is called Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II. It lays out the evidence that millions of people have been murdered, and tens of millions had their lives ruined, in what Blum calls the "American holocaust" of military and CIA attacks on indigenous populations all over the world - all of them blatantly unconstitutional, because in no case did Congress ever declare war.

Blum and Chomsky agree in their analysis of the crimes of empire. But Blum is out ahead of Chomsky in questioning the official story of 9/11. On March 2nd, 2007, Blum appeared on my GCN radio show Dynamic Duo and displayed an open mind regarding the evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.Now he's going even further. On May 2nd, 2008, Blum sent me an email regarding my upcoming interview with Noam Chomsky. Blum wrote: "Will you ask Chomsky why he thinks that it wouldn't be important to expose that 9-11 was an inside job?"

That is, of course, the million-dollar question that so many of us have been wanting to ask Noam Chomsky, who is on the record saying it "doesn't matter" whether or not 9/11 was an inside job.

Here are some choice Chomsky quotes:

Whether [Islamic terrorists] were involved or not nobody knows. It really doesn't matter much.. (An Evening with Noam Chomsky: The War on Terror.. MIT 10/18/2001)

Yet he admits "The evidence (against al-Qaida) is surprisingly thin." (Noam Chomsky, 9/11)
But even if (inside job) were true, which is extremely unlikely, who cares? I mean, it doesn't have any significance.. (Noam Chomsky on 911 conspiracy part 2, YouTube).

William Blum, like the rest of us, is puzzled by Chomsky's apparent inability to understand that exposing the 9/11 inside job would help end the crimes of empire.Blum and I will discuss Chomsky's odd 9/11 views on the radio this Friday, May 9th (joined by former head of the SDI "Star Wars" Missile Defense Program under two US presidents, Col. Bob Bowman.) And you can bet this topic will come up when when I interview Noam Chomsky in early June.

2008-03-25T19:01:00.000-07:00

MORE ON THE TREACHERY OF NOAM CHOMSKY (article 59), by Benjamin Merhav

The link below is for the latest interview of Noam Chomsky, the top zionist impostor in the USA. When you listen to his words you would find not a single sentence condemning zionism, nor the zionist apartheid regime of Israel. Yet, if you ignore his zionist orientation, and trust and accept what he is saying (with no questions asked ), you would be forgiven for considering Noam Chomsky as a justice seeking person who is opposed to the genocidal policies of Israel and of its sponsors ,the USA rulers ,towards the Arab people of Palestine.

This precisely is what makes Chomsky a zionist impostor. His articles,books and interviews are traps for the fools who trust him. His words should have been - according to his devotees' and to his cronies' propaganda - condemning the zionist apartheid regime of Israel and condemning its USA sponsors, and calling for the disbandment of the zionist apartheid regime, and for an end to the USA plutocracy, but they do not. The reason is plain to see : Chomsky has been loyal to zionism all his life, as he has been loyal to USA imperialism too !

Here is the link :

http://www.bigthink.com/the-world/the-middle-east/9119

2008-02-02T02:52:00.000-08:00

MORE ON THE TREACHERY OF NOAM CHOMSKY (article 58), by Benjamin Merhav

We are now well into 2008, but Noam Chomsky remains the same zionist impostor with the same loyalty to USA imperialism. Last year he stated publicly, in reply to The Independent reader, that the USA is “the most free country in the world”. Not only is this a lie, a deliberate lie, but its inevitable impact would serve well the USA ruling class, as it fosters complacency in the face of a growing fascisation of the USA .

It prompted me to write 4 consecutive articles to call people’s attention to his false imperialist propaganda. In article 56, a fifth one on the subject, on this blog I again call attention to his dangerous treachery as follows :

“Yet, Noam Chomsky, the most notorious zionist impostor in the USA, has continued to lull the American people into complacency, and he is still on the same track.

I have posted 4 articles in this series (see http://treacheryof.blogspot.com/, articles 34 to 37) to make people aware of his complacency and of his undercover support for USA imperialism. In article 34 I quote his reply to The Independent reader question as follows :

"Would you describe the US as it is now as a fascist state? T SUMMERS, CORNWALL

Chomsky : Far from it. In many respects it is the most free country in the world."

Now, another American democrat, Paul Craig Roberts,has written for Christmas an article in which he describes the USA as the prison of its own people.”

A few days ago , Chomsky repeated again his call for complacency in the USA, and this time it is in open support for the status quo, and in praise of it ! In an article published by a local paper about a public meeting addressed by Chomsky, under the title, Chomsky Draws a Crowd , an article which was republished by Chomsky on his own website, there is this following revelation :

http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/20080118.htm

“"It's a much more civilized society (in the USA) than it was 30 or 40 years ago," said Chomsky. "You can be pessimistic if you'd like and look at the golden days."

At one point, he touched upon how young Americans have a difficult time deciding how to make the world a better place.

"We have a tremendous amount of freedom," said Chomsky. "The problem that young people face is that there's too much to choose from."

Chomsky mentioned that people have the choice to look at the world in either an optimistic or pessimistic viewpoint. “

In other words, Chomsky is optimistic for the present plutocracy in the USA, and its heinous war crime and crimes against humanity perpetrated in the Middle East and elsewhere. He considers them, evidently, as proof of the progress the USA has made towards becoming a “much more civilized society”.

This is the true Noam Chomsky , in a rare admission of his true politics, rather than Chomsky the masquerading "anti-imperialist champion" author of numerous books and articles which are no more than traps for the fools who
trust him !

(Emphasis added - B.M.)

2008-01-24T19:11:00.000-08:00

MORE ON THE TREACHERY OF NOAM CHOMSKY (article 57 )
by Benjamin Merhav

Nobody can dispute the fact that the conflict in Palestine was created by zionism, and that the zionist apartheid regime of Israel perpetuates and escalates it. Zionism is diametrically opposed to the Palestinian cause. The national rights of the Arab people of Palestine, and their basic human rights are anathema to zionism and to the zionist apartheid regime of Israel. The reason is plain to see : the very fundamental premise of zionism- a false premise, of course - is that there is a "Jewish nation", and that Palestine is its homeland.

Zionism, being what it is, namely, a racist and fascist ideology, does not tolerate the very existence of Arabs in Palestine ("the land of Israel" is the zionist name for Palestine), the homeland of the Palestinians. Consequently, it is very important for the Palestinians, and for the Left worldwide, to be able to tell who is a zionist, and therefore an enemy,and who is anti-zionist, and therefore a friend. Obviously, anyone who supports that fundamental zionist false premise of "Jewish nation"cannot be regarded as a friend. Noam Chomsky, is a prominent example of such a zionist impostor, namely, an enemy who purports to be a friend. Noam Chomsky, whose father (whom he still admires) was a fanatical zionist, considers the zionist premise of the "Jewish nation"as axiom which needs no debating, much less proof. No wonder he has never stated that he is anti-zionist, because he is not . He is a zionist in disguise, therefore a dishonest person too !

The zionist cabal which supports Noam Chomsky is made up of his ideological cronies. They imitate his dishonesty, and his treachery too. One such crony is Jeff Halper who describes himself as "Israeli Jew". He lives in Israel because he migrated there as a zionist settler. Why call himself "Jew" if he is not a religious Jew ? Like Noam Chomsky he accepts as "natural" the zionist false premise of "Jewish nation",hence the capital "J" in his spelling. Again let us stress that this is not a mere semantic excercise - it is the very essence of zionism ! And it is largely due to imposters like Chomsky and his ilk that many sincere people on the Left are confused, therefore still regard people of jewish background as an "ethnic" group wherever they are !

The following article by Jeff Halper purports to support the Palestinian people, as are his activities on the committee against Palestinian houses demolitions by the zionist regime. Like Noam Chomsky he never condemns the zionist apartheid regime of Israel, much less the zionist ideology ! If he would have been genuine in his "support" for the Palestinian cause, he would have stated unequivocally that he is opposed to zionism and to the zionist apartheid regime of Israel, and he would have demanded to immediately disband this racist/fascist regime, as was done in South Africa to its sister regime there. He does not because he is a zionist in disguise, like Noam Chomsky ! And like Noam Chomsky's articles and books so is this article : a zionist trap!

http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_25915.shtml

"POWER TO THE (PALESTINIAN) PEOPLE!
By Jeff Halper
Jan 24, 2008, 05:35
"Early this morning they simply blew up the wall separating Gaza from Egypt, breaking a siege imposed on them by an Arab government in collaboration with Israel." - Jeff Halper

Gazans fight back, tearing down their prison wallJanuary 23, 2008

The people of Palestine have done it again, taking their own fate in their hands after being let down by their own "moderate" political leadership and, indeed, the entire international community in their struggle for freedom. Early this morning they simply blew up the wall separating Gaza from Egypt, breaking a siege imposed on them by an Arab government in collaboration with Israel.

We, the peoples of the world, should take great pride and encouragement in this quintessentially civil society refusal to accept subjugation, to abandon their fate to governments, including their own, for whom the lives of ordinary people are simply grist for their political charades – Annapolis and its subsequent "peace process" being but the last cynical expression. For the Palestinians represent far more than just themselves.Their refusal to submit to the dictates of governments, or to governments' lack of interest in the well-being of people in general, reflects the desire of billions of oppressed people for identity, freedom, a decent life and actualization of their collective and individual rights and potentials. Most of the oppressed, the "wretched of the earth" as Franz Fanon called them a half-century ago, are too preoccupied with the daunting daily struggle for survival to organize and resist. Others do resist in a myriad of ways, but are most often repressed by their own political and economic "leaders," disappearing anonymously from view.

In a few cases they have managed to mount effective resistance to oppression, even to prevail – though the billions spent on "counter insurgency" warfare by the US, Europe, Russia, Israel and many "developing" nations augur ill for peoples attempting to overthrow oppressive regimes. In this the Palestinians stand at the forefront, in the front lines of peoples' insistence everywhere that their rights, well-being and fundamental values as human beings be respected by governments.And they do so (and I write this as an Israeli with great sorrow and shame) against one of the world's strongest and most ruthless military powers – a power that has dispossessed them from 85% of their land, which is trying to transform its occupation into a permanent regime of apartheid, which has spent decades impoverishing and disenfranchising them; the fourth largest nuclear power which nevertheless casts itself as the victim.Not only have the Palestinians experienced the dehumanization all oppressed and colonized peoples experience, not only have they been made into the embodiment of the rich and powerful's greatest fear, evil "terrorists" who may tear down their privileged "civilization," but they have been turned into guinea pigs.

Israel is able to gain an edge in the counterinsurgency industry and win entree into the heart of the American military/hi tech complex by turning the Occupied Territories into a laboratory for the development of fiendish weaponry and tactics intended for use against people.And yet the Palestinian people – and in particular those who remain sumud, steadfast, in Palestine – continue not only to resist but to surprise and confound its would-be Israeli master at every turn. Despite unlimited control, a complete monopoly over the use of force, utter callousness and a vaunted Shin Beit, Israel's military intelligence, Palestinians vote as they want, resist, carry on their daily lives with dignity – and blow huge holes in the walls and policies constructed in order to imprison and defeat them.All this is not on the minds of those desperate people who surged into Egypt today.

They may not have the "Big Picture." Yet they deserve the respect and gratefulness of every person who cherishes a better world based on human rights and dignity, a world that is inclusive.

As an Israeli Jew, I have been saddened and mortified that my own people, after all they have experienced, cannot see what they are doing to others. But on a larger scale, not as an Israeli Jew but as a human being, I take heart in the Palestinians' active refusal to be ground under a global system that is producing unimaginable wealth and power for a few at the expense of the growing ranks of the wretched.I am not a Palestinian; I am not one of the oppressed. I only hope I can use my privilege in an effective way in order to redeem the gift the people of Gaza have given all of us: the realization that the people do have power and can prevail even in the face of overwhelming power. We may each express our responsibility towards the people of Gaza in whatever way most suits us, but as the privileged we must do something. We owe the Palestinians and the Palestinians writ large at least that. (Jeff Halper is the Coordinator of the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions (ICAHD)"

2007-12-29T19:56:00.001-08:00

MORE ON THE TREACHERY OF NOAM CHOMSKY (article 56) by Benjamin Merhav

Ever since George Bush the son became USA President it became clear to many people in the USA that it is the beginning of full scale fascism there. Thus, Law Professor F.A. Boyle, in his November 20, 2007 speech stated the legal aspect of the Bush fascist takeover as follows :

http://2ndbigbusinescrimes.blogspot.com/ :

"Since the impeachable installation of George Bush Jr. as President by the U.S. Supreme Court's Gang of Five, the people of the world have witnessed a government in the United States that has demonstrated little if any respect for fundamental considerations of international law, human rights, or the United States Constitution."

Yet, Noam Chomsky, the most notorious zionist impostor in the USA, has continued to lull the American people into complacency, and he is still on the same track. I have posted 4 articles in this series (see http://treacheryof.blogtspot.com/ , articles 34 to 37) to make people aware of his complacency and of his undercover support for USA imperialism. In article 34 I quote his reply to The Independent reader question as follows :

"Would you describe the US as it is now as a fascist state? T SUMMERS, CORNWALL

Chomsky : Far from it. In many respects it is the most free country in the world."

Now, another American democrat, Paul Craig Roberts,has written for Christmas an article in which he describes the USA as the prison of its own people.

Here it is :

"We all are prisoners now
By Paul Craig Roberts
Dec 28, 2007, 00:20
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_2783.shtml

"They're locking them up today They're throwing away the key I wonder who it'll be tomorrow, you or me?"The Red Telephone (LOVE, 1967)

At Christmas time it has been my habit to write a column in remembrance of the many innocent people in prisons whose lives have been stolen by the US criminal justice [sic] system that is as inhumane as it is indifferent to justice.

Usually I retell the cases of William Strong and Christophe Gaynor, two men framed in the Commonwwealth of Virginia by prosecutors and judges as wicked and corrupt as any who served Hitler or Stalin.This year is different. All Americans are now imprisoned in a world of lies and deception created by the Bush Regime and the two complicit parties of Congress, by federal judges too timid or ignorant to recognize a rogue regime running roughshod over the Constitution, by a bought and paid for media that serves as propagandists for a regime of war criminals, and by a public who have forsaken their Founding Fathers.

Americans are also imprisoned by fear, a false fear created by the hoax of "terrorism." It has turned out that headline terrorist events since 9/11 have been orchestrated by the US government. For example, the alleged terrorist plot to blow up Chicago's Sears Tower was the brainchild of a FBI agent who searched out a few disaffected people to give lip service to the plot devised by the FBI agent. He arrested his victims, whose trial ended in acquittal and mistrial.

Many Europeans regard 9/11 itself as an orchestrated event. Former cabinet members of the British, Canadian and German governments and the chief of staff of the Russian Army have publicly expressed their doubts about the official 9/11 story. Recently, a former president of Italy, Francesco Cossiga, said in an interview with the newspaper, Corriere della Sera [ Osama-Berlusconi, November 30, 2007,] that "democratic elements in America and Europe, with the Italian center-left in the forefront, now know that the 9/11 attack was planned and executed by the American CIA and Mossad in order to blame the Arab countries, and to persuade the Western powers to undertake military action both in Iraq and Afghanistan."

It is unclear whether Cossiga was being sarcastic about the opinion of skeptics or merely reporting what people think. I have written to him asking for clarification and will report any reply that I receive. Apparently, the Italian media has not offered a clarification.Cossiga's statement has not been reported by a US newspaper or TV channel. Raising doubts among Americans about the government is not a strong point of the corporate media.

Americans live in a world of propaganda designed to secure their acquiescence to war crimes, torture, searches and police state measures, military aggression, hegemony and oppression, while portraying Americans (and Israelis) as the salt of the earth who are threatened by Muslims who hate their "freedom and democracy."Americans cling to this "truth" while the Bush regime and a complicit Congress destroy the Bill of Rights and engineer the theft of elections.

Freedom and democracy in America have been reduced to no-fly lists, spying without warrants, arrests without warrants or evidence, permanent detention despite the constitutional protection of habeas corpus, torture despite the prohibition against self-incrimination -- the list goes on and on. [See Bill of Rights Under Bush: A Timeline]

In today's fearful America, a US senator, whose elder brothers were (1) a military hero killed in action, (2) a president of the United States assassinated in office, (3) an attorney general of the United States and likely president except he was assassinated like his brother, can find himself on the no-fly list. Present and former high government officials, with top secret security clearances, cannot fly with a tube of toothpaste or a bottle of water despite the absence of any evidence that extreme measures imposed by "airport security" makes flying safer. [ No proof airport security makes flying safer:study, Reuters, December 20, 2007]

Elderly American citizens with walkers and young mothers with children are meticulously searched because US Homeland Security cannot tell the difference between an American citizen and a terrorist.All Americans should note the ominous implications of the inability of Homeland Security to distinguish an American citizen from a terrorist.When airport security cannot differentiate a US Marine general who is a recipient of the Medal of Honor from a terrorist , Americans have all the information they need to know.

Any and every American can be arrested by unaccountable authority, held indefinitely without charges and tortured until he or she can no longer stand the abuse and confesses.This predicament, which can now befall any American, is our reward for our stupidity, our indifference, our gullibility, and our lack of compassion for anyone but ourselves.

Some Americans have begun to comprehend the tremendous financial costs of the "war on terror." But few understand the cost to American liberty.

Last October a Democrat-sponsored bill, "Prevention of Violent Radicalism and Homegrown Terrorism," passed the House of Representatives 404 to 6.Only six members of the House voted against tyrannical legislation that would destroy freedom of speech and freedom of assembly and that would mandate 18 months of congressional hearings to discover Americans with "extreme" views who could be preemptively arrested.

What better indication that the US Constitution has lost its authority when elected representatives closest to the people pass a bill that permits the Bill of Rights to be overturned by the subjective opinion of members of an "Extremist Belief Commission" and Homeland Security bureaucrats?

Clearly, Americans face no greater threat than the government in Washington.

Paul Craig Roberts [email him ] was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration. He is the author of Supply-Side Revolution : An Insider's Account of Policymaking in Washington; Alienation and the Soviet Economy and Meltdown: Inside the Soviet Economy, and is the co-author with Lawrence M. Stratton of The Tyranny of Good Intentions : How Prosecutors and Bureaucrats Are Trampling the Constitution in the Name of Justice . Click here for Peter Brimelow's Forbes Magazine interview with Roberts about the recent epidemic of prosecutorial misconduct. "

(Emphasis added - B.M.)

2007-12-07T20:52:00.000-08:00

MORE ON THE TREACHERY OF NOAM CHOMSKY (article 55) by Benjamin Merhav

As I mentioned in my previous post ,Noam Chomsky has been persistent in his defence of the
JFK assassination cover-up as well as the 9/11 WTC cover-up. This stand of his ,in itself ,was a big disappointment for many of his misled devotees, but it did not make any difference to his dishonest cronies. For them he remains their admired mentor - albeit a zionist impostor mentor - to be modelled on and to follow in his footsteps.

The following article is by one honest person (one of a rapidly growing multitude in the USA). It reads :

http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/2007/10/defending-indefensible-noam-chomskys.html

"Defending the Indefensible: Noam Chomsky's 9/11 Spin

by John Doraemi

Crimes of the State

Noam Chomsky's 2006 "analysis" of US government 9/11 complicity is being promoted by Alternet.org as if it was news. That's because Chomsky basically sides with the editors there and their dismissive attitudes toward looking at the evidence.

In this battle of ideas, it warms my heart that Alternet's boards are swamped with controversy the minute they try to push this garbage onto the unsuspecting.

I remain a bit dazed though that hard core "leftists" accept Chomsky's thin dismissal, and ignore the most important admission Chomsky has made:

"I mean even if it [US GOVERNMENT COMPLICITY IN THE 9/11 ATTACKS] were true, which is extremely unlikely, who cares? I mean it doesn't have any significance." -Noam Chomsky

If you aren't familiar with this quote, read it again. Play the linked video. Come to terms with what he is saying. Chomsky gives the same dismissal to the JFK assassination (at the end of the clip). It just doesn't matter. To whom? Noam? To whom?

I suppose one could argue that JFK is dead 44 years now, and so America has moved on.* Not so for 9/11. Not on your life.

Chomsky has admitted that HE doesn't care if elements of the government were criminally complicit and treasonous in the 9/11 attacks, and that his school of followers shouldn't (doesn't) concern themselves either.

That's quite powerful stuff, given that many "lefty" pinhead types have internalized the marching orders and come up with elaborate mental gymnastics to convince themselves that 9/11 is "irrelevant." You see the "irrelevant" dismissal repeated in the threads over at that video post.

Example, "fireballs" says:

"9/11 truthers, you might be right in some form. There might be enough logical inconsistencies in the media's narrative of that day to produce some amount of scepticism. All of that is irrelevant. It does not matter if the towers fell due to controlled demolition. It does not matter what caused the collapse of WTC 7. It does not matter because you cannot prove what did happen, and the government is not going to help you, no matter how loud you shout outside of its doors."

You really have to wonder the mindset that admits the government could have participated in the mass murder of our fellow civilians, and yet works overtime trying to dismiss it as "irrelevant."

Well obviously it's not "irrelevant" to us, nor to the family members affected by it, nor to a hell of a lot of people around the world. That it is apparently "irrelevant" to Noam Chomsky and his dwindling band of followers speaks volumes about their priorities, as well as their morality, or apparent lack thereof. Perhaps it is they who are "irrelevant?"

Treason does not matter to these people.

So many derelictions of duty before 9/11 point to high treason (in the Clinton and Bush regimes), deliberate, calculated, with historical precedents and whistleblowers exposing the reality. None of that can sway the Chomskyites, because their leader seems to have some charismatic cult of personality hold on their ability to reason these things through.

Another one, "abstracted away" says:

"The 9/11 truth movement assumes that there must have been a massive conspiracy, in my opinion, because it does not understand the ramifications of the huge disparity of wealth and power in our country."

It all comes back to the Marxist critique of everything, not the actual evidence of the case. These types always put cart before horse. The 9/11 movement has waded through thousands and thousands of pages of evidence to find things that don't appear right, were covered up, lied about AND EXPOSED AS LIES, and are downright incriminating. I don't know of anyone who pretends to know exactly what happened. What we are pretty sure about is that it shouldn't have happened. In this context, we seem to be the only ones demanding accountability from an out of control illegitimate regime, while Chomsky et al. are fabricating excuses for said regime.

This one, "samco" has the audacity to proclaim:

"9/11 Truthers are no different that (sic) White Supremacists. For their own sad psychological reasons, Truthers have bought into an ideology that, in order to be true, requires the complete dehumanization of a group of people [Bush et al.]."

The indoctrinated "left" have bought a (questionable) ideology. I'm a hard core skeptic of the government's numerous lies and cover ups with some actual education about the government's numerous crimes throughout history. It's quite a difference, no?

The Bushites/Democrat elite have murdered about 1.2 million Iraqi civilians since 2003. So how come we're only "dehumanizing" them as monsters if we add on another 3,000 Americans? Yet I'm supposed to be the white supremacist in this equation? Go look up "Freudian slip," samco.

Their group reveals a generalized aversion to look at the facts. Chomsky is famous for his "institutional analysis" that just ignores individual actions and actors, in favor of glossing over and generalizing whenever that is more convenient. His posse at Alternet similarly resorts to anti-intellectual dismissal tactics in order to avoid very straightforward evidence.

The infamous Joshua Holland (Alternet editor and writer of hit pieces against the 9/11 Truth Movement) got in a half-hearted sniping at me just as the comments were "closed."

Chomsky said:

"It's almost certain that it would have leaked."
"So something would have leaked out, very likely."

To which I responded:

"Chomsky has nothing to say about Sibel Edmonds, Richard Wright, or any of the other whistle blowers, up to and including Senator Bob Graham ("foreign governments assisted the hijackers") and Senator Max Cleland ("not going to be part of another warren commission").
It did leak. It was known ..."

Holland cuts off the rest of my quote in his response, of course, which said:

"It was known by many people before the fact. High level pentagon officials cancelled travel plans on 9/10. The mayor of San Francisco was warned not to fly. Many other leaks are known if you bother to look."

Then, Joshua Holland comes to Chomsky's defense:

"That depends entirely on what "it" is in the sentence. If you are claiming that these people said "it" was an inside job, you are incorrect. Yet an inside job is what Chomsky's talking about in the clip."

Hmm. The question read to Noam Chomsky at the beginning of the video clip:

"(9/11 attacks) ...directly or indirectly Bush clan is behind this?"

Strike one, Holland.

Chomsky himself says:

"Did they plan it in any way or know anything about it?"

Strike two, Holland.

And the term "inside job", with whatever fantastical connotations are in Joshua Holland's mind, is not spoken in this video clip at all.

Strike three, Holland. You're out. Thanks for playing.

But, hey, Joshua Holland has also tried to spin both Sibel Edmonds and FBI Special Agent Robert Wright.

Here's what FBI translator Sibel Edmonds has said:

“If Counterintelligence receives information that contains money laundering, illegal arms sale, and illegal drug activities, directly linked to terrorist activities; and if that information involves certain nations, certain semi-legit organizations, and ties to certain lucrative or political relations in this country, then, that information is not shared with Counter terrorism, regardless of the possible severe consequences." -Sibel Edmonds Letter To Thomas Kean, August 1, 2004

That is an open accusation of conspiracy. Numerous conspiracies! Directly related to "terrorist activities!"

Could someone forward this over to Noam for me? Hey Joshua, what about you? Gonna Fedex these facts right over, or continue spinning?

FBI Special Agent Robert Wright, has said:

“Corruption is knowing when something is not being done, knowing when the American people are being left unprotected and when you make a decision not to do something to protect the American people... And you effectively allow 9/11 to occur. That is the ultimate form of government corruption—dereliction of duty. That’s subject in the military to prosecution, to court martial.... Frankly, if not treason.” --Robert Wright, Press Conference, Federal News Service, 5/30/2002, Cooperative Research

Holland (and Chomsky) also seems to have no problem with Senator Bob Graham's admission about "foreign governments" ... plural.

If foreign governments are getting away with mass murder on US soil, I think a majority of Americans will not only want to know about it (although they won't hear about it from Alternet or Noam Chomsky), but they will immediately want to throw out the bums -- every traitorous stinking last one of them -- who are protecting these "foreign governments."

The governments in question are clearly not on the "enemies" list, or else such information would quickly have been plastered all over the world's press as justification for the serial wars that were planned long before 9/11/01. Yes they were planned in places like the American Enterprise Institute, the Project for a New American Century, and in Zbigniew Brzezinski's Grand Chessboard.

So the "foreign governments" assisting the alleged hijackers are "allies." Allies who crash planes into NY skyscrapers. Allies who are protected AFTER they crash planes into NY skyscrapers.

We are so through-the-looking-glass here, people, that the only sensible response to this towering wall of propaganda and disinformation is to look for the covert control of the "alternate" media and to question the credibility of the "alternate" icons like Chomsky, Alexander Cockburn, and others in positions of editorial control and influence.

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." --Former CIA director William Colby (quote apparently purged recently from Wikipedia)

You can tell very easily who is concerned with the truth, and who is not by examining the targets of their ire. Those whose fixation is "conspiracy theorists" or the "9/11 Truth Movement" are not interested in knowing. They are simply turning focus and attention onto a generalized movement, which allows them to cherry pick claims and ideas to "debunk." They make quite a sport of this, and have done so for a while.

There are ideological reasons for doing this -- all the while ignoring the evidence related to 9/11 -- and they are being misled, clearly from "above." The "Left Gatekeepers" have done a tremendous amount of work keeping the focus on amateur investigators and whatever mistakes they have made, as well as the deliberate COINTELPRO originated disinformation "theories."

In the process, these Gatekeepers have given the treasonous faction in charge a free pass. Why would they do this? Why would they not want to hold the regime accountable for the atrocities of 9/11? That's a very fair question.

A number of Chomskyites admit that the Bush regime is negligent, and that there was "malfeasance" and other lighter charges. They omit the part about criminal negligence, with 3,000 homicides in the balance (and two illegal wars as a consequence). I don't know what they're putting in the bottled water over in Chomsky land, but I see a problem here.

* P.S.

Kennedy's death didn't matter? Perhaps it did to 58,000 US troops and 3,000,000 Vietnamese citizens.

We had Kennedy retreating from a belligerent foreign policy after the Cuban Missile Crisis sent the world to the brink of nuclear war. Kennedy was proclaimed "soft on communism" when he made a deal with the Soviets to avoid Armageddon. JFK subsequently refused to invade Cuba, or to support the CIA's rogue Bay of Pigs invasion with US air power.

Kennedy was at war with the CIA when he fired Allan Dulles as CIA head shortly before his assassination.

Dulles for some reason ended up on the Warren Commission "investigation" that brought us the magical bullet of Lee Harvey Oswald. But none of that matters, ...says Chomsky.

What say you followers?

Not a one of them had the gumption to answer my question:

"I mean even if it [US GOVERNMENT COMPLICITY IN THE 9/11 ATTACKS] were true, which is extremely unlikely, who cares? I mean it doesn't have any significance."
"Is there anyone in their right frame of mind who agrees with the above quote?"

No takers. Just wise cracks about "conspiracy wackiness." Real intellectual giants over there in Alter-Chomsky universe."

(Emphasis added - B.M.)

2007-11-25T21:31:00.000-08:00

MORE ON THE TREACHERY OF NOAM CHOMSKY (article 54)
[ OR : MORE ON THE COVER-UP OF THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT J.F. KENNEDY ] by Benjamin Merhav

This very important subject was discussed in the previous blog (http://moretreacheryof.blogspot.com/) - posts 40,44, 49 - along with the 9/11 cover-up. Noam Chomsky has supported the official cover-up in both cases. Also - and this might explain Chomsky’s support for the cover-up - the zionist Gestapo of the zionist apartheid regime of Israel had been involved in both cases as a major culprit.

Here we shall consider the assassination of USA President Kennedy alone, as it happened 44 years ago in Dallas, USA.

As I mentioned before in the above posts, of all the major candidates for that despicable assassination crime, namely, the CIA, the Mafia etc. the zionist Gestapo alone had the most urgent motivation to perpetrate the crime. Therefore, although the crime could have been plotted and carried out by several assassins, the zionist Gestapo stood out as the main "winner" to benefit from this crime.

As we shall see below, there was a timetable which was urging the zionist apartheid regime of Israel to perpetrate the murder no later than the actual day of the assassination, namely, on the 22nd of November, 1963. Also mentioned in my above posts is the particular role of Jack Ruby, who assassinated L. Oswald, the suspect, soon after his arrest, so as to prevent the truth from ever emerging. He himself would be murdered too shortly after and for the same reasons. Jack Ruby was a Mafia gangster with strong connections to the zionist Gestapo. He was an accomplice of Meir Lansky, a top mafia gangster of Jewish background, who had strong ties with the zionist apartheid regime of Israel.

What was that timetable which urged the zionist Gestapo to perpetrate the crime no later than the 22nd of November, 1963 ? It was a letter by President Kennedy to the Prime Minister of Israel, dated 5th of July, 1963, in which he requested full and immediate access for USA inspectors of Israel’s secret pile and nuclear bombs factory at Dimona. The letter reads :

http://www.jfkmontreal.com/toc.htm

“Dear Mr. Prime Minister (Eshkol),

It gives me great personal pleasure to extend congratulations as you assume your responsibilities as Prime Minister of Israel. You have our friendship and best wishes in your new tasks. It is on one of these that I am writing you at this time.

You are aware, I am sure, of the exchange which I had with Prime Minister Ben-Gurion concerning American visits (ie: inspections -ed) to Israel's nuclear facility at Dimona. Most recently, the Prime Minister wrote to me on May 27. His words reflected a most intense personal consideration of a problem that I know is not easy for your Government, as it is not for mine.

We welcomed the former Prime Minister's strong reaffirmation that Dimona will be devoted exclusively to peaceful purposes and the reaffirmation also of Israel's willingness to permit periodic visits (ie: inspections -ed) to Dimona.

I regret having to add to your burdens so soon after your assumption of office, but I feel the crucial importance of this problem necessitates my taking up with you at this early date certain further considerations, arising out of Mr. Ben-Gurion's May 27 letter, as to the nature and scheduling of such visits.

I am sure you will agree that these visits should be as nearly as possible in accord with international standards, thereby resolving all doubts as to the peaceful intent of the Dimona project. As I wrote Mr. Ben-Gurion, this Government's commitment to and support of Israel could be seriously jeopardized if it should be thought that we were unable to obtain reliable information on a subject as vital to the peace as the question of Israel's effort in the nuclear field.

Therefore, I asked our scientists to review the alternative schedules of visits we and you had proposed. If Israel's purposes are to be clear beyond reasonable doubt, I believe that the schedule which would best serve our common purposes would be a visit early this summer, another visit in June 1964, and thereafter at intervals of six months.

I am sure that such a schedule should not cause you any more difficulty than that which Mr. Ben-Gurion proposed in his May 27 letter. It would be essential, and I understand that Mr. Ben-Gurion's letter was in accord with this, that our scientists have access to all areas of the Dimona site and to any related part of the complex, such as fuel fabrication facilities or plutonium separation plant, and that sufficient time to be allotted for a thorough examination.
Knowing that you fully appreciate the truly vital significance of this matter to the future well-being of Israel, to the United States, and internationally, I am sure our carefully considered request will have your most sympathetic attention.

Sincerely,

John F. Kennedy”

There are several items in this very important letter which require close examination.
First, the letter mentions Ben Gurion’s lie that the Dimona nuclear pile is “devoted exclusively to peaceful purposes”, while in reality it was exclusively a nuclear bombs factory (as Vanunu proved with the photoes he himself took and later publicised in 1986).

Also it is obvious from the letter that President Kennedy did not trust the zionist cover up attempts, and he was adamant that the Dimona pile should be fully inspected by USA nuclear scientists immediately, and every 6 months subsequently.

So adamant was President Kennedy that he threatens the zionist apartheid regime of Israel in the letter as follows : “ As I wrote Mr. Ben-Gurion, this Government's commitment to and support of Israel could be seriously jeopardized if it should be thought that we were unable to obtain reliable information on a subject as vital to the peace as the question of Israel's effort in the nuclear field. “

So the zionist rulers of Israel had been requested by JFK to abandon their megalomaniacal plans of becoming a nuclear power, or else they would lose the USA government support ! The Dimona nuclear bombs factory began bombs production only 2 years earlier, so that they could not have had by then more then a couple of nuclear bombs in their stockpile ! What’s more JFK demands immediate and full inspection, as he mentions in his letter “early summer” for the first inspection, whereas the letter itself was sent in mid summer !

Anyone who knows zionism, and zionist chieftains, would know that the JFK letter made them very angry ,and the only way out for them was to decide to “get rid” of JFK before he would implement any sanctions against the zionist apartheid regime of Israel ! Therefore, the assassination had to take place no later than the 22 of November, 1963 !

I have worked it out long ago, and yet Noam Chomsky, who has had access to much more information sources than I have, and who knows zionism and the zionist leaders very well ( at least as I do) , continues to endorse the official cover-up of the JFK assassination by the zionist Gestapo !

(Emphasis added - B.M.)

2007-11-21T00:52:00.000-08:00

MORE ON THE TREACHERY OF NOAM CHOMSKY(article 53) by Benjamin Merhav

There has been a collective effort on part of some honest and genuine Left people, during the past few years, to expose the treachery and dishonesty of Noam Chomsky, the most notorious zionist impostor in the USA. This ongoing collective effort is a very important contribution to the struggle against USA imperialism and against the zionist apartheid regime of Israel. Those are the regimes of which Noam Chomsky is the champion rather than the deceptive opposite role he has purported to play in the guise of “guru of the Left “.

The following article by Chris Knight is an important contribution to the collective effort. Like others before him he knew that exposing impostor Chomsky is an uphill effort because of the secret backing that Chomsky has had from both the zionist and the USA imperialist regimes, and because of his cabal of devotees
who are themselves modelled on their impostor-mentor's dishonesty.

Here is the article :

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/655/chomsky.htm

“The Chomsky enigma

How it is that a powerful critic of US imperialism has been regarded as a valued asset by the US military? In the first of three articles Chris Knight of the Radical Anthropology Group begins his examination of the life and work of Noam Chomsky.

Noam Chomsky ranks among the leading intellectual figures of modern times. He has changed the way we think about what it means to be human, gaining a position in the history of ideas - at least according to his supporters - comparable with that of Galileo, Descartes or Newton. Since launching his intellectual assault against the academic orthodoxies of the 1950s, he has succeeded - almost single-handedly - in revolutionising linguistics and establishing it as a modern science.

Such intellectual victories, however, have come at a cost. The stage was set for the “linguistics wars”1 when Chomsky published his first book. He might as well have thrown a bomb. “The extraordinary and traumatic impact of the publication of Syntactic structures by Noam Chomsky in 1957,” recalls one witness, “can hardly be appreciated by one who did not live through this upheaval.”2 From that moment, the battles have continued to rage.

‘Command and control’

How could a technical book on syntax have produced such dramatic effects? By his own admission, the author knew little about the world’s different languages. Indeed, he outraged traditional linguists by claiming he did not need to know. Chomsky was not interested in documenting linguistic diversity. Neither did he care about the relationship between language and other aspects of human thought or life. As far as his opponents could see, he was not really interested in linguistics at all. He seemed to be more interested in computers.

In 1955, Chomsky joined the ‘Research Laboratory of Electronics’ at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). His work was funded by the US military. He explains:

“About half the institute’s budget was coming from two major military laboratories that they administered and of the rest, the academic side, it could have been something like 90% or so from the Pentagon. Something like that. Very high. So it was a Pentagon-based university. And I was at a military-funded lab.”3
Chomsky clarified his activist convictions immediately on arrival. He recalls: “It was a military-financed laboratory, and people routinely went through security clearance procedures. I just refused. I know everyone thought it was kind of weird, because the only effect of it was that I missed out on free trips on military air transport and things like that.”4

He did not get the free rides, but otherwise encountered no problems. The preface to Syntactic structures concludes: “This work was supported in part by the USA army (Signal Corps), the air force (Office of Scientific Research, Air Research and Development Command) and the navy (Office of Naval Research); and in part by the National Science Foundation and the Eastman Kodak Corporation.”5

Chomsky and his supporters subsequently secured two large defence grants - one for a project based in MIT and the other for research undertaken in the University of California, Los Angeles. Aspects of the theory of syntax contains this acknowledgment: “The research reported in this document was made possible in part by support extended the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Research Laboratory of Electronics, by the Joint Services Electronics Programs (US army, US navy and US air force) under contract No.DA36-039-AMC-03200(E); additional support was received from the US air force (Electronic Systems Division under contract AF19(628)-2487), the National Science Foundation (grant GP-2495), the National Institutes of Health (grant MH-04737-04) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (grant NsG-496).”6

Several questions arise. Why did Chomsky - an outspoken leftwing activist and anti-militarist - take the money? Secondly, what did the military think they were buying? Both questions are sharpened by the fact that MIT at this time had no tradition in linguistics. This confronts us with a third puzzle: why did the military not choose to invest in an institution with a proven record in this field?

Explaining his decision to choose MIT, Chomsky recalls that he felt in no mood to serve in an established department of linguistics. He needed somewhere where original thinking could be freely explored: “I had no prospects in a university that had a tradition in any field related to linguistics, whether it was anthropology or whatever, because the work that I was doing was simply not recognised as related to that field - maybe rightly. Furthermore, I didn’t have real professional credentials in the field. I’m the first to admit that. And therefore I ended up in an electronics laboratory. I don’t know how to handle anything more complicated than a tape recorder, and not even that, but I’ve been in an electronics laboratory for the last 30 years, largely because there were no vested interests there and the director, Jerome Wiesner, was willing to take a chance on some odd ideas that looked as if they might be intriguing. It was several years, in fact, before there was any public, any professional community with which I could have an interchange of ideas in what I thought of as my own field, apart from a few friends. The talks that I gave in the 1950s were usually at computer centres, psychology seminars and other groups outside of what was supposed to be my field.”7

Chomsky was to prove fortunate in his choice of institution. Its resources attracted able students who would soon contribute to his meteoric rise.8 The association with the military also sent out the right signal to his academic colleagues. Military folk don’t subsidise leftwing propaganda. If the Pentagon was paying up despite Chomsky’s well-known politics, it could only mean one thing: Chomsky’s science must surely be good.

Since Chomsky himself benefited in such obvious ways, we are led to ask, what did the military stand to gain? Interviewed in 1971, colonel Edmund P Gaines explained:

“The air force has an increasingly large investment in so called ‘command and control’ computer systems. Such systems contain information about the status of our forces and are used in planning and executing military operations. For example, defence of the continental United States against air and missile attack is possible in part because of the use of such computer systems. And, of course, such systems support our forces in Vietnam.
“The data in such systems is processed in response to questions and requests by commanders. Since the computer cannot ‘understand’ English, the commanders’ queries must be translated into a language that the computer can deal with; such languages resemble English very little, either in their form or in the ease with which they are learned and used. Command and control systems would be easier to use, and it would be easier to train people to use them, if this translation were not necessary. We sponsored linguistic research in order to learn how to build command and control systems that could understand English queries directly.”9

Followers of Chomsky were by then engaged in just such a project at the University of California, Los Angeles, prompting Colonel Gaines to comment: “Of course, studies like the UCLA study are but the first step toward achieving this goal. It does seem clear, however, that the successful operation of such systems will depend on insights gained from linguistic research ...”

The colonel went on to express the air force’s “satisfaction” with UCLA’s work.10

The language machine

On the eve of the computer age, Chomsky’s Syntactic structures excited and inspired a new generation of linguists because it chimed in with the spirit of the times. Younger scholars were becoming impatient with linguistics conceived as the accumulation of empirical facts about linguistic forms and traditions. Chomsky promised simplification by reducing language to a mechanical ‘device’ whose design could be precisely specified. Linguistics was no longer to be tarnished by association with ‘unscientific’ disciplines such as anthropology or sociology. Instead, it would be redefined as the study of a ‘natural object’ - the specialised module of the brain which (according to Chomsky) was responsible for linguistic computation. Excluding social factors and thereby transcending mere politics and ideology, the reconstructed discipline would at last qualify as a science akin to mathematics and physics.

In science, according to Chomsky, less is more. If a theory is sufficiently powerful and simple, it should radically reduce the amount of knowledge needed to understand the relevant facts. As he explains, “... the amount that you have to know in a field is not at all correlated with the success of the field. Maybe it’s even inversely related because the more success there is, in a sense, the less you have to know. You just have to understand; you have to understand more, but maybe know less.”11

Syntactic structures infuriated established linguists - and delighted as many iconoclasts - because its message was that much of the profession’s work had been a waste of time. Why laboriously list and classify anthropological observations on the world’s variegated languages if a simplifying short cut can be found? In an ice-cool, starkly logical argument that magisterially brushed aside most current linguistic theory, Syntactic structures evaluated some conceivable ways of constructing the ultimate ‘language machine’:

“Suppose we have a machine that can be in any one of a finite number of different internal states ... the machine begins in the initial state, runs through a sequence of states (producing a word with each transition), and ends in the final state. Then we call the sequence of words that has been produced a ‘sentence’. Each such machine thus defines a certain language: namely the set of sentences that can be produced in this way.”12

As his argument unfolds, Chomsky rules out his initial crude design for the envisaged machine - clearly, it would not work. By a process of elimination, he then progressively narrows the range of designs which - on purely theoretical grounds - ought to work. Thrillingly, Chomsky opens up the prospect of discovering in effect ‘the philosopher’s stone’: the design specifications of a ‘device’ capable of generating grammatical sentences (and only grammatical ones), not only in English, but in any language spoken (or capable of being spoken) on earth.

Syntactic structures itself, as it happened, proved unequal to the extraordinary task. Aware of this, Chomsky in his next book proposed a completely different design for his machine - variously known as the Aspects model or as the standard theory.13 Two mathematical linguists, Stanley Peters and Robert Ritchie, explored its implications - only to find that the class of grammars captured by the new model was so all-encompassing as to be vacuous. A device built in such a way, they found, would be quite extraordinarily stupid. In fact, it would be unable to distinguish between (a) any conceivable list of strings of symbols (say, all the decimal places of pi, divided into arbitrary sequences and enumerated by the value of the products of their digits) and (b) a list of actual strings used by humans for expressing themselves in, say, English. A “not too far-fetched analogy,” as one critic put it, “would be a biological theory which failed to characterise the difference between raccoons and light bulbs.”14

Chomsky proceeded as if none of this had any bearing on his work. In a pre-emptive strike, he declared that “the gravest defect of the theory of transformational grammar is its enormous latitude and descriptive power”. Constraints would have to be introduced, even if that meant complicating the originally simple and elegant design. “Notice that it is often a step forward,” Chomsky observed, “… when linguistic theory becomes more complex.”15 In place of standard theory - or ST, as it was known - Chomsky now offered the extended standard theory, or EST.

By the late 1970s, however, still further changes seemed required, leading to the ‘revised extended standard theory’, or REST. Realising that this was still unsatisfactory, in 1981 Chomsky published his Lectures on government and binding, which swept away much of the apparatus of earlier transformational theories in favour of a much more complex approach.16

In its ‘principles and parameters’ incarnation, the device might arguably have seemed quite encouraging to colonel Gaines:

“We can think of the initial state of the faculty of language as a fixed network connected to a switch box; the network is constituted of the principles of language, while the switches are the options to be determined by experience. When the switches are set one way, we have Swahili; when they are set another way, we have Japanese. Each possible human language is identified as a particular setting of the switches - a setting of parameters, in technical terminology. If the research programme succeeds, we should be able literally to deduce Swahili from one choice of settings, Japanese from another, and so on through the languages that humans can acquire.”17

Without abandoning this extraordinary dream, Chomsky has since jettisoned most of the specifics in favour of an even more radical version, known as the Minimalist Programme.18 This offers the prospect of building the device in a breathtakingly simple way. Don’t re-invent the laws of nature - just make them work for you! Imagine how a snowflake grows, or how a living cell divides.

As Chomsky explains, “So, is cell division some horrible mess? Or is it a process that follows very simple physical laws and requires no genetic instructions at all because it’s just how the physics works? Do things break up into spheres to satisfy least energy requirements? If that were true, it would be sort of perfect; it’s a complicated biological process that’s going the way it does because of fundamental physical laws. So, beautiful process.”19

Is the creativity of language a “beautiful process” in this sense? Is it “perfect” like a snowflake? Chomsky suspects that it might be. If he is right, then assembling the language machine might be easier than we thought. Just let nature do the work! For Chomsky, the natural principle behind language is “recursion” - the embedding of one output in another of the same type.20 Among English speakers the story of ‘The house that Jack built’ is often used to illustrate this principle. According to Chomsky, it is all you need. He admits that specific languages do seem to present additional complications. But anomalies should not distract us - any more than we should be led astray by accidental imperfections in a crystal. To grow a crystal, we do not have to anticipate random imperfections in advance.

This new, bare-bones approach strikes many of Chomsky’s colleagues as an astonishing - and arguably refreshing - rupture in his long and remarkable career. In fact, it calls into question “almost everything” Chomsky has previously claimed: “My own view is that almost everything is subject to question, especially if you look at it from a minimalist perspective ... So, if you had asked me 10 years ago, I would have said government is a unifying concept, X-bar theory is a unifying concept, the head parameter is an obvious parameter, ECP, etc, but now none of these looks obvious. X-bar theory, I think, is probably wrong, government maybe does not exist.”21

Even the concept of “deep structure” has now vanished altogether. To appreciate what this means, imagine Newton abandoning ‘gravity’ or Marx abandoning ‘class’. As Chomsky demolishes the fundamentals of his former paradigm, it is difficult to discern quite what remains. But then how precisely is the language device to be built? Is the underlying idea - the principle of recursion - enough in itself? The US military has long since abandoned all hope of a workable machine.

Linguistics as physics

To his academic colleagues in the humanities and social sciences, Chomsky’s programme has caused predictable astonishment, exasperation and even outrage. How could Chomsky imagine it possible - even in principle - to construct a ‘device’ enabling scientists to ‘deduce’ the languages currently or historically spoken across the world?

In replying to such critics, Chomsky accuses them of not understanding science. To do science, he explains, “you must abstract some object of study, you must eliminate those factors which are not pertinent ...”22 The linguist - according to Chomsky - cannot study humans articulating their thoughts under concrete social or historical conditions. Instead, you must replace reality with an abstract model. “Linguistic theory,” Chomsky declared in 1965, “is concerned primarily with an ideal speaker-listener, in a completely homogeneous speech-community, who knows its language perfectly and is unaffected by such grammatically irrelevant conditions as memory limitations, distractions, shifts of attention and interest, and errors (random or characteristic) in applying his knowledge of the language in actual performance.”23

In an implicit reference to the great Swiss theoretician, Ferdinand de Saussure, he invokes the authority of “the founders of modern general linguistics” in support of this position, adding that “no cogent reason for modifying it has been offered.”24

Chomsky’s decision, then, is to work with a deliberately simplified model. In applying this, he envisages children acquiring language not through successive stages, but in an instant. The evolutionary emergence of language is also conceptualised as an instantaneous event.25 Lexical concepts (the literal meanings of words) are for Chomsky not historically determined: they were genetically installed when our species evolved. But what about modern concepts such as, say, ‘carburettor’ or ‘bureaucrat’? Did our distant Stone Age ancestors already have such concepts in their heads? Chomsky thinks they must have done.

After defending this bizarre idea in a general way, he elaborates: “Furthermore, there is good reason to suppose that the argument is at least in substantial measure correct even for such words as ‘carburettor’ and ‘bureaucrat’, which, in fact, pose the familiar problem of poverty of stimulus if we attend carefully to the enormous gap between what we know and the evidence on the basis of which we know it. The same is often true of technical terms of science and mathematics, and it surely appears to be the case for the terms of ordinary discourse. However surprising the conclusion may be that nature has provided us with an innate stock of concepts, and that the child’s task is to discover their labels, the empirical facts appear to leave open few other possibilities.”26

‘Thus Aristotle had the concept of an airplane in his brain, and also the concept of a bicycle - he just never had occasion to use them!” comments the philosopher, Dan Dennett, adding that he and his colleagues find it hard not to burst out laughing at this point.27 Chomsky is here defending a strong form of the so-called ‘modular mind’ hypothesis, initially inspired by his own theory of an innate ‘language device’. Humans, according to this view, speak not for social reasons, but in expressing their individual genetic nature, speech being the autonomous output of a specialised computational mechanism - the ‘language organ’ - genetically ‘installed’ (Chomsky’s term) in the brain of every child on earth.

In his capacity as a natural scientist, Chomsky sees people as “natural objects”, their language a “part of nature”, while linguistics as a discipline “falls naturally within human biology”.28 However, this is not biology as normally understood. Discussing how language may have evolved, Chomsky suggests: “The answers may well lie not so much in the theory of natural selection as in molecular biology, in the study of what kinds of physical systems can develop under the conditions of life on earth ...”29

The apparently complicated features of grammar may be “simply emergent physical properties of a brain that reaches a certain level of complexity under the specific conditions of human evolution”.30 In an echo of the Manhattan project, Chomsky offers his own version of what might be termed the cognitive meltdown theory: “We know very little about what happens when 1010 neurons are crammed into something the size of a basketball, with further conditions imposed by the specific manner in which this system developed over time. It would be a serious error to suppose that all properties, or the interesting properties of the structures that evolved, can be ‘explained’ by natural selection.”31

But Chomsky has proposed a variety of scenarios. He appears equally happy with the speculation that “... a mutation took place in the genetic instructions for the brain, which was then reorganised in accord with the laws of physics and chemistry to install a faculty of language”.32 As if willing to try anything, he has recently suggested that language’s recursive structure may have emerged as a spandrel - an accidental by-product - of unspecified other developments connected with, say, navigation or mind-reading.33

For Chomsky, linguistics can aspire to the precision of physics because language itself is a “natural object”. As such, it approximates to a “perfect system”. Biologists, according to Chomsky, do not expect perfection, which is a distinctive hallmark of physics. He explains: “In the study of the inorganic world, for mysterious reasons, it has been a valuable heuristic to assume that things are very elegant and beautiful.”34 If it is to succeed in connecting sounds with meanings, language must solve a number of technical problems. In an apparent nod toward creationism or ‘intelligent design’, Chomsky continues:

“If a divine architect were faced with the problem of designing something to satisfy these conditions, would actual human language be one of the candidates, or close to it? Recent work suggests that language is surprisingly ‘perfect’ in this sense ... Insofar as that is true, language seems unlike other objects of the biological world, which are typically a rather messy solution to some class of problems, given the physical constraints and the materials that history and accident have made available.”35

Language, according to Chomsky, cannot just have evolved. It lacks the untidiness we would expect of an accumulation of accidents made good by evolutionary ‘tinkering’. Characterised by beauty bordering on perfection, it cannot have arisen in the normal Darwinian way.

Who benefits?

It is perhaps easy to understand why computer engineers might find it useful to treat language as a mechanical ‘device’. If, say, the aim were to construct an electronic command-and-control system for military use, then traditional linguistics would clearly be inadequate. The requirement would be for a version of language stripped free of meanings in any human or cultural sense - stripped of metaphor, poetry, humour, politics or anything else not accessible to a machine.

But military figures such as colonel Gaines were not the only people who in the 1960s hoped to benefit from the new approach. What of Chomsky’s other institutional sources of support? And what about his own fiercely anti-militarist politics? How did an anti-capitalist revolution connect with the ‘revolution’ Chomsky was inaugurating within linguistics? Indeed, can the two sides of Chomsky’s output be reconciled at all? Was the young anarchist tailoring his theories to meet the requirements of his military sponsors - forcing us, perhaps, to question the sincerity of his anarcho-syndicalist commitments? Or did he believe he was taking the money - refusing to let this influence his scientific results - in order to secure the best possible position from which to promote the anarchist cause? “

Notes

1. RA Harris The linguistics wars New York 1993.
2. H Maclay, ‘Linguistics: overview’, in D Steinberg and L Jakobovits (eds) Semantics Cambridge 1971, p163.
3. N Chomsky Class warfare (interviews with David Barsamian), London 1996, p102.
4. Op cit p98.
5. N Chomsky Syntactic structures The Hague 1957, p1.
6. N Chomsky Aspects of the theory of syntax Cambridge, Mass 1965, piv.
7. Interview in J Peck (ed) The Chomsky reader London 1988, pp15-16.
8. See FJ Newmeyer The politics of linguistics Chicago 1986, p84.
9. Ibid pp85-86. This source of funding was initially very helpful to Chomsky, but dried up completely in the late 1960s. Had the military been expecting from Chomsky a real ‘command and control’ machine, they would have been disappointed - he could not deliver anything workable and anyway was not interested. What corporate America got from Chomsky were long-term institutional gains in terms of how science was defined, not devices which could be manufactured or patented.
10. Ibid.
11. Interview in J Peck (ed) The Chomsky reader London 1988, p17.
12. N Chomsky Syntactic structures The Hague 1957, p18.
13. N Chomsky Aspects of the theory of syntax Cambridge, Mass 1965.
14. E Bach, ‘Explanatory inadequacy’, in D Cohen (ed) Explaining linguistic phenomena New York 1974, p158. See also S Peters and R Ritchie, ‘On restricting the base component of transformational grammar Information and Control 18: 493-501, 1971; S Peters and R Ritchie, ‘On the generative power of transformational grammars’ Information Sciences 6: 49-83, 1973; S Peters and R Ritchie, ‘Non-filtering and local-filtering transformational grammars’, in J Hintikka et al (eds) Approaches to natural language Dordrecht 1973, pp180-94.
15. N Chomsky Studies on semantics in generative grammar The Hague 1972, pp125-26. Since Chomsky denies the relevance of Peters-Ritchie, it is worth quoting Frederick Newmeyer, then a strong supporter of Chomsky: “The Peters-Ritchie findings,” he writes, “served as silent witness to almost all of the significant work in syntax in the 1970s. There was hardly a paper written that did not appeal to the increased restrictiveness of the theory that followed as a consequence of the adoption of the [Peters-Ritchie] proposals ... Constraint after constraint was put forward to limit the power of the grammar” (FJ Newmeyer Linguistic theory in America New York 1980, p176). For discussion, see RA Harris The linguistics wars New York 1993, p293n.
16. N Chomsky Lectures on government and binding Dordrecht 1981.
17. N Chomsky New horizons in the study of language and mind Cambridge 2000, p8.
18. Outlined in N Chomsky The minimalist programme Cambridge, Mass 1995.
19. N Chomsky On nature and language Cambridge 2002, p103.
20. MD Hauser, N Chomsky and W Tecumseh Fitch, ‘The faculty of language: what is it, who has it, and how did it evolve?’ Science 298, 1569-1579, 2002.
21. N Chomsky On nature and language Cambridge 2002, p151.
22. N Chomsky Language and responsibility (interviews with Mitsou Ronat), New York 1979, p57.
23. N Chomsky Aspects of the theory of syntax Cambridge, Mass 1965, pp3-4.
24. Ibid.
25. N Chomsky On nature and language Cambridge 2002, p148.
26. N Chomsky New horizons in the study of language and mind Cambridge 2000, pp64-66.
27. D Dennett Consciousness explained London 1991, pp192-93n.
28. N Chomsky Reflections of language London 1976, pp186, 123.
29. N Chomsky Language and problems of knowledge Cambridge, Mass 1988, p167.
30. N Chomsky, ‘Linguistics and cognitive science: problems and mysteries’, in A Kasher (ed) The Chomskyan turn: generative linguistics, philosophy, mathematics and psychology Oxford 1991, p50.
31. N Chomsky Reflections on language London 1976, p59.
32. N Chomsky ‘Language and mind: current thoughts on ancient problems’ Pesquisa Linguistica 3, 4, 1998, p17.
33. MD Hauser, N Chomsky and W Tecumseh Fitch, ‘The faculty of language: what is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science 298, 1569-1579, 2002.
34. N Chomsky New horizons in the study of language and mind Cambridge 2000, pp106-33.
35. N Chomsky Powers and prospects: reflections on human nature and the social order London 1996, p30.

(Emphasis added -B.M.)

2007-09-23T07:36:00.000-07:00

MORE ON THE TREACHERY OF NOAM CHOMSKY(article 52)
By Benjamin Merhav

As we have seen in the previous post, and in the 50 articles preceding it, Noam Chomsky has been a loyal zionist all his life, albeit under the guise of a champion of peace and justice, and of guru of the Left. We have seen also that he could not have gained the trust of people on the Left and even of some leaders of the oppressed without the “criticism” of him by the zionist propaganda machine. Also, in enhancing Chomsky’s successful role as impostor, his zionist cabal - Chomsky’s cronies disguised like him as champions of peace and justice - perpetuated the trust he had enjoyed by the Left on a world scale, yet none of them has ever condemned zionism, and never condemned the zionist apartheid regime of Israel.

Thus, for example, two of Chomsky’s cronies, who have successfully continued over the years to promote themselves, as well as their mentor-impostor-guru , are Jennifer Loewenstein in the USA, and Ran Hacohen in Israel, still purport to support the Palestinian cause. Their seemingly ferocious criticism of Israel’s policies towards the Palestinians have been as misleading as those of Noam Chomsky, their mentor-impostor. Let us take a closer look at them and at what they really stand for, regarding the zionist conflict in Palestine. Before that, the issue of zionism needs to be clarified again, as it is the root of all evil in the Middle East. The zionist conflict in Palestine is certainly the core of it , yet neither Chomsky nor his cronies have ever stated their opposition to zionism, if any of them is indeed opposed to it at all !

It is my firm opinion that Chomsky and his cronies are despicable zionists, despite their false appearances as “supporters” of the Palestinian cause.

Going back to basics it must be repeated once more that zionism, being the racist and fascist ideology that it has been since its inception, is the negation of the cause - and of the very existence ! - of the Arab people of Palestine. This has been so in its theory and in its practice for the past 110 years ! How can anyone ignore that ? Yet Jennifer Loewenstein, like Noam Chomsky, her mentor-impostor, in an article published last weekend by counterpunch.org ( it seems as the text of a speech she has given to UN conference of Civil Societies) she ignores the murderous role of zionism as follows :

“Noam Chomsky's response to my upbeat description of last year's UN's Conference in Geneva on the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People was that if things did not soon improve on the ground in the occupied Palestinian territories, the next such conference "would be a wake." It was a sobering reminder of just how dire the situation has become; how, in Chomsky's words we are currently witnessing an event almost unprecedented in the modern era: the systematic, deliberate and long-term destruction of an entire nation.”

In her entire article/speech there is no mention at all of zionism and of the zionist apartheid regime of Israel. If she or her mentor-impostor would have been genuinely concerned about the genocidal policies and atrocities perpetrated by the zionist apartheid regime of Israel, they would have condemned the regime, they would have demanded, called for, its disbandment, and for immediate international sanctions to be imposed on it by the international community, but they didn’t ! Nor did they ever demand the full and immediate return of the Palestinian refugees ! What kind of supporters of the Palestinians can they be regarded by anybody except themselves ?

Similar is the case of Ran Hacohen who also purports to support the Palestinians while in reality he is a loyal zionist. In his latest article for antiwar.com he says :

“Obviously, there is no Palestinian state, and there may never be one (or two). The Gaza Strip is "an independent state" just like any prison cell is: a hermetically sealed cage, overpopulated by 1.3 million people; no sea port or airport; no control over its own borders, waters, or airspace; even its population database, not to mention water, food, electricity, gasoline, and medical equipment, are all strictly controlled by Israel.

And as for the West Bank, it's enough to look at its recent map prepared by the UN to understand why no Palestinian state can emerge there: notice how the small area was pulverized into numerous tiny cages for humans, separated by Israeli settlements, fences, roadblocks, and checkpoints. Cages for non-Jewish humans only, mind you; Jews move around freely in their (whose?) land.”

Again no mention of zionism nor of the zionist apartheid regime of Israel, as if they are irrelevant. Moreover, in an article published by the same website 5 years ago Hacohen called for donations from a zionist organisation in the USA to be given to the illegal zionist settlers in the West Bank in return for leaving their settlements. Here is how he opened his article :

“The United Jewish Communities of North America has recently decided to give its financial support also to Israeli settlers in the occupied territories (Ha'aretz, 14.6.02).
At first, out of warm Jewish solidarity, I got very worried. Persistent rumours, especially since September 11th, say that the US government is not very fond of using charity money to support illegal purposes these days. After all, the Israeli settlements are internationally regarded as illegal, breaching the IV Geneva Convention, article 49, which states rather clearly that "the Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies". Even the Israeli government is now deeply concerned that the International Criminal Court may convict settlers as war criminals. So I truly hope the UJC have good lawyers.
But later, edified by my own feelings of Jewish solidarity, I realised that the urge felt by Jews world-wide to support Israel in these difficult days is quite understandable. So I started thinking how Jews really could, and should, support Israel. Not by supporting Sharon's vision of eternal war, but by supporting us, the Israeli people, whose vision is coexistence side-by-side with the Palestinians in peace, security and prosperity.”

2007-09-18T19:21:00.000-07:00

MORE ON THE TREACHERY OF NOAM CHOMSKY (article 51),[OR: More on the zionist friends of some Palestinian leaders and intellectuals]
by Benjamin Merhav

The following are excerpts from a press release by Sabeel :

“Boston Sabeel Conference to explore 'The Apartheid Paradigm in Palestine-Israel' with Desmond Tutu, Naim Ateek, John Dugard, and Noam Chomsky Archbishop Desmond Tutu will address the theme 'The Apartheid Paradigm in Palestine-Israel: Highlighting Issues of Justice and Equality' at a Sabeel Conference in Boston Oct. 26 - 27. “

“The conference will culminate in a peace rally in Copley Square organized by the Boston chapter of Jewish Voice for Peace. Sabeel is a Palestinian Christian international grassroots peace movement based in Jerusalem which promotes nonviolence, human rights, international law, democratic principles, and Gospel teachings on justice and peace-building. Friends of Sabeel-North America works to engage American Christians through regional conferences like the one in Boston featuring Palestinian and Israeli peacemakers and experts on a variety of related topics. “

It is obvious from the above that the organisers of the proposed conference are Palestinians who live in Jerusalem and their friends in the USA. Also obvious is that they have zionist partners :”Boston chapter of Jewish Voice for Peace.“ I say that because any organisation which claims to be “Jewish”, and is not religious, must be zionist, because only zionists believe in a “Jewish nation”, hence the capital “J”in their name. The only Jewish religious organisation which is opposed to zionism is the Neturei Karta, and the “Boston chapter of Jewish Voice for Peace” is not affiliated with them, and has never declared itself to be anti-zionist anyway.

Moreover, at least three other invited participants of jewish background - Noam Chomsky, Jeff Halper, and Anat Biletzki - have never declared themselves anti-zionist. Noam Chomsky,in particular,has been a loyal zionist all his life, as has been proven by the 50 previous articles in this series. The obvious question to arise, therefore, is this : can zionists be friends of the Palestinian cause, or are they enemies by definition, no matter what rhetorics they chose to hide it ?

Let us briefly check again Noam Chomsky’s credentials for participating in the proposed conference which is supposed to expose and oppose the zionist apartheid in occupied Palestine. We begin with the fact that he has always refused to define the zionist regime or the State of Israel as an apartheid regime,or as an apartheid state. We proceed with his defence of the regime by supporting the 2 states peace proposal, and by opposing the return of the Palestinian refugees to their homes. We further proceed by pointing to his opposition to international sanctions to be imposed against the zionist apartheid regime of Israel.We further more proceed by pointing to the fact that he has never declared his opposition to zionism, much less condemn it. On the contrary, he supports the zionist big propaganda lie about the “Jewish nation” of which Palestine is the “homeland”.

Thus, for example, in a recent biographical article endorsed by Noam Chomsky (if not written by him)it is revealed that “ Like his father, William, a respected scholar of the Hebrew language, Professor Chomsky knows Hebrew…” Noam Chomsky knows,of course, that his father was a fanatical zionist, yet he calls him a “respected Hebrew scholar” knowing full well that only fanatical Zionists would consider him a “respected Hebrew scholar”. He admits it himself in that same article where it says :

“Well before the state of Israel was established in 1948, in the household of his parents the questions of the Zionist movement and the settlement of Jews in Palestine were as important as the study of the Hebrew Bible.” (see the article : http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=103&ItemID=13783 ).

Even Chomsky’s “socialist ideals” derive from his zionist upbringing, as the above article points out :

“Family life brought the young Chomsky into the milieu of socialists and idealists who in the 1930s and 40s strove for social reform in the US and for the creation of Israel as a secular state based on collective principles of social justice, and co-existing peacefully and productively with its Arab neighbors.”

Why suport a zionist state - any kind of zionist state in Arab Palestine - if he was not a zionist ?
Moreover, not only did Chomsky support the creation of a zionist state in Palestine, and the 1948 zionist war of ethnic cleansing, he also supported the 1967 zionist invasion of Arab lands, including the military occupation of the Gaza Strip and the West bank, thus the complete zionist takeover of Arab Palestine. How could any Palestinian consider Noam Chomsky, the zionist impostor, as a friend ?