Meriter:
Jobbar åt MIT
Får pengar ifrån CFR

Inte för att det har något med innehållet i inlägget, men med tanke på rubriken hittade jag det här i en jobbansökan:

"Brun hårig sjuk sköterska med lång varig erfarenhet".

SÄR SKRIVNING ÄR KÄRLEK

Ett billigt luder kallat Chomsky, som jobbar åt MIT och US Government påstår att det spelar ingen roll om hurvida 9/11 är ett inside job eller inte och han predikar för sina kommunist bögpolare och sina envirokoko bögpolare.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoDqDvbgeXM

Alex Jones avslutar fanskapet för gott: (Chomsky försöker förklara ur hans enviroshit inte är NWO rakt igenom och misslyckas fundamentalt)
http://www.nw0.info/?p=Radio/Alex%20Jones%20Radio%20Archive/

Quote:

Chomsky "kritiserar" fattigdom men vägrar att påpeka att orsaken är att Federal Reserve Bank är privatägd, varför, kan det vara så att han är en liten äcklig left gatekeeper?

Jag lyssnade på Alex interjuv med Chomsky och jag får intrycket att Alex är barslig och osaklig.

Jag skulle kunnat ha frågat Chomsky massor med intressanta frågor angående hans "left gatekeep" relaterade verksamheter, men allt Alex kunde hosta fram var att Chomsky inte trodde att det var bra med lättligängliga vapen och var därför "elak".

Chomsky sa bara bra saker, och med en trevlig ton. Jag tycker att det är skamligt att Alex att börja förlöjliga Chomsky för ingenting.

Själv skulle jag frågat.

1. Styrs inte bankerna av privata familjer?
2. Är inte hemliga ordenssälskap viktiga maktfakturer?
3. Bör vi inte informera om dessa strukturer istället för att titta på alla otaliga resultat av desas problem? (som chomsky gör i min mening)

Nä. 1-0 till Chomsky i debattteknik.

Jag diggar Chomsky.

Förnekar ni att Federal Reserve Bank, a common class C stock corporation registerat i NEW JERSEY är privat ägt eller inte?
(Någon som Chomsky inte vill låtsas om men om man ringer och frågar så säger de rakt upp och ned att det är ett privat ägt företag) Vad kan man säga om "samhällsdebatörer" som gör det och kommer med pseudo-kritik, jag antar att ni vet att han sa att om 9/11 var en inside job "så spelar det ingen roll" och sen fortsätter han med sin vänstersmörja som är färdigskriptat direkt ifrån Tavistock institute.

Steven Jobs fick sparken eftersom han sa att 9/11 var en inside job eftersom han jobbar åt ett universitet som får $$$ uncle sam medast Chomsky kan jobba åt MIT som också får $$$ ifrån uncle sam och han får aldrig sparken, utan han kan tom. sitta i sk. nyhetsmedia och sprida sina påståenden. Har ni någonsin undrat varför? Får man inget vettigt svar på det så tycker jag att www.vaken.se kan byta namn till www.baken.se.

Vad väsnas du om fuckoff?

Man kan väl vara civilicerad fastän någon är en left gatekeeper.

Chomsky säger massa bra saker. Suggar coating, kallar vissa det.

Själv är jag inte så säker som du fuckoff med vad som föresegår inne i Chomskys skalle.

*Kanske är han Illuminat och försöker förvränga sanningen när han leder sanningsökare på villvägar.
*Kanske är han diplomatisk och försöker ta lite i taget och inte gå på de stora spelarna.
*Kanske är han lite ignorant och insnöad på sina egna idéer.
*Kanske är det någonting helt annat.

Och om man nu tror att han är gatekeeper kan man ju säga det på ett lite mer grasiöst sätt. Men så kanske det bara jag som är lite mjuk...

Om ett tåg kommer att köra över dig och "alla" säger att det är inte bra att stå på spåret och sen kommer en person som säger allt men förnekar att tåget ens existerar (privat ägda centralbanker), vad skulle du då tro om honom? Skulle du då möjligtvis tro att han faktiskt jobbar åt dem?

Och sen kan du förklara varför han aldrig får sparken ifrån MIT, skulls & bones land om det inte vore så att han jobbar åt dem.

Det är dags för steg 2 som maggot gjorde, tala ut om vad de egentligen är, skaffa gärna en megafon.

Jag ser inte att liknelsen är så bra med tågrelsen.

Chomsky anser att företagseliten försöker programera befolkningen att känna sig uppgivna.

Du menar att detta uttalande uppenbart antyder att han är Illuminat för att han inte skriver att det är en privat bank som liggar bakom det?

Det skulle dock vara kul om tex Alex hade frågat vad han tycker om bankvärlden.

Och angående deras andra diskyt, Alex tror att "the founding fathers" var fina killar. I verkligheten stor i alla fall jag att det var illuminater. Frimurare hela bunten. Massmord på Indianer.

Då var ju Chomskys idéer mycker närmare sanningen än Alex Jones.

Så betyder det att Alex är en Illuminat också? Jobbigt, jag tänker med att det är olika flankar av motståndsrörelsen. Kanske Chomsky är kontrollerad till viss mån av MIT, CFR mm. Kanske är Alex kontrollerad av Kristendomen. Men båda gör någonting bra från mitt perspektiv.

Jag tror inte folk är så dumma att dom inte kan hoppa av Chomskys teorier där de avstannar och hoppa på ett annat tåg som tex Alex.

Bässt av allt är ju om man lyssnar på alla och bildar en egen uppfattning.

http://www.irishantiwar.org/bboard/q- ... =1&topic=Irish%20Anti-War
Hitta detta inlägg som jag sympatiserar med till stor del.


http://www.opposingdigits.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=8712

Above is a link to an audio interview between Alex Jones and Noam Chomsky. The interview went well, they spoke well and agreed on pretty much everything of note until it came to the end.

Y'see Jones is a big champion of gun owners and the "right to bear arms". It is a fact that the United States has more gun deaths per year than any other country. In fact, it is unique in this regard -- the difference in numbers is dramatic when you compare the figure with that of any other country. It's also common sense that where there's more guns there will be more deaths, accidental or otherwise. It breaks down into three categories, homicides, suicides and accidental killings. I don't know about last year but in 2001 there were 30,000, yes THIRTY THOUSAND people killed from gunfire in the United States of America.

Jones, however, said that in the UK more people die of gun deaths. Chomsky countered it with a fact that didn't match Jones's point of view.

After the interview ends Jones says "I knew it, Chomsky is New World Order scum etc." Jones goes on to talk about how much smarter he is than Chomsky and that Chomsky came on his show to undermine him or something.

If you listen to the interview, Jones comes across as a narcissist at the end. As I've said before there is a degree of jealousy that he has directed at the likes of Chomsky and Michael Moore, not because Chomsky and Moore are more talented (I think they are) but because they are more capable of critical debate than Jones is, who appears to jump the gun all the time.

Just when I was getting to really admire Jones and his work he has to say that "Noam Chomsky is New World Order scum" and "Chomsky sat there and tried to use groupthink on us" and "Chomsky, you're a New World Order shill and I've got twice the brain you got with both arms tied behind my back" (not to Chomsky when he was on the phone; afterwards to himself).

He then denies well-known facts, and quotes by the likes of James Madison who talked about "the wealth of the nation", "the more capable class of men" and that the goal of government is "to protect the minority of the oppulent against the majority". Jones's precious Founding Fathers gave him the right, as he interpreted it, to shoot guns in his back yard in Texas and he somehow related that to present day gun deaths in America and also denies that the quotes that Chomsky says are factual.

Although it's more complicated than this, Jones thinks that the government wants to take away guns from people so that when there is a "police takeover" military style (which is possible of course), the populace won't be able to defend themselves. Well, if I was a New World Order planner of the most powerful country in the world with the most advanced military in the world with 10,000 plus nuclear weapons and a well-trained and funded army and I happened to want to disarm the populace, do you think I'd care about the handguns and rifles people keep in their homes, or that they would be in any way a threat to the most powerful army in the world?

Read the Second Amendment and link it to what Jones is saying:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Alex Jones, I still admire your passion and your work, but I think you need to become a little bit more objective. And you should be ashamed of yourself for ridiculing Chomsky AFTER he got off the phone. Chomksy would eat you for breakfast in any debate.

Chomsky har sagt följande om 911
If the left spends its time on this, that's the end of the left, in my opinion: the mainstream would be utterly delighted. It is highly likely that nothing significant will be found. And if – which I very greatly doubt -- something is found that would quickly send everyone in Washington to the death chamber, the left is unlikely to emerge triumphant."

Micro och alla andra Chomsky sympatisörer är inte detta ett tydligt försök att få sina anarkist och vänster anhängare att inte undersöka 911 .Skrämmande att där finns personer på detta forum som tycker om och hämtar disinfo från denna vidriga left gatekeeper clown.

Fler left gatekeeper citat från Chomsky.


Like other "anarchist" agent provacatuers such as John Zerzan (who helped train violent mobs to ruin the Seattle WTO protests in 1999), Chomsky has called for the elimination of private property.
He argues, "that some form of council communism is the natural form of revolutionary socialism in an industrial society."

In fact, Chomsky goes further, pushing for the elimination of the nation-state and national sovereignty to be replaced by a one world government:

"Well in my view what would be ultimately necessary would be a breakdown of the nation-state system- because I think that’s not a viable system. It’s not necessarily the natural form of human organization." (314)

But Noam Chomsky, ever the advocate of the UN, endorses the goals of U.N.E.S.C.O wholeheartedly and lambastes the evil conservatives who question its motives:

U.N.E.S.C.O-because it’s working for the Third World-we practically put them out of business. The United States launched a huge propaganda campaign against U.N.E.S.C.O. in the 1970's and Eighties- it was full of outrageous lies, totally fabricated, but nevertheless it sufficed to eliminate the Third World orientation of U.N.E.S.C.O. and make it stop doing things it was doing around the Third World, like improving literacy and health care and so on. (86


Nothing empirical is impossible. Thus, it is conceivable that everyone in the White House is totally insane. And in my opinion, that's what they would have had to be to try something that would have been very likely to turn into an utter fiasco, and if by some miracle had succeeded, would almost certainly have leaked, so that they would all be facing the death sentence. Possible, but not likely.

Of the subject of the NORAD stand down, Chomsky wrote the following:

"Whether NORAD followed SOP, I have no idea, not having investigated the matter. I think the case is very weak, and diverts people from the really serious issues."


Operation Northwoods example is only one of many reasons for being skeptical about this: it doesn't even come close, and it was not carried out. Furthermore, there is nothing in history that even remotely resembles what is being proposed. Of course, that does not show that the thesis is impossible: nothing could show that, by definition. And if someone can put together some evidence and refute the arguments as to why it is extraordinarily unlikely, then the matter will be worth pursuing.



Here is Noam Chomsky writing on government prior knowledge:

That tells us even less. Every intelligence agency is flooded, daily, with information of very low credibility. In retrospect, one can sometimes pick out pieces that mean something. At the time, that's a virtual impossibility. By arguments like this we can prove that someone blew up the White House yesterday.


Chomsky steadfastly denies the role of the Council on Foreign Relations, Bilderberg Committee, and Trilateral Commission in the creation and management of the wars and poverty he claims to condemn. When speaking on such "conspiracies," he said the following:

It's the same with the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations, all these other things the people are racing around searching for conspiracy theories about-they're "nothing" organizations. Of course they're there, obviously rich people get together and talk to each other, and play golf with one another, and plan together-that's not a big surprise. But these conspiracy theories people are putting their energies into have virtually nothing to do with the way the institutions actually function. (Understanding Power, 348)


If he denies even basic government foreknowledge of 9-11, should it be any surprise that Chomsky avoids criticism of the CIA? When asked about the links between the CIA and bin Laden, and the CIA’s overt support of the Taliban, Chomsky wrote the following:

"CIA support for bin Laden (which is not quite accurate) or the Taliban (also not quite accurate) doesn't seem to me remotely relevant."


Chomsky, who sees the CIA as an innocent victim of White House orders:.

Or take the CIA, which is considered the source of a lot of these conspiracies; we have a ton of information about it, and as I read the information, the C.I.A. is basically just an obedient branch of the White House. I mean sure, the C.I.A. has done things around the world- but as far as we know, it hasn't done anything on its own.

There's very little evidence-in fact, I don't know of any-that the C.I.A. is some kind of rogue elephant, you know, off on its own doing things. What the record shows is that the C.I.A. is just an agency of the White House, which sometimes carries out operations for which the Executive branch wants what's called "plausible deniability"; in other words, if something goes wrong, we don't want it to look like we did, those guys in the C.I.A. did it, and we can throw some of them to the wolves if we need to. That's basically the role of the C.I.A., along with mostly just a collection of information. (Chomsky, "Understanding


The Kennedy assassination cult is probably the most striking case. I mean, you have all these people doing super-scholarly intensive research, and trying to find out just who talked to whom, and what's the exact contours were of this supposed high-level conspiracy-it's all complete nonsense. As soon as you look into the various theories, they always collapse, there's just nothing there. But in many places, the left has just fallen apart on the basis of these sheer cults. (Chomsky, Understanding Power)


Chomsky, the self-proclaimed radical, also advocates such depopulation methods. In Chomsky’s book "Understanding Power," a collection of his talks with activists, a crowd member asks about population control, to which Chomsky responds:

If we continue to produce energy by combustion, the human race isn’t going to survive much longer...Yeah, population control is another issue where it doesn’t matter if you do it, everybody has to do it. It’s like traffic: I mean you can’t make driving a car survivable by driving well yourself; there has to be kind of a social contract involved, otherwise it won’t work. (61)

Chomsky and other gatekeepers claim to maintain the moral high ground, but then advocate the eugenics agenda pushed by elite roundtable groups like the Bilderberg and Club of Rome. How can Chomsky claim to be an advocate for the Third World while simultaneously pushing for the managed murder agenda favored by Henry Kissinger?


Report From Iron Mountain, he uses the threat of global warming to justify totalitarian control:

Suppose it was discovered tomorrow that the greenhouse effects has been way understimated, and that the catastrophic effects are actually going to set in 10 years from now, and not 100 years from now or something. Well, given the state of the popular movements we have today, we’d probably have a fascist takeover-with everybody agreeing to it, because that would be the only method for survival that anyone could think of. I’d even agree to it, because there’s just no other alternatives right now. (Understanding Power, 388)

Here is Noam Chomsky, openly advocating a fascist takeover because the ends justify the means. This is classic problem-reaction-solution programming, as he points to the real threat of pollution and then offers the solution of tyranny

Dessa left gatekeepers är i alla fall mycket duktiga på att argumentera och använda ett gentlemannasätt.

Typiska egenskaper för Illuminater, men ack så värdefulla.

Jag tror att det skulle vara bra att göra precis som left gatekeepers, men tvärtom.

Left gatekeepers fungerar så att de glider på irritationen hos folket (som de igentligen inte håller med) och hjälper till synes denna rörelse. Men istället för att ta rörelsen frammåt försöker de köra in rörelsen i olika klassiska kontrollmekanismer.

Det jag föreslår är att man glider på left gatekeepers och håller till synes med dom (på det som dom säger som är bra) Men där de börjar köra i fel riktning tar man bara över och kör vidare i rätt riktning. Sannigen kommer att segra om flera fortsätter vidare, men utan att påstå att någon annan är gatekeeper. Om någon frågar så säger man bara att man har liten annan strategi.