Keyword ‣ Jeffrey Epstein
4 references

No wonder he lied so outrageously in our email correspondence.

In the early summer of 1992, I saw the documentary “Manufacturing Consent” when it was released at the Castro Theater in San Francisco. This movie changed my life. It featured Noam Chomsky, an accomplished linguistics professor, and his analysis of corporate media propaganda. “Manufacturing Consent” convinced me that the American academy could tolerate, and even celebrate, serious social criticism. If Chomsky, a radical opponent of America's most powerful institutions, could not only survive but thrive in academia, speaking truth to power and building a huge following, why couldn't others do the same?

Prior to this screening, I was a deeply alienated bohemian who haunted the fringes of academia, so disgusted with all institutions in the United States that I could hardly have imagined working for them. (Learning the facts of JFK's assassination at the age of 16 can have this effect on a person). But Chomsky's example inspired me. He made me want to join him and other academics who criticize the empire of the United States, to convince our colleagues of the veracity of our arguments using logic and evidence, and to help the United States United to return to their anti-imperial roots, and then some.

So it was largely thanks to Chomsky that I entered a doctoral program in 1995. But by then I had noticed two glaring anomalies in his political thinking. The first, and most important, was that his analysis of the JFK assassination seemed nonsensical. Chomsky argued that the assassination was clearly a conspiracy, and not the work of a lone madman as the official story would have it, but that it didn't matter who killed JFK, because the assassination didn't change no politics! Since he felt that the fact that the president was assassinated by conspirators powerful enough to impose their ridiculous story on the whole world was irrelevant, Chomsky was not at all interested in identifying the perpetrators and discouraged his supporters. to pay more attention to this subject.

“Take for example all this frenzy around the assassination of JFK. I don't know who murdered him and I don't care, but what difference does it make? (Noam Chomsky)

The other anomaly concerns the question of Palestine. Although Chomsky verbally sympathized with the suffering of the Palestinians and admitted the justice of the Palestinian cause, he vehemently obstructed the two most promising strategic efforts that could help Palestine defeat Zionism: The boycott-divestment-sanctions movement (BDS), and the campaign to expose Zionist control over US policy in the Middle East.

Alison Weir once asked Chomsky why he opposed BDS and why he falsely claimed it was bad for the Palestinians (who almost unanimously support it). " The reason is very simple. It's so hypocritical that it's actually a giveaway for hardliners. They can say, “Look, you're calling for a boycott of Israel, but you're not calling for a boycott of the United States, which has a much worse record…”

Would Israeli hardliners ever say such a thing? And would it matter if they did? Of course, this is not the case. Again, Chomsky spouts pure nonsense, preceded by the obligatory disclaimer "it's very simple." When someone seemingly intelligent like Chomsky says such things, there are only two possible interpretations: Either he has some weird mental dysfunction, or he's lying and gaslighting us.

"If we get caught, they'll just replace us with people of the same stuff. No matter what you do, the United States is a golden calf and we will suck it, cut it up and sell it piece by piece until there is nothing left but the greatest state- providence of the world, which we will create and control. For what ? Because it's God's will, and America is big enough to take the hit, so we can do it again and again. This is what we do to the countries we hate. We destroy them very slowly and make them suffer because they refuse to be our slaves. »

Benyamin Netanyahu

read the article