Noam Chomsky, the future of Earth

[Kristin]

Intellect Noam Chomsky discusses the future of our planet. Well worth the time and thought provoking.

"The Emerging World Order: its roots, our legacy"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BK0XIm0DXE

[Tesla_WTC_Solution]

I haven't continued my Chomsky since college, and neglected him there,
but have you read his book, "Understanding Power"?

I think my sociology professor had us into that one.


…jingoism, racism, fear, religious fundamentalism: these are the ways of appealing to people if you’re trying to organize a mass base of support for policies that are really intended to crush them.

Well, law is a bit like a printing press—it’s kind of neutral, you can make it do anything. I mean, what lawyers are taught in law school is chicanery: how to convert words on paper into instruments of power. And depending where the power is, the law will mean different things.

See, people with power understand exactly one thing: violence.

[music]

I'm not too sure about Chomsky. When I consider the phrase "financial and intellectual elite", and that intellectuals who criticize the system are the ideal people to sell us on a new world order, then add that to my gut feeling that Chomsky is a wrong 'un, I am left with the impression that he is saying what I want him to say for a reason other than the pursuit of truth. When people like Chomsky and Pilger, who are smart enough to see, can't even bring themselves to tell the truth about about 9/11 when directly asked about it, alarm bells go off for me. I have a mistrust of intellectuals - they are not better or smarter than any of us, but they sure as hell think they are, and most intellectuals are firmly in thrall to the ego. I sense that from Chomsky, but I could be wrong - I merely exercise my right here to play Devil's advocate, and mean you no offence Kristin.

[Kristin]

Music,
Great to see you posting!


I merely exercise my right here to play Devil's advocate, and mean you no offence Kristin. and none taken. I have also been deeply concerned about the need to look directly into the eye of the storm considering 911. Here are a few of Chomsky's opinions on the matter in his manor of addressing the aftermath:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_fFkLcRrBE

Personally I would like to send him Dr. Judy Wood's book. However, keep in mind that we all have a wide range of opinions including Noam. We need not agree with all things everyone says, nor do we need to discard everything a person says for having their own line of thinking on certain subjects. I feel very strongly about 911 and feel that is is very important to know the truth. However, I do disagree that Noam is a proponent of a NWO, but I also could be wrong as well, LOL!

Here is another interesting interview on Noam's thoughts on the purpose of education:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdNAUJWJN08

and also his thoughts on the corporate takeover of education:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbMP-cy1INA

From the Heart,
Kristin

[bogeyman]

I have watch quite a few documentaries and lectures of his, his books are not a easy read, but they are informative.

[Tesla_WTC_Solution]

I don't know what his stance on the UN is.
I remember not liking one of the things he said about globalism.

But then again, the UN is real and we really do have to deal with it.
Maybe it was a "devil we know vs. the devil we don't" comment.

Let me see if I can find it.

EDIT: ah, it's looking as if he supports UN efforts to secure Palestine.

That is a big debate that I haven't gotten into aside from predicting disasters. LOL.
It IS a big disaster, the existence of Israel and Palestine -- and it's the UK's fault.

ENGLAND lied to the Jews and to the Blackhands and created two states that opposed each other from day one. They needed their land bridge to India.

The whole world is paying in blood and tears for that land bridge.

And next is the Nabucco pipeline corridor, the reason for the trouble in Syria. IMO.
An 8 trillion dollar project that only gets more expensive as steel prices rise and countries turn over!

Someone doesn't want that pipeline built... and someone wants it built at all costs.


But I am going off on a tangent.
BP went nuts reading one of my Nabucco articles once, though.
It was talking about how Macondo was a big distraction from the multinational contract grabbing in the war zones, for natural gas.


Natural gas is the future! At least for some towns.
Not to mention all the rare earths/metals needed in order to perform certain nuclear reactions in the lab and power plant.

You see, there IS a reason that some people are globalists.. they truly do value ALL lives, not just the WASPS or the Caths or the blacks or the Natives, etc.

:( sad world, i hope we can help

[Silo]

Somewhere in my mind this scene keeps popping up.....especially about the equivocation in relation to the rest of the play.

Yb6HFQPcEes

Here is the full text for you purists out there....


Porter
1 Here's a knocking indeed! If a man were
2 porter of Hell Gate, he should have old turning the
3 key. (Knock.) Knock, knock, knock! Who's there,
4 i' the name of Beelzebub? Here's a farmer, that hang'd
5 himself on th' expectation of plenty. Come in time!
6 Have napkins enow about you; here you'll sweat for't.
7 (Knock.) Knock, knock! Who's there, in the other
8 devil's name? Faith, here's an equivocator, that could
9 swear in both the scales against either scale, who com-
10 mitted treason enough for God's sake, yet could
11 not equivocate to heaven. O, come in, equivocator.
12 (Knock.) Knock, knock, knock! Who's there? Faith,
13 here's an English tailor come hither, for stealing
14 out of a French hose: come in, tailor; here you may
15 roast your goose. (Knock.) Knock, knock! Never
16 at quiet! What are you? But this place is too
17 cold for hell. I'll devil-porter it no further: I had
18 thought to have let in some of all professions that go
19 the primrose way to the everlasting bonfire. (Knock.)
20 Anon, anon! [Opens the gate.] I pray you, remember
21 the porter.

[Kristin]

Somewhere in my mind this scene keeps popping up.....especially about the equivocation in relation to the rest of the play.

Yb6HFQPcEes

Here is the full text for you purists out there....


Porter
1 Here's a knocking indeed! If a man were
2 porter of Hell Gate, he should have old turning the
3 key. (Knock.) Knock, knock, knock! Who's there,
4 i' the name of Beelzebub? Here's a farmer, that hang'd
5 himself on th' expectation of plenty. Come in time!
6 Have napkins enow about you; here you'll sweat for't.
7 (Knock.) Knock, knock! Who's there, in the other
8 devil's name? Faith, here's an equivocator, that could
9 swear in both the scales against either scale, who com-
10 mitted treason enough for God's sake, yet could
11 not equivocate to heaven. O, come in, equivocator.
12 (Knock.) Knock, knock, knock! Who's there? Faith,
13 here's an English tailor come hither, for stealing
14 out of a French hose: come in, tailor; here you may
15 roast your goose. (Knock.) Knock, knock! Never
16 at quiet! What are you? But this place is too
17 cold for hell. I'll devil-porter it no further: I had
18 thought to have let in some of all professions that go
19 the primrose way to the everlasting bonfire. (Knock.)
20 Anon, anon! [Opens the gate.] I pray you, remember
21 the porter.

? Would you care to expand on the relationship to Shakespeare? On another thread I noted that you commented on his (Chomsky) alleged impunity... that is certainly not the case with Chomsky. He's been threatened, bastardized, defaced, and defamed perhaps more then any other writer alive today. How did he persevere? Persistence and and a strong belief in factual dictation.

From the Heart,
Kristin

[music]

Thank you Kristin, for accepting my post in the spirit it was intended. I try hard on here now to make my intent clear to others (not just myself :D). Being harrassed is no guarantee of purity - Julian Assange is likewise harrassed, but funnily enough, still alive. Real threats to the order get terminated, and my gut has mistrusted wikileaks and Assange from day 1. Haha, maybe I'm just TOO suspicious, and I always, always, always allow for the possibility that I am wrong.

[Kristin]

Thank you Kristin, for accepting my post in the spirit it was intended. I try hard on here now to make my intent clear to others (not just myself :D). Being harrassed is no guarantee of purity - Julian Assange is likewise harrassed, but funnily enough, still alive. Real threats to the order get terminated, and my gut has mistrusted wikileaks and Assange from day 1. Haha, maybe I'm just TOO suspicious, and I always, always, always allow for the possibility that I am wrong.

All we can do is be the best possible humans that we can be and keep ourselves open for the truth so that we may recognize it when we hear it. A hearty handshake to you from my direction. I respect your opinions openly.

From the Heart,
Kristin

[Silo]

I don't mind giving my take on that speech.

Three guys walk into a bar....

No, wait...that's a different story....or perhaps it isn't.

The porter makes reference to being the gate keeper to hell; a hell that Macbeth and L.Macbeth created, paved on Macbeth's part with semi-good/questionable intentions. L. Macbeth--due to the loss of her child, women's lack of political capital at the time (maybe, argueably now as well)-- cannot be easily condemed; although, Shakespear might easily be accused of misogyny in his portrayal of her.

Macbeth is a perfect analogy for leadership in our time. He demonstrates a perfect example of Orwellian double think in his recognizing his own ambition, utilitarian/un-empathetic analysis of the pros and cons of regicide, and finally the giving in to L.M.'s demands.

The attack that L.M. mounts is two-pronged. She attack his masculinity and questions his love for her. A love that he clearly demonstrates in his letter earlier in the play saying,


This have I thought good to deliver thee, my dearest partner of greatness, that thou might’st not lose the dues of rejoicing, by being ignorant of what greatness is promised thee.

He knows that she is depressed and wants to comfort her. His devotion to her is clear when she invokes the memory of a dead child, (this is the thrust that makes him concede) and he agrees feebly to her demands

I'm not trying to defend or excuse Macbeth's subsequent muderous rampage; however it might be noted that he at least remains consistent throughout the play from that point on. Disasterously headstrong might be one way of putting it.

The modern leader exibits these same qualities quite well.

I would ask the same question, at this point, as many Holocaust scholars at this point: How could this happen?

Surely, they could not all have been monsters? How did such a relative few convince the rest of us to go along with their insane plans?

I believe our leaders cannot all be monsters. I think it would be a serious misstep to not consider the possibility that they are being manipulated.

Now back to the porter:

Upon reflection, I think his speech popped into my head because he is an observer of his time much the same way that Chomsky is an observer for ours.

Thank you for reminding me that everyone--no matter how good their life looks from the outside--is fighting a battle.

Certainly, the bravery and candor of this man cannot be underestimated. I did not mean to imply that. What I meant by that comment is that he does speak his mind in full veiw of the consequences and he is still here.

I've been noticing a growing anxiety about expressing one's opinion both far and wide. In the three d world as well as this two d one in front of me now.

So, the idea of the equivocator being let into hell for his lies resonates greatly with us.

Macbeth told himself the convenient truth as do our leaders of today.

The road to hell may very well be paved with good intentions.

Just my random thoughts...I wasn't trying to be obtuse by posting this to your thread...I definatly had my ideas about Macbeth's relevance to our time and why that speech made me think of that, but I was curious what other's might take away from the connection and I didn't want to create some observational bias in those that might consider the point of the speech.

Thanks for replying.

[Prodigal Son]

When people like Chomsky and Pilger, who are smart enough to see, can't even bring themselves to tell the truth about about 9/11 when directly asked about it, alarm bells go off for me.

Exactly!!!

Why not just give it to me straight, a la David Icke. Why beat around the bush? Why not tell us that Amhadinejad and Netanyahoooo are practically bosom buddies, Freemasons dancing to the choreography of their puppetmasters.... and that Tim "Bin Laden" Osman has been dead since December of '01... that really puts it all in perspective. No offense Kristin, but I have run out of patience listening to these monotone androids making excuses for the cold hard reality.... we're being duped at every turn by these warmongering parasites.....

[AutumnW]

Chomsky is a highly intelligent, but limited. He has his place. What raised major alarm bells for me was his stance on the JFK assassination. He believes the lone gun man govt. story. He also feels those involved in the 911 truth movement are 'clearly off their rockers' and engaged in a 'distraction'. He compares them to 'ufo kooks'

The explanation for his JFK stance and dismissal of Oliver Stones' movie, JFK, is clear. Chomsky refuses to believe that the Kennedy brothers, sons of the elite, could have had any interest in or concern for the common person!

He feels the 1% are like the Borg who can't help but think and walk in lock step. . They are an undifferentiated mass, a hydra headed being, always 'out to get the little guy', and there are NO exceptions.

As he feels the elite would never kill one of their own, like JFK, he ends up legitimizing the govt's version of assasination. That event alone, was a green light for those at the very top. It brought the U.S. to it's knees and initiated a wave of stealth fascism, almost 50 years ago. But as the lion of the left, Chomsky couldn't intuit what was going on, because his thinking is too rigid.

He is intellectually astute, but politically, he is a simple-minded Bolshevik, who has inadvertantly and very ironically, helped back up the govt he criticizes in very key areas.

That he would discredit all involved with the 911 truth movement as 'nuts', speaks volumes to his lack of respect for some highly intelligent and articulate individuals.

There is something that Chomsky just doesn't get. It's as if he's the govt's own 'limited hangout' spokesperson.

So, think I'll pass on the film. Sure he has some good ideas. He usually does. But...sheesh...what a total dissappointment he turned out to be. I idolized him when I was younger..but now I just think of him as this odious individual who has done so much damage to legitimate inquiry end exploration of deep politics.

[Silo]

Prodigal and autumn,

Maybe, maybe not...but the good advice from a smoker to quit smoking is still good advice...

[music]

Thank you Kristin, for accepting my post in the spirit it was intended. I try hard on here now to make my intent clear to others (not just myself :D). Being harrassed is no guarantee of purity - Julian Assange is likewise harrassed, but funnily enough, still alive. Real threats to the order get terminated, and my gut has mistrusted wikileaks and Assange from day 1. Haha, maybe I'm just TOO suspicious, and I always, always, always allow for the possibility that I am wrong.

All we can do is be the best possible humans that we can be and keep ourselves open for the truth so that we may recognize it when we hear it. A hearty handshake to you from my direction. I respect your opinions openly.

From the Heart,
Kristin

And that is the value of this forum - we all have our own unique vision, yet we endeavour to respect the vision of others. I have learned things here, and my vision has grown as a consequence of that. I am totally down with trying to be the best possible human I can be, that is the way we change things for the better. Your hearty handshake is received with love and returned with love.

[AutumnW]

Not to beat a dead horse, but I think this is incredibly important. Chomsky is considered THE most credible alternative political thinker out there and sometimes he is just flat out wrong. David Ray Griffin in the youtube link below, talks about Chomsky's reaction to 911, following on the heals of a quote by Chomsky, speaking in Hungary--

Chomsky, "Even if the conspiracy theories are right...who cares?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQPG3QxXy98

I respect all of the opinions I've read on this thread so far, and don't disagree. I also appreciate Chomsky's constant railing against the cabal that has taken control of the Israelie govt...but the above quote should make everyone ponder as to what is really going on with this man.

Is it possible that alternative voices, which appear to be so critical of govt, only go so far, because that is exactly what they have been assigned to do? I'm not saying I believe this, I just offer it up as a suggestion. Chomsky's opinion matters not one whit, where Israel is concerned. His opinion does absolutely nothing to stop the unholy alliance of the Israeli cabal and the U.S. congress, senate, advisors and president. However, he has tremendous influence within his own sphere of left leaning individuals. I have spoken with several open minded people whose eyes just glaze over as they repeat the mantra, "Chomsky doesn't believe in the 911 conspiracy theories"

Color me suspicious.

[AutumnW]

Prodigal and autumn,

Maybe, maybe not...but the good advice from a smoker to quit smoking is still good advice...

Chomsky claims, at the beginning of his speech, that the more simple an organism is the more adaptable it is. He then proceeds to explain how until relatively recently humans were sparse and then populations expanded rapidly. This is an argument for, not against the extreme adaptability of man. At some point we reached critical mass population wise, through better hygiene and anti-biotics and that initiated this great leap 'forward' population wise. It's unfortunate that we adapted so quickly and so well.

Culture itself is very adaptable and popular sentiment can shift almost overnight. Fukushima put the brakes on construction of new facilities to generate nuclear energy--within nanoseconds of the explosions.

And the threat of nuclear war is not as grave as many think. I don't suppose Chomsky is familiar with or would stoop to read the book, Ufos and Nukes, by Robert Hastings. Nor is he likely familiar with Robert Salas and the story of the minuteman missile installations in Montana, where missiles were shut down one by one, while a ufo was in plain view, several decades ago. This type of event happened frequently at these kinds of installations both in the U.S. and Russia.

The simple fact is, we're likely not alone on this planet and something or some'body' is not going to allow us to launch a major strike regardless of Mr. Chomsky's worries.

My personal view, is that we are a species that is being stealthily mentored and monitored and we may be given a 'power assist' to get us through our current difficulties.

Call me crazy, but I think there is cause to be very hopeful. We have to be concerned, politically aware and scrupulous in our own behavior. Then, if we can, we should put our faith in the essential goodness of mankind triumphing over evil.

Silo, Thank you for your sentiments. I appreciate Chomsky and agree that massive change is needed and soon. I'm just convinced it is already happening and that there is actually nothing that those in power can do to stop it.

[music]

Call me crazy, but I think there is cause to be very hopeful

You're not crazy, you are tune with the energy of this time. Thank you.

[Fred Steeves]

You know, "intelligence" is a funny word. Intelligence comes in many many forms, but we are taught mainly to recognize only intellectual intelligence. What about emotional intelligence? Or the intelligence to recognize one's own inherent instincts, and knowing when to simply let go and trust them, even when they seem to make little to no intellectual sense? How about the intelligence of courage? Courage in being willing to face the fact that we all have our blind spots, programming and such, and being willing at any time to admit that we have been dead wrong about something we've believed to be true, or not true, our entire lives?

Chomsky isn't necessarily playing ball with the "dark side", just because he's blind to certain things that are right there for all to see. Lots of well meaning people turn a purposeful blind eye to this, simply because the implications of such things being true are too staggering and frightening to even consider. The day it dawned on me four years ago that 9/11 was a staged event, my whole world was turned upside down. It was a very dark and lonely time.

So maybe he's a purposeful puppet, or maybe he just isn't prepared to see certain things outside the world of the intellect. Either way, he still has many valuable things to say. It's up to us ever honing our discernment skills, to separate the wheat from the chaff so to speak. For instance, I will still listen to a little Glenn Beck here and there, knowing full well that at the end of the day he is leading his audience down a dead end road. But, he also speaks some pretty heavy duty truths, so it's my responsibility to decide what to take in, and what to toss in the old chit can.(LOL)

In summary. I know full well I'm nowhere near being an intellectual giant, and am fine with that. I would gladly trade a 170 IQ for a 120, in order to gain a complimentary dose of insight intelligence.:) We all have our place, and Chomsky has his.

[Silo]

Good point Fred.

I am struck by a sense that people are waiting for a savior. Someone like Aaron Schawartz to have some balls and make a stand.

Seems like bill has been banging this drum too. We have to stop waiting for others to take the lead. I feel that way about Obama. He had/has a terrific opportunity to do good and despite evidence to the contrary I hope that he tries to do what good he feels he can do.

That hope might be misplaced but regardless.....if he won't be an agent of change then we should be.

We keep talking to eachother and inviting others into the conversation by being civil and welcoming. (That's really hard to do sometimes) We can help those who try not to see the facts in front of them.

It will come.

Stay positive.

[take]

Nobody's perfect. Chomsky is 8/10 in my opinion. Few 'mistakes' here and there but the other stuff.. is just spot on. He's definitely one of my favourite academics.

[AutumnW]

Chomsky isn't necessarily playing ball with the "dark side", just because he's blind to certain things that are right there for all to see. Lots of well meaning people turn a purposeful blind eye to this, simply because the implications of such things being true are too staggering and frightening to even consider. The day it dawned on me four years ago that 9/11 was a staged event, my whole world was turned upside down. It was a very dark and lonely time.

So maybe he's a purposeful puppet, or maybe he just isn't prepared to see certain things outside the world of the intellect. Either way, he still has many valuable things to say. It's up to us ever honing our discernment skills, to separate the wheat from the chaff so to speak. For instance, I will still listen to a little Glenn Beck here and there, knowing full well that at the end of the day he is leading his audience down a dead end road. But, he also speaks some pretty heavy duty truths, so it's my responsibility to decide what to take in, and what to toss in the old chit can.(LOL)

In summary. I know full well I'm nowhere near being an intellectual giant, and am fine with that. I would gladly trade a 170 IQ for a 120, in order to gain a complimentary dose of insight intelligence.:) We all have our place, and Chomsky has his.

You're likely correct that Chomsky isn't motivated by anything dark. He obviously hasn't read any of the books written about 911, by authors like David Ray Griffin, though. If academics and people generally would say, "I haven't looked into the matter, so can't render a sound judgement," it would be so helpful!

This particular issue reminds me of Stephen Hawking being asked to make judgement calls on whether we have been visited by alien intelligences. He'll say no, explain why it's unlikely, in theory. He probably hasn't looked at a single book about the subject-- but feels free to comment about the subject. People who don't know better will say things like, "Hawking doesn't think there's anything to it, so I'm with him."

We all have internal mental gate-keeping functions that turn away discordant ideas. It's shocking when a humble, kindly and famous intellectual has gate-keepers that are like big burly bouncers! Especially when you contrast their reality filters with those of the average person which seem to have more give.

So, yes it is a matter of emotional intelligence--and many academics are a bit too much in their heads. If there is ego involved in their pronouncements, they are even less likely to look at alternative info or points of view. It's a crushing disappointment but reinforces the idea that we have to be the change, no guru is going to do it for us.

[Atlas]

Noam Chomsky: THE LYING elites GAME (1991)
glHd_5-9PVs
Noam Chomsky "“Prospects for Survival”
t0TE1Ib-O_M

[CelineK]

actually I was thinking of paraphrasing something like this. I regard him as a controlled opposition.

75% of the time he speaks the truth and 25% he is dishonest willfully. I dont think he never said about auditing fractional reserve banking worldwide either and never condemned usury

a classic
XhXgKmar5mk

writing about economics myself, anybody who does speak out against monetary collusion, cannot convince me that s/he is in favor of peace.

Yes, sure nobody is perfect but since economics is the blood of societies, it really does matter to get it straight. Well not for no long anymore, I predict that within 10 years money will begin to be regarded as relic.

sorry Kristin




He is intellectually astute, but politically, he is a simple-minded Bolshevik, who has inadvertantly and very ironically, helped back up the govt he criticizes in very key areas.

That he would discredit all involved with the 911 truth movement as 'nuts', speaks volumes to his lack of respect for some highly intelligent and articulate individuals.

There is something that Chomsky just doesn't get. It's as if he's the govt's own 'limited hangout' spokesperson..