What is wrong with Amy Goodman?

Gatekeepers are only trying to protect their interests. The truth doesn't sell. Cheerleading sells. At least for now.

I've heard recently that Chomsky is a single bullet theory nut (JFK)! That's quite shocking I thought this guy was for real with just some different opinions..

But if this is the case Chomsky is either idiot or professional liar.
No question about it..

On INN - are they willing to repost some of their flagship programming on video google etc?? They don't have a video archive on their own, right?

Can you ask them, thanks

Chomsky's position on Kennedy is based on his dislike of Kennedy the cold warrior. I don't think he's lying, and as far as I know he's never commented on the magic bullet theory.

Chomsky has a history of ignoring crucial cover-ups. how can you write a book on american propaganda and not mention operation mockingbird? im not saying hes a part of it but his silence on some issues......

wow. what a pathetic,Hufschmid esque tactic, comparing people who take issue with Chomskys silence on certain important issues to "zionists".

Where Noam will not roam:
Chomsky manufactures consent by supporting the official stories of 9/11 and JFK

"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum."
- Noam Chomsky

"I agree that Professor Chomsky is not a CIA agent. But with respect to his pronouncements on the JFK assassination he is worse than a CIA agent. Without being an agent, with his enormous prestige as a thinker, as an independent radical, as a courageous man, he does the work of the agency. ... He is unconvinced by the evidence of a conspiracy, but his is utterly convinced that JFK was a consummate cold warrior who could not have changed and did nothing to irritate the military industrial intelligence complex."
- Vincent Salandria
www.geocities.com/mdmorrissey/sal1web.htm

http://www.oilempire.us/chomsky.html

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2006/060406Chomsky.htm

JFK Conspiracy: The Intellectual Dishonesty and Cowardice of Alexander Cockburn and Noam Chomsky (Michael Worsham, The Touchstone. Feb 1997) www.rtis.com/reg/bcs/pol/touchstone/february97/worsham.htm

in early 1969 Mr. Chomsky met with several Kennedy experts and spent several hours looking at and discussing assassination photos. Mr. Chomsky even cancelled several appointments to have extra time. There was a followup meeting with Mr. Chomsky, which also lasted several hours. These meetings were ostensibly to try to do something to reopen the case. According to the Probe article, Mr. Chomsky indicated he was very interested, but had to give the matter careful consideration before committing.
After the meeting, Selwyn Bromberger, an MIT philosophy professor who had sit in on the discussion, said to the author: "If they are strong enough to kill the President and strong enough to cover it up, then they are too strong to confront directly . . . if they feel sufficiently threatened, they may move to open totalitarian rule." According to the author, Mr. Chomsky had given every indication that he believed there was a conspiracy at these meetings. However, Mr. Chomsky never got involved with trying to reopen the case.

Professor Noam Chomsky, one of the country's most famous dissidents, says that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman in Dallas. Anyone who still supports the Warren Commission hoax after forty years of countering proofs is either ill-informed, dumb, gullible, afraid to speak truths to power or a disinformation agent.

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), where Chomsky has worked for decades, has a very good physics department (MIT is the largest university contractor to the military). Perhaps he could visit them and learn why it is physically impossible for Oswald to have been anything more than the "patsy" that he (accurately) claimed to be.

The truth is that Chomsky is very good in his analysis within certain parameters of limited debate -- but in understanding the "deep politics" of the actual, secret government, his analysis falls short.

Chomsky is good at explaining the double standards in US foreign policies - but at this point understanding / exposing the mechanics of the deceptions (9/11 isn't the only one) the reasons for it (Peak Oil / global dominance / domestic fascism) and what we can do (war crimes trials / permaculture to relocalize food production / paradigm shifts) is more important than more repetition from Chomsky.

Professor Chomsky was apparently part of a study group in the late 1960s that was investigating what really happened in Dallas (ie. he was a skeptic of the official story). It seems likely that Chomsky did indeed figure out what happened - and decided that this was too big of an issue to confront.

Maybe Chomsky gets more media attention these days than most other dissidents BECAUSE he urges people not to inquire into how the secret government operates.

that?

Thanks for the informative debate on Chomsky and other gatekeepers..

Well, I think it is partly orchestrated.
Have you ever seen Amy interviewing Chomsky? That's like as god appeared on earth for her, you can see how the level of admiration is even uncomfortable to him..

The idea that they are somehow the selfproclaimed last line of the republic's defence against civil war/chaos in case all the archives full of bushevik dirt go open might be valid. Although I don't agree with it. Do you recall that famous M. Moore's reply to Alex Jones that to focus on the real 9/11 questions like NORAD stand down would unpatriotic?
That could be the real meaning..

Well, frankly I have a different idea about the Republic so Chomsky, Amy and Moore get lost..

Of all of them, Parenti probably offers the greatest hope. Unlike the others he thinks JFK was killed by the state and has criticized Chomsky for his support of the official story:

http://www.leftgatekeepers.com/articles/conspiracyphobia.htm

Noam Chomsky is a pusillanimous phoney. For a genuine anti-state intellectual, read the writings of Prof. Murray N. Rothbard. As Prof. Rothbard wrote concerning so-called "conspiracy theories":

""
It is also important for the State to inculcate in its subjects an aversion to any "conspiracy theory of history"; for a search for "conspiracies" means a search for motives and an attribution of responsibility for historical misdeeds. If, however, any tyranny imposed by the State, or venality, or aggressive war, was caused not by the State rulers but by mysterious and arcane "social forces," or by the imperfect state of the world or, if in some way, everyone was responsible ("We Are All Murderers," proclaims one slogan), then there is no point to the people becoming indignant or rising up against such misdeeds. Furthermore, an attack on "conspiracy theories" means that the subjects will become more gullible in believing the "general welfare" reasons that are always put forth by the State for engaging in any of its despotic actions. A "conspiracy theory" can unsettle the system by causing the public to doubt the State's ideological propaganda.
""

From the article "The Anatomy of the State," Prof. Murray N. Rothbard, Rampart Journal of Individualist Thought, Vol. 1, No. 2 (Summer 1965), pp. 1-24. Reprinted in a collection of some of Rothbard's articles, Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature and Other Essays (Washington, D.C.: Libertarian Review Press, 1974):

http://www.mises.org/easaran/chap3.asp

Along the lines of the state's shibboleths on "conspiracy theories," Rothbard's below article is humorous:

"Sudden Deaths in Office," Prof. Murray N. Rothbard, first published in The Rothbard-Rockwell Report (August 1991) as "Exhume, Exhume, Or, Who Put the Arsenic in Rough and Ready's Cherries?":

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard116.html

Below is a biography of Prof. Murray N. Rothbard:

"Murray N. Rothbard (1926-1995)," David Gordon, Ludwig von Mises Institute:

http://www.mises.org/content/mnr.asp

In addition to Prof. Rothbard's above "Anatomy of the State," below are some excellent articles concerning the nature of government, of liberty, and the free-market production of defense:

"Defense Services on the Free Market," Prof. Murray N. Rothbard, Chapter 1 from Power and Market: Government and the Economy (Kansas City, Kansas: Sheed Andrews and McMeel, Inc., 1977; originally published 1970):

http://www.geocities.com/vonchloride/marketdefense.html

http://www.mises.org/rothbard/power&market.pdf

"The Private Production of Defense," Prof. Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 14, No. 1 (Winter 1998-1999), pp. 27-52:

http://www.mises.net/journals/jls/14_1/14_1_2.pdf

http://www.mises.org/journals/scholar/Hoppe.pdf

"Fallacies of the Public Goods Theory and the Production of Security," Prof. Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 9, No. 1 (Winter 1989), pp. 27-46:

http://www.mises.net/journals/jls/9_1/9_1_2.pdf

"Police, Courts, and Laws--On the Market," Chapter 29 from The Machinery of Freedom: Guide to a Radical Capitalism, Prof. David D. Friedman (La Salle, Illinois: Open Court Publishing Co., 1989; originally published 1971):

http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freedom/MofF_Chap...

Concerning the ethics of human rights, the below book is the best book on the subject:

The Ethics of Liberty, Prof. Murray N. Rothbard (New York, New York: New York University Press, 1998; originally published 1982):

http://www.mises.org/rothbard/ethics/ethics.asp

If one desires a solid grounding in economics then one can do no better than with the below texts:

Economic Science and the Austrian Method, Prof. Hans-Hermann Hoppe (Auburn, Alabama: The Ludwig von Mises Institute, 1995):

http://www.mises.org/esandtam.asp

"Toward a Reconstruction of Utility and Welfare Economics," Prof. Murray N. Rothbard, On Freedom and Free Enterprise: The Economics of Free Enterprise, Mary Sennholz, editor (Princeton, New Jersey: D. Van Nostrand, 1956), pp. 224-262. Reprinted in The Logic of Action One: Method, Money, and the Austrian School, Murray N. Rothbard (London, England: Edward Elgar, 1997), pp. 211-255:

http://www.mises.org/rothbard/toward.pdf

Man, Economy, and State, Prof. Murray N. Rothbard (Auburn, Alabama: The Ludwig von Mises Institute, second edition, 2004; originally published 1962):

http://www.mises.org/rothbard/mes.asp

Power and Market: Government and the Economy, Prof. Murray N. Rothbard (Kansas City, Kansas: Sheed Andrews and McMeel, Inc., 1977; originally published 1970):

http://www.mises.org/rothbard/power&market.pdf

These texts ought to be read in the order listed above. I would also add to the above list the below book:

America's Great Depression, Prof. Murray N. Rothbard (Auburn, Alabama: The Ludwig von Mises Institute, fifth edition, 2000; originally published 1963):

http://www.mises.org/rothbard/agd.pdf

The above book concerns the how governments create depressions (i.e., nowadays called recessions) through credit expansion.

The small book Economic Science and the Austrian Method by Prof. Hans-Hermann Hoppe doesn't get into political theory, but only concerns the methodological basis of economics (i.e., the epistemology of economics). I would recommend that everyone read this short book *first* if they're at all interested in economics. There exists much confusion as to what economics is and what it is not. This book is truly great in elucidating the nature of what economics is and what it is not. If one were to read no other texts on economics, then this ought to be the one economic text that one reads. Plus it doesn't take all that long to read it.

Thank you Redford.

Thanks that Prof. Murray N. Rothbard's piece on "conspiracy theory" is the head shot for any such a argument on the libertarian leaning side of the debate be it left or right..

Thanks that Prof. Murray N. Rothbard's piece on "conspiracy theory" is the head shot for any such a argument on the libertarian leaning side of the debate be it left or right..
Tono Stano | Homepage | 06.25.06 - 2:04 pm | #
i was on some libertarian sites recently, and they have NO tolerance for 9/11 truth whatsoever from what ive seen.they tend to lean right,so that might explain it to a degree.i consider myself a leftwing libertarian.

It is also important for the State to inculcate in its subjects an aversion to any "conspiracy theory of history"; for a search for "conspiracies" means a search for motives and an attribution of responsibility for historical misdeeds. If, however, any tyranny imposed by the State, or venality, or aggressive war, was caused not by the State rulers but by mysterious and arcane "social forces," or by the imperfect state of the world or, if in some way, everyone was responsible ("We Are All Murderers," proclaims one slogan), then there is no point to the people becoming indignant or rising up against such misdeeds. Furthermore, an attack on "conspiracy theories" means that the subjects will become more gullible in believing the "general welfare" reasons that are always put forth by the State for engaging in any of its despotic actions. A "conspiracy theory" can unsettle the system by causing the public to doubt the State's ideological propaganda.

this is great.

What is wrong with Amy Goodman?

Amy Goodman constitutes fake opposition to BushCo (and a fake alternative to the MSM). She sort-of "talks the talk", but never "walks the walk", which is still good enough to fool most/many of the people most/much of the time. - http://911u.org/CoDR/graphics/2heads,sameMonster.gif

That is what is wrong with Amy Goodman (and Pacifica radio).
____________________________________________

What is wrong with Dr. Steven Jones?

For months he's been dragging his feet on doing, as he said (back in early February!) he would, the biggest, most important, most revealing 9/11 scientific investigation ever: the examination of the WTC dust (sample[s?] in his possession) for the presence of nanoparticles (by which I mean remnants of fractured molecules, known to be caused by exposure to temperatures hotter than the Sun).

Basically, we already know that such evidence is there to be found, we just don't have such great images/analysis of the fragged molecules!!!! http://delta.ucdavis.edu/SizeDist.jpg http://delta.ucdavis.edu/WTCdust.jpg

While most 9/11 truthers are completely taken in by the slight behavioral difference between Dr. Steven Jones and most/all other college physics professors (just as so many people are fooled by Amy Goodman...), I am not. (Why is that? Am I the only one who's studied Physics? Or do people just love to be fooled?)

While most 9/11 truthers think that evidence of "thermite" is a breakthrough, I recognize it as a limited hangout, because it gains us nothing (we already knew that gravity wasn't strong enough to do what we were told it did), but it is noisily distracting from the bigger, harder truths about the very highly anomalous "Ground Zero" evidence at the WTC.

TheBigLie__________--LimitedHangout_______________________________________________________----FullDisclosure

Just as most (virtually all) college physics professors are unwilling/unable to even profess as much physics as Gallileo and Newton taught us centuries ago, Dr. Steven Jones (who has never once, to my knowledge, done a good job of even just using such simple, classical physics to disprove the official version of events) has, by his (in)actions, shown himself to be unwilling to discover/establish (or even look, to try to rule out the possibility) that highly UNconventional weaponry was utilized in the devastating destruction (well above and beyond the mere deverticalizations) of the WTC skyscrapers. (Or maybe he did look, and found evidence that something far in excess of "thermite" -- which is similar to a 4th-of-July sparkler -- was involved, and he's keeping a lid on that info/knowledge? He has acted so irresponsibly that it's impossible to know or even guess...)

(In)actions (and failure to keep one's word) speaks louder than words.

So, once again, what is wrong with Dr. Steven Jones? Is he just too close/friendly with the gatekeeping Jim Hoffman http://911u.org/CoDR/graphics/HoffmanOmittedFlashFrame+.gif ? (Amy Goodman and Jim Hoffman each have a known/proven history of gatekeeping.) Do his past associations with the U.S. Department of Energy still run too deep? Why has Dr. Jones obstructed the investigation (that he so long ago said he'd do) into 9/11? (On Friday, April 21, the last time I heard from him, he talked about "a commitment for some analysis next week". How much patience should I have with such foot-dragging and/or broken promises? Infinite? Just keep my mouth shut while what I recognize as a limited-hangout proceeds? I don't think so.)

If the existence/use of advanced/secret weapons systems was revealed to We The People by them having been used against Us on 9/11, then blame for that revelation must lie with those who criminally misused such technologies, not with honest investigators who have the knowledge and competence and equipment to prove, by their evident misuse on 9/11, the existence of such weaponry. Once fear of repercussions from revealing (well, confirming the obvious use of) such "secret weapons" overwhelms an apparent investigator's apparent devotion to the U.S. Constitution, that "investigator" has been seduced by "the dark side" and is of negative value to a full, honest investigation.

Fake opposition fools most of the people most of the time: http://911u.org/CoDR/graphics/2heads,sameMonster.gif
______________________________________

Limited hangout time?Reeks of Nico.

Oh nooo!!!

James Redford the ECONOMIST IDEOLOGE

is here again.

Economists have two insights; markets work, and markets fail

Have a look:
http://www.ts.co.nz/ael/index.htm

The promotion of economic growth is simply a sophisticated way to steal from our children.

u2r2h, the Anti Economist League that you present seems mostly directed against econometrics. The Austrian School of economics has a well-developed body of valid refutations amassed against mainstream "economics," of which tries to ape the methods of the empirical sciences to a field where it has no place (just as it has no place in mathematics).

The axioms that the Austrian School use are apodictically true (as one would have to use said axioms in any denial), and insofar as the chain of deductive reasoning is valid, then the conclusions of the Austrian School are so also apodictictly true.

Basic A Priori Axioms (That is, True Synthetic A Priori Propositions; or, That Which Cannot be Denied without Necessitating Its Use in the Denial)

1.) I think, therefore I am. (René Descartes' proof of the existential reality of one's own existence.)

If one did not exist in some form then one would not be able to even think "I do not exist."

2.) Truth, and knowledge of truth, exists.

Whoever denies the existence of truth grants that truth does not exist. Yet, if truth does not exist, then the proposition "Truth does not exist" is true. And if there is anything true, then truth exists.

3.) Conscious humans act. (Ludwig von Mises's Axiom of Action.)

It cannot be coherently denied that this proposition is true, since the denial would have to be categorized as an action.

As well, there are logically necessary implications of this axiom:

A.) With every action an actor pursues a goal; and that whatever the goal may be, the fact that it is pursued by an actor reveals that he places a relatively higher value on it than on any other goal of action he could conceive of at the start of his action.

B.) In order to achieve his most highly valued goal an actor must interfere or decide not to interfere (which, of course, is also an interference) at an earlier point in time to produce some later result; such interferences invariably imply the employment of some scarce means (at least those of the actor's body, its standing room and the time absorbed by the interference).

C.) These means must also have value for an actor--a value derived from that of the goal--because the actor must regard their employment as necessary in order to effectively achieve the goal; and that actions can only be performed sequentially, always involving the making of a choice, i.e., taking up that one course of action which at some given point in time promises the most highly valued result to the actor and excluding at the same time the pursuit of other, less highly valued goals.

D.) As a consequence of having to choose and give preference to one goal over another--of not being able to realize all goals simultaneously--each and every action implies the incurrence of costs. For example, forsaking the value attached to the most highly valued alternative goal that cannot be realized or whose realization must be deferred because the means necessary to effect it are bound up in the production of another, even more highly valued goal.

E.) At its starting point every goal of action must be considered worth more to the actor than its cost and capable of yielding a profit, i.e., a result whose value is ranked higher than that of the foregone opportunities. And yet, every action is also invariably threatened by the possibility of a loss if an actor finds, in retrospect, that the result actually achieved--contrary to previous expectations--has a lower value than the relinquished alternative would have had.

All of these categories--values, ends, means, choice, preference, cost, profit and loss, as well as time and causality--are implied in the axiom of action. The attempt to disprove the action-axiom would itself be an action aimed at a goal, requiring means, excluding other courses of action, incurring costs, subjecting the actor to the possibility of achieving or not achieving the desired goal and so leading to a profit or a loss. Thus, it is manifestly impossible to ever dispute or falsify the validity of Mises' insights. As a matter of fact, a situation in which these categories of action would cease to have a real existence could itself never be observed, for making an observation, too, is an action.

4.) Humans are capable of argumentation and hence know the meaning of truth and validity. The so-called "A Priori of Argumentation." (This axiom relates strongly to axioms No. 2 and 3.)

It is impossible to coherently deny that one can argue, as the very denial would itself be an argument. In fact, one could not even silently say to oneself "I cannot argue" without thereby contradicting oneself. One cannot coherently argue that one cannot argue. Nor can one coherently dispute knowing what it means to make a truth or validity claim without implicitly claiming the negation of this proposition to be true (see axiom No. 2).

See:

Prof. Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Economic Science and the Austrian Method (Auburn, Alabama: The Ludwig von Mises Institute, 1995) http://www.mises.org/esandtam.asp

René Descartes, Meditations on the First Philosophy, Meditation 2.

Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, First Part, Question 2, Article 1, Objection 3.