9/11 and the Propaganda Model

911 and the Propaganda Model

The need to deter democracy by alienating public opinion from public policy, is one that has been long understood. Back in 1921, the highly influential political columnist and media analyst Walter Lippmann, wrote the book “Public Opinion”,where he discussed the need for the “manufacture of consent”; given the inherent pitfalls and barriers to an accurate and effective public opinion (democracy, essentially), it is necessary that this opinion is crafted by a higher sphere of influence. This was understood very well by Edward Bernays, who was the founder of Public Relations (he indeed coined the term), and the formulator of not just corporate, but also political PR. He sketches out his views on this in his 1928 work, "Propaganda where he states that “The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society”, suggesting like Lippmann, that democracy is a “chaos” that needs regulation from above. This “above” is a small section of elites: “We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of.” These are the people who will ensure that the masses are sedated, and free to run their daily lives, without participating in the broader picture of public policy, given the dangers that this would pose to the influence of said elites, and thus the smooth functioning of society. To paraphrase Bernays, a leader must serve by leading, not lead by serving.

He was, as mentioned, the formulator of political PR, and his influence was enormous. This extended to the PR campaign throughout the American media to garner support for the subsequent violent overthrow in 1954 of the newly democratically elected President of Guatemala, Jacobo Allenz, whose crime was to threaten to end the American United Fruit Company’s exploitation of their country’s resources (whence the term “banana republic”) by nationalising the fruit industry. His views were of resounding significance in the corporate world, forever changing it, and the same is true of his impact on the world of politics; necessary at a time when democracy was becoming increasingly rampant, with the growing success of civil rights movement, educated classes and so on. The need to deter the threat of democracy was well understood, and seamlessly implemented.

This implementation occurred with the advent of corporate media outlets, roughly concomitant with the arrival of Bernays views. Big business oils the political wheels in Washington, and the relationship between big corporations and political parties is grossly symbiotic. This allows for an overlapping of interests, and with a corporate-owned media, it allows for government and corporate interests to be shielded by the yoke of “democratic propaganda”. With the predicate of free-market economics, it was inevitable that the mass of mainstream media outlets was going to end up in the hands of a very select group of corporations. Thus, whereas one has the illusion of dealing with a great number of independent media bodies when one turns on the television or goes to a newsstand, the reality is quite the opposite. What you will be hearing/reading, is “corporatised” news, stemming from General Electric or AOL TimeWarner, rather than independent journalists whose sole loyalty is to objective reporting.

This was not just confined to the US in its propagation- indeed almost immediately after its inception in 1922, the BBC was deterring democratic processes by providing a platform for Baldwin’s Tory party to put down the general workers’ strike that was happening (the Tories being afraid of a potential Russian-style revolution), while at the same time denying the workers a platform to make their voice heard. This had progressed to such a point, that by 1945, George Orwell could only manage with great difficulty to get his masterpiece, Animal Farm, published. It was close to impossible to criticise Stalinist Russia at that time, and he was refused by publisher after publisher. He elaborates upon this fact in the introduction to the book, never published for obvious reasons, but available here and he states, quite accurately, that the diktat for what goes and what doesn’t in public discourse, is set from above. In 1945, Stalin and Churchill were buddies, or at least allies, and so criticising this monster, publicly, was a no go. This occurred in the US as well, where Trotsky’s biography of Stalin (highly critical of course) was unable to find a publisher. Fast forward about 5 years, the Cold War has begun, the West wants to depict Russia as the “evil empire”, and so public criticism of Stalin becomes accepted, and sales of Animal Farm take off. Nothing had changed between these two moments, factually speaking- the empire was just as “evil” as it had been beforehand- however, the diktat from above had changed, and public opinion, manufactured as Bernays and Lippmann had advocated, through mass media propaganda, rolled over like a lap dog.

This system of democratic propaganda is infinitely more effective than its more laboured totalitarian cousin, because it gives the impression of liberty of thought, whilst denying it outright. A group of Russian diplomats, touring the US in the 80’s are said to have told a US official how astonished they were that everyone thought so congruently with what the government wanted them to think. They said that in their countries, they have to send people to the gulags to get that done! This illustrates well the insidious nature of the “democratic” propaganda system.

It stems from the above mentioned structure of media. In the US, about 90% of all media circulation is owned by 5 corporations. This means that uncritical public opinion will be shaped according to the whims of these corporations. How this works is very simple, and can be illustrated with the example of Fox News, the most watched news channel in the US. They are owned by News Corp, whose boss Rupert Murdoch has stated openly that he owns media in order to propagate his view of the world onto people. So in order to do this within Fox, all he has to do is hire someone to run it, who mirrors his ideology, which he found in Roger Ailes, the former media strategist to Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Bush Snr. Ailes will hire someone to run the departments who mirrors him, who will do the same, who will do the same, and so on. It is this mirroring of ideology that ensures that the organisation remains homogeneous in its output- this is a phenomenon that we are all aware of in almost every mass media outlet that exists. Total homogeneity on the main issues- you won’t pick up a copy of The Sun, and read on one page that the war is good, and on the next that the war is a crime, for instance. The agenda for this homogeneity obviously comes from somewhere, namely, as we have seen in Fox, by the man at the top, then trickling down. This is the same in any and every media organisation (and indeed most large companies). It is not an eclectic gaggle of independent opinions, rather a concentration of people who happen to believe what their owner wants people working for him to believe. Again, this adds to the insidious nature of the whole shooting match. Generally speaking, this is not scripted propaganda (though this does exist). All members of the media, from Bill O Reilly to Stephen Colbert, are where they are because they will report a sanitized version of events. To quote Noam Chomsky when challenged by then BBC political correspondent Andrew Marr about his belief in this system of propaganda, “I have no doubt you believe everything you say. My point is if you believed anything different, you wouldn’t be sitting where you are now.”

I am, shortly going to use 9/11 as the main example for this happening, but to take 2 examples of this happening - a study was dome by the Glasgow University Media Group, which illustrated that the more people watched the news, directly, the less they knew correctly, about the Israel-Palestine conflict. An example was the fact that 90% of those interviewed thought that it was the Palestinians who were the illegal occupiers. Another example would be to look at the way the Iraq War has been covered. You will routinely see it described, especially by the BBC, as a blunder, a mistake, a quagmire, and so on- but how much focus do you get on the lies that were told to get us into this? Or the sometimes hundreds of Iraqis getting killed every day? You will do well to read a shred of this anywhere, and yet these are the essential facts. We can complain when we get into a war that we don’t win by calling it a “blunder”; or when our soldiers are getting killed by calling it a “quagmire”, but these are the limits on public discourse. As Stephen Sackur asked George Galloway upon the latter stating he would not shake Tony Blair’s hand, since he deemed him to be a war criminal, “Are you not proud to be British?” There are very stringent limits on what can, and cannot be said in public.

The Propaganda Model, as it has been formulated and named by Chomsky and Edward Herman, has too many examples to broach any more than I already have. But there is no doubt, that there could not be a more astonishing and important example of it than 9/11. If we proceed on the easily demonstrable premise that mass media censorship of rudimentary and critical issues will occur when powerful interests are to be protected, then you will never find a better example of this than in the mass media’s treatment of the attacks. Possibly the most reported on news event of all time, still eliciting direct comment even today; and yet, the overwhelming majority of the population in the West is unaware, blissfully so, of the most rudimentary facts of that day. Go out and ask people how many skyscrapers fell on 9/11. Out of 100 people, will you get more than 5? I think you will be lucky. Due to the internet groundswell of awareness to the critical issue of WTC7, the 47 story building housing the CIA, Secret Service, Federal Office of Emergency Management, and other federal agencies, that fell in a manner described by Danny Jowenko, a leading implosion expert, thus: “That is controlled demolition. Absolutely certain. This is a professional job done by a team of experts”, the media is now having to combat this censorship, bit by bit. This will happen with vague apologetics, such as “It was forgotten about in the confusion of the day”, and other evasions; however, nothing can get round the white elephant that is the fact that the collapse of this massive building, though receiving proportionate coverage on 9/11 (indeed being reported as collapsed by the BBC and CNN prior to its collapse), very soon after, disappeared down the Orwellian memory hole, oblivious to the public consciousness.

Another equally astonishing omission from public discourse, is the 1st reported terrorist attack in New York on 9/11. In an age where information flows so freely, how can something so basic be effectively suppressed? That it has, is merely testament to the power of the Western Propaganda system- awareness of this is even less than of WTC 7.. The first reported attack was not flight 11 hitting the North Tower, rather seconds before that, of an explosion in the basement of the same building. This was reported by many people, significantly enough for the initial premise of the FBI to have been that this was indeed a dual attack the plane hitting the building, and a bomb in the basement. You will not read a shred about this now, in any mainstream journal. This is the first time in a democratic society, that there has been testimony, multiple, independent and corroborating, of a bomb in an important and populous location, that has just been forgotten. No criminal investigation, no reporting by the media, and a whitewash from the Government through the 911 Commission Report. Once again, this is as strong evidence as is conceivable for the overwhelming power of the Propaganda Model, that such a basic fact could disappear from the public mind, simply at the media’s behest. And if we follow the premise of the Model, that gross censorship will in general be indicative of shielding of powerful interests, we come to a firm conclusion.

A final point, and one which should have been one of the 1st things on any reasonable and honest journalist’s plate, post 9/11, was that 9/11 was precisely what was stated to be needed by the US, by the Bush administration to be, in the guise of the neo-conservative think tank, the Project for the New American Century. Their membership, including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz, had stated in their biennial policy white paper, in September 2000, that the US needed “a catastrophic and catalysing event, like a new Pearl Harbor”, to initiate a radicalisation in military behaviour, that looks astonishingly similar to the current War on Terror. Once again, this is something of which you will not find a scrap anywhere, which, in an environment of ideologically neutral reporters, would be inconceivable.

The Propaganda Model was formulated in 1988 in the book “Manufacturing Consent”, and as it approaches its 20th anniversary, 9/11 casts an important new light on affairs. For the internet causes a threat to be posed to mass media hegemony on public opinion. The fact that according to Zogby, 36% of Americans, in May 2006, believed that the US government probably had a role in the 9/11 attacks, is highly illustrative of this threat, as this had occurred with zero assistance from the mass media. So the mass media, this time like good attack hounds rather than good lapdogs, kicked into action. The “9/11 Truth Movement” was given exposure, purely for the fact that it needed to be confronted and decried. Other than whacking it, demagogically and pejoratively, with the term “conspiracy theory”, the connotation for which is an unsubstantiated social paradigm which will ensure de facto that the Establishment always gets the benefit of the doubt, members of the movement were invited on shows to be told (and for those watching to be told), routinely, how much they, and those who followed them, hated their country and supported “the terrorists”. It didn’t stop there- celebrities such as Charlie Sheen and Rosie O’Donnell were automatically lampooned as “kooks” and “whackos”, with “independent analysts” appearing on news programs to state how these people’s careers would be over if they continued to speak about this, and how they should be “strung up for treason” for “giving comfort to the enemy”. O’Donnell lost/quit her job, illustrating very perfectly how the establishment will either knock a figure back into line, or out of the system, if they stray from the bounds of permitted public discourse (as also happened with Andrew Gilligan at the BBC, though not related to 9/11).

So this cudgel was used often and bludgeoningly enough to quell any potential, though unlikely threat, that such suspicions could gain approbation in mainstream discourse. This is a very interesting development to the Model, and it suggests that should any other threatening suspicions arise through non-Establishment sources in the future, the Establishment will react with confrontation by distortion, as they have done with 9/11.

So it could be argued that there has never been a more cogent example of the Propaganda Model, than what we have witnessed with the mass media’s treatment of 9/11. Rudimentary facts disappearing into oblivion, proponents being vilified and slandered, audiences being told in no uncertain terms what to think- that powerful interests are being protected is crystal clear; that independent minds need to be enlisted to re-investigate the facts of 9/11 is all too urgent.

DEBUNKING TECHNIQUES originally submitted by "Free"

Submitted by Free on Sat, 08/25/2007 - 4:39pm.
DEBUNKING TECHNIQUES | Propaganda | psyops

25 Rules of Disinformation


Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation

Note: The first rule and last five (or six, depending on situation) rules are generally not directly within the ability of the traditional disinfo artist to apply. These rules are generally used more directly by those at the leadership, key players, or planning level of the criminal conspiracy or conspiracy to cover up.

1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.

2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the "How dare you!" gambit.

3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such "arguable rumors". If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a "wild rumor" which can have no basis in fact.

4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as "kooks", "right-wing", "liberal", "left-wing", "terrorists", "conspiracy buffs", "radicals", "militia", "racists", "religious fanatics", "sexual deviates", and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.

7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could so taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.

8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough "jargon" and "minutiae" to illustrate you are "one who knows", and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with. Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually them be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues -- so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.

11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the "high road" and "confess" with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made -- but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, "just isn't so." Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later. Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for "coming clean" and "owning up" to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.

12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to loose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.

13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards with an apparent deductive logic in a way that forbears any actual material fact.

14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best for items qualifying for rule 10.

15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.

16. Vanishing evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to address the issue.

17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can "argue" with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.

18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how "sensitive they are to criticism".

19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the "play dumb" rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon). In order to completely avoid discussing issues may require you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.

20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.

21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed an unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict (usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim) is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed.

22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.

23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.

24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of their character by release of blackmail information, or merely by proper intimidation with blackmail or other threats.

25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen.



Excellent commentary. I would like to see the blogger expand and extend this commentary to incorporate the explanatory psychological construct "The Ruling Group-Mind" coined by the oft-overlooked Canadian philosopher John McMurtry.

Although Chomsky's Propaganda Model explains the working tactics of the elites who launch the waves of truth-aberration, it does not explain the widespread acquiescence and re-broadcast across borders, class, caste, cultures, and profession. In other words, Chomsky's model well explains how the wave is launched, but in the case of 9/11 and Iraq, it doesn't follow how well it floods the higher plains.

Even the daft can discern the blueprint for news in place by today's corporate media -- if they care to -- but more difficult to explain is how the "Big Lie" becomes such a tsunami that even intellectuals like Chomsky must throw themselves overboard, while proclaiming to the world that this is just a small wave, used for misdirection; and actually it probably doesn't exist anyway; at least until we can read of it in respectable journals.

This is the domain of deception that I have found reasonable explanation NOWHERE save the interpretation of McMurtry. Here in text and Here in audio. Beyond this brilliant paradigm analysis, though, I cannot endorse McMurtry's scathing prognosis of capitalism.


Noam Chomsky vs. BBC

Noam does not belong anywhere on 9-11 Blogger. He pooh-poohs the whole movement and even has the gall to say that if we're right - it doesn't matter!

His BBC showmanship is WWF wrestling. Looks like a fight, sounds like a fight, but nobody bleeds, and nothing changes.

Noam is (in my view) a well-paid and highly promoted distraction operative for the left, just as CFR-CIA-Skull&Bones William F. Buckley is for the right. It sounds crazy until you read this about what Noam "sells" as "solutions"...

Chomsky fraud 1
Chomsky fraud 2

Their job is to maintain a tightly bounded dialectic on either side of the NWO roadmap. They are essentially sheepdogs for NWO planners, constantly barking the acceptable boundaries of discourse.

The left/right "camps" themselves are social engineering, not anything real. For example, fascism is socialism (look it up) but they give us the template it is "far-right," so therefore, your choice is somewhere between Communism and Fascism, which coincidentally is what the NWO looks like. The real spectrum is tyranny -> freedom -> anarchy, if you want to draw one-dimensional straight lines. Myron Fagan talked about this. Alan Watt speaks about the creation of the entire political left movement by the NWO. You can also find sources that the John Birch Society was and is a planned NWO honey pot for suckers from the right.

Challenge Yourself

Julie, your reaction to selected acts of Prof.Chomsky is understandable, especially vis-a-vis the loud noise and lack of change when the smoke clears. I recall a relatively recent press conference featuring Prof. Chomsky and Prof. Zinn, where Chomsky defended the level of student activism today. Incredibly, he said something like how lonely it was in the early 60's on the Boston Commons protesting the new U.S. involvement in Vietnam -- claiming that the much heralded '60s movement took much longer to gain momentum, and today, there is relatively much more student activism. The parallel was lost on me and seemed on the surface nonsensical.

However, I challenge you to take a more historical view. Prof. Chomsky has toiled for years in other battles and has produced much. As the original poster pointed out, he was among the first to challenge the very mechanism of deceptions which 9-11 Truthers fight today. And although the following two sources indeed contain Truth; if you have as primary underpinnings for your worldview, respectively Alan Watt and the John Birch Society, then I gently suggest you are going to have difficulties re-seeding any of the truth you have grasped to "less informed" segments of society.

More constructive may be to constrain our reflexive dismissal of Chomsky, and look more clearly, more historically at the anomaly. It is easy to recognize blatant disinfo and it is important NOT to automatically discredit those with a long historical record of service to admirable cause (a distinction which does not belong to Mr. Buckley or his father).

Respectfully, Philip Kindred

Chomksy has a history. have

Chomksy has a history. have you seen his "work" on the JFK coup? oh wait, he didnt do any. im sorry, Chomsky may not be an agent but he damn sure isnt to be trusted. not only should he be dismissed easily but he should be called out at every turn. his historical record shows he hasnt caused any real change, noble as some of his work may have been. hes a steam valve and will only go so far. hes worse than blatant disinfo, he fools more intelligent folks than the average disinfo tool does.

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA



You confuse language modulation with intellectual prowess. Intellectual activity means having a point and making it. Boiling away the fat, all you've said is "Noam's a good guy!" and "Buckley's a bad guy!". That's left/right groupthink.

Your "underpinnings" guess emerges from prefab Tavistock templates. In some quarters they're called "slides."

The veneer of civility is thin. Please. You "gently" insinuate that I endorse JBS views ("primary underpinnings"?? wow - discerned from ten lines) after I called it a fraud, and characterize me with "reflexive dismissal" which is both ad hominem and wrong. I ought to call your Noamthink "reflexive assent" and suggest "a more historical view."

Benito Mussolini edited a socialist newspaper. Fidel Castro self-consciously imitated Hitler, Mussolini, and Francisco Franco. Hitler acknowledged National Socialism as derivative Marxism. After America "won" WWII, it ratlined the worst Nazi war criminals into USA intelligence, the power structure that did 9-11. American finance/policy supported Soviet communism, German fascism, and the special Chinese blend - as JFK knew:

Noam and WFB are kissing cousins. They bark at the "smart" sheep, while others (Rush) bark at the "dumb" sheep. Whether you're "right" or "left," you're corralled into ready-made groupthink cattle chutes. The game is, divide the population in half, then "let's you and them fight."

Er, lemme see. I am having problems "re-seeding...truth" to the "less informed" and the solution is, get them reading Chomsky? After Seinfeld and Letterman I wonder?

But anyway - who's "re-seeding"? Enough with the paint jobs, I'll show my own colors. I'm responding to an article on 9-11 Blogger about propaganda. The links discuss Noam's "Manufacturing Consent."

If *you* care about "re-seeding," here's my advice.

Average Joes will not read Chomsky, and if they do, we'll have to coach them against his 9-11 denial. "Noam sees how everything works, excepting the most important paradigm shift of the era. We explain the anomaly thusly..." Riiiiight...

Average Joes relate to the world in which they live. I do not agree with more than 65% of Alan Watt, but he reads written plans of world figures into a microphone, showing how their agendas come to pass. The plans that Noam pooh-poohs as unimportant have remarkable prophetic power. He also shows how famous pop culture groups are Establishment kulturkrieg. John Lennon was killed to protect that secret about the Beatles.

Watt explains that society could go in a thousand possible directions. All you get from "intellectuals" Noam and WFB is a Left position and the Right position, which are supposed to be opposites, but funnel to the same end point.

Noam offers a UN Blue totalitarian world control grid. WFB offers a Red-White-&-Blue totalitarian world control grid. Both deny 9-11 truth. The NWO owns America and the UN, so the opposition is false, and you've been had.

Between Agenda 21, NAU, regionalism, foreign Fed ownership, "free trade" global cartels, UN sanctions on Iraq, the Powell UN speech, Alger Hiss of UN fame, ex-KGB/Stasi running DHS projects, and so on, you can't wedge a playing card between the UN and USA and USSR.

"Leftie" Queen Hilary sat on the corporate board of slave-driving, union-busting Wal-Mart. "Leftie" Bill Clinton did corporate warfare in the Balkans:
(Raimondo is gay - not some JBS guy - though lame on 9-11 truth.)

And "Rightie" GWB expanded government beyond the wildest dreams of avarice.

The Clintons and the Bushes play golf together - gee, big surprise.

I credit Noam with too much intelligence to believe in the 9-11 Official Conspiracy Theory. Conclusion, he's payroll. But that's just me. His crackpot remark that it doesn't matter if we're right puts him in deep la-la land.