Meet Noam Chomsky, Academic Gatekeeper (video)

10/28/201325 Comments


Is Noam Chomsky an anarcho-syndicalist or proponent of the Federal Reserve? A fearless political crusader or defender of the Warren Commission JFK orthodoxy? A tireless campaigner for justice or someone who doesn't care who did 9/11? Join us this week on The Corbett Report as we examine some of the subjects that Chomsky would prefer you didn't think about.

CLICK HERE for the mp3 audio of this podcast.


Steven Pinker on Noam Chomsky
Time Reference: 02:54


Chomsky: Obama Worse Than Bush
Time Reference: 03:13


'Drone strikes a terror-generating machine'
Time Reference: 10:02


Noam Chomsky to RT: Bush torturer, Obama just kills
Time Reference: 10:48


Chomsky On Obama's Election Campaign
Time Reference: 11:05


Chomsky on US Foreign Policy
Time Reference: 11:33


Manufacturing Consent - Noam Chomsky and the Media
Time Reference: 14:54


Noam Chomsky Loves the Federal Reserve
Time Reference: 19:13


Noam Chomsky and the JFK Assassination
Time Reference: 26:43


Deep Politics and the Death of JFK
Time Reference: 35:24


JFK and the Unspeakable
Time Reference: 35:48


Noam Chomsky discusses 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists
Time Reference: 38:25


Chomsky on 9/11: "Who cares?"
Time Reference: 42:52


Truth in the Academy?
Time Reference: 47:28


Time Reference: 47:37


After Multiple Denials, CIA Admits to Snooping on Noam Chomsky
Time Reference: 54:34


Rethinking Noam Chomsky
Time Reference: 55:48


Reggae Noam Chomsky Classical Old Skool Hip Hop Groove - Oh YES
Time Reference: 35:48

Filed in: Videos
Tagged with:

Comments (25)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. ks says:

    rrrrrrright. youve just patronised me on twitter for not understanding what the word ‘gatekeeper’ means. i am a little disappointed my assumed intelligence is so low, but lets clear something up. i am well aware of what *you* mean by gatekeeper. you are saying he is co-opted ‘intelligentsia’ so now im going to debunk what is basically the only real thing i disagree with you on. 9/11 and chomsky. when i watch you talk of chomsky – i get this weird feeling. its the one subject where you seem personally invested in the argument. you look annoyed with him, somethings not right.

    why attack an old man whos done so much in his life? an old man who started off my personal political awakening. (so y slightly biased) OK – the thing that you seem most upset about is the ‘who cares’ 9/11 comment – after much thought and years of research on all this stuff ive come to the conclusion that yes ‘who cares’ ?

    why do you care so much about this one guy and what difference will it make to anything if he comes onboard with the whole truther thing. i would be willing to bet my hands that even if chomsky got on the whole 911 boat and started using megaphones to pronounce it in the street, it would make not one blind bit of difference to anything. this guy has done SO MUCH in his life, so so much that to pick on one subject he doesnt want to get into really late in his life, is like a bit weird. who cares? who cares what chomsky thinks ? why does chomsky *have* to conform to what you want him to think ?

    OK ignoring his massive political activism since vietnam, lets focus on the 9/11 thing itself. why do i think that chomsky wouldnt make any difference to this debate ? simply: JFK – since JFK was shot in 1963 how many people who really perpetrated the crime have been brought to justice ?????? NONE. and how many WILL be brought to justice ? NONE will the case ever be re-opened? NO – so educating yerself on the truth or investigating the event itself is good, but basically you arent ever going to catch or facilitate catching the real people that did it. and exactly the same goes for 9/11 – in my internet travels, i have seen hoards of people OBSESSED over 9/11, spending a lot of their life trying to spread information about it and ive seen every theory available from the nanothermite to the noplane theory to blahblahblah every single angle you can think of. its a fact the intelligence services spread disinformation on the internet so i imagine a fair portion of this is direct from the government. and what better way to engage people and to stop people doing something that will actually change things than to tie them up in years of research that will never get them anywhere at all.

    nobody is EVER going to be brought to justice for 9/11 and i worry for you if you really believe this will ever EVER happen. i believe this is the reason he doesnt want to get into it and i believe hes right. i am absolutely sure the official story is a total load of shit but i would like to focus on building new communities and letting government simply fall away rather than banging my head against a brick wall.

    • Corbett says:

      I am not being patronizing. I genuinely believe you don’t know what the term ‘gatekeeper’ means. No, it does not mean “co-opted ‘intelligentsia’.”

      Perhaps this question can help to clarify. It is a serious question. Please answer.

      Who is the more effective gatekeeper? One who is:

      a) wrong about almost everything


      b) right about almost everything?

      • ks says:

        regardless of your definition of ‘gatekeeper’ which i think we both know we both know what it means 🙂 – my argument still stands. and may i just say i dont love you any less for this discussion, this is probably one of the few things we dont agree on, but i did feel that you were patronising on twitter. but tbh i get so much abuse on there on a daily basis its nothing 🙂

        interesting question tho….

        so in my understanding of your definition of gatekeeper – what you mean is what chomsky calls the ‘intelligentsia’ the intellectuals sway public opinion by framing a debate within carefully policed boundaries. ie setting what are the acceptable arguments and thereby setting the arguments that arent even mentioned. but do fill me in if im totally off the mark.

        and i would go for b) in this definition because you are more likely to believe the person if other things they have said correlate to your reality. however, i dont see what this has to do with my point.

        • Corbett says:

          Gatekeeper has nothing to do with intelligentsia or intellectuals per se. It is anyone who uses a position of authority or influence to dissuade people from looking into certain fields of inquiry. If you re-listen to this episode, you will notice that 9/11 is merely one of the issues that Chomsky is gatekeeping.

          Regardless of what you feel will or will not happen with regards to 9/11 truth, Chomsky with a single pronouncement could persuade tens of thousands of his followers (at a minimum) to examine the issue of how false flag events are used to shape public opinion and lead us into war time and again. If you do not see the utility of that then you have not understood the raison d’etre of this website.

          You pick the correct answer in the multiple choice question, of course, but fail to see its relevance to your original Twitter comment? “This stuff doesnt sound very gatekeepery.” You explicitly argue that because he is right on a certain issue that he is not a gatekeeper. That shows a lack of understanding of the role, nature and definition of the term ‘gatekeeper.’

          • candlesnstones says:

            good evening mr corbertt. please forgive my lazy typing ways… why do we capitalize the first letter after a period anyway. doesnt the period give ample notice a new sentence is about to begin?… anyway ive always kinda liked you and your site. you seem to work hard and appear to be sincere.

            unfortunately i must agree with mr ks and others who have stated their concerns regarding your demeanor. i too picked up on it easily… you were upset about something. i usually dont speculate on these things but i will say chomsky has always defended the word ‘conspiracy’. dont take serious an old mans off the cuff statements and most certainly dont take them personally. remember you are not how you appear to yourself but how you appear to others.

            perhaps a reassessment of the ‘gatekeeper’ is in order.

            lastly… i would never profess to speak for chomsky but its safe to say he would find the material here… noteworthy

  2. ks says:

    welll, to be fair tho, chomsky’s followers are very unlikely to have never heard nor accept the idea of a false flag. im not sure i agree that chomsky could enlighten or even has a responsibility to enlighten a significant amount people on proven historical false flags and im not sure what that would do anyway if he did – i mean in pure terms of 9/11. obv educating people on facts is always good.

    i think you are putting this idea on chomsky that he must ascribe to every single opinion you do. but he doesnt have to! hes just a guy just like you and me! i did want to focus on the 9/11 issue particularly but the fed thing as well – hes spot on! it *would* have been a massive depression if they didnt bail out the banks – only what he didnt say was the countries sovereignty would be retained if they had and after a few years of chaos it would have been back to normal. but he does say ‘within a capitalist system’ and he does mention overthrowing it, i think he gets misunderstood often. *shrugs i dunno im just a guy, but i think hes old now, hes not going to be making sense for much longer and hes done so many good things in his life he deserves special treatment. personally i love the guy. i will relisten tho and see if i missed anything – tbh i switched it off after the 9/11 thing cos i was so offended 😀 not really offended realllly but i did make up my mind to take this up with you. took me several weeks but there yer go 😉

  3. ks says:

    plus may i also say that link you posted me i clicked off in disgust – was like a desperate and i mean desperate hit piece gluing together crap that noam said over 50 years or so! if you took something i said last week and stuck it with this week it would probably make me a hypocrite ! flux is the nature of the universe 😉

    one thing tho, he is totally up his ass over JFK – but then i forgive him for that because he wrote the fateful triangle. hes not going to stop anyone investigating anything.

    chomsky aint right all the time – but painting him like this is just wrong.

  4. ks says:

    ok – right at the beginning you mention not building straw men and not name-calling then make up this word ‘gatekeeper’ and call him it 🙂 i think the problem i have with it is that you imply he is doing this on purpose for some reason. you mention the gatekeeper in the video and say ‘of course… a gatekepepers function is not to spout lies all the time…’ which also implies that we should know the definition of this word, which it seems you just made up. fair enough 🙂

    ‘one or two topics you HAVE to skirt around…. with credibility’ – again implying he is doing this on purpose and for a particular purpose or master…. no. i dont believe that in the slightest. these ‘gatekeepers’ are going around building their entire lives up around facts they get right purely in order to slip a bit of disinformation because you know they are really bernankes robots 😀 not buying it.

    and your argument on the fed is kinda ridiculous tbh, firstly you ignore the proviso he says right at the beginning about actions *within* a capitalist system and then compare these actions to what an anarcho-syndicalist would generally want. now thats not an argument thats taking what he said completely out of context. and the way you deliver it also implies we should be suspicious of this non-argument. no. not having that 😉 his chat was about the best way to organise an economy within a capitalist system. so i really had a problem with that bit.

    JFK: he just doesnt want to get into it obv. and so what ? perhaps he feels that there isnt enough evidence to really get behind it. perhaps he feels that whatever he says nothing can be done (which i agree with) who knows – perhaps he just doesnt want to say publicly what he thinks because he doesnt have enough hard evidence to back it up. its quite obv 9/11 and JFK were serious planned attacks and that the official stories are utter utter crap, but i dont find anything suspicious about him not wanting to get into it. im just not buying this gatekeeper word. but then in the same way as i dont blindly bleat and accept everything chomsky says i also dont accept everything you say, which im sure youre very glad about! be bloody boring if i did! one thing i didnt know was that the northwoods docs came out of this. interesting… the JFK thing was quite obviously a high level conspiracy or as bill hicks said totalitarian take-over of democracy. altho i dont believe its over vietnam, i think the secret service were involved and it was a threat to them. i dont agree with chomsky here or these words ascribed to him anyway 🙂

    41.20 ish is really the crux of what im saying. i agree completely with what hes saying about 9/11. 9/11 was the scar on our collective consciousness that changed everything. however, its never going to be solved. so now what should we do ? carry on watching hours and hours and hours of videos about nanothermite etc ? tell everyone we know to watch hours and hours and hours of conspiracy videos ? or should we go out and try and help and convert our communities into sane societies ? internet youtube conspiracy vids or real life progress ? you know what im saying. like he says ‘its diverting from real issues’

    i think the ‘who cares’ statement comes from a place of being tired of hearing people bleating on about stuff they dont really understand. and i agree again. back to first point on that, it will NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER go anywhere. so now what?

    so you got three points here, three negative points about chomsky and that makes him this ‘gatekeeper’ thing youve made up. but then – at the beginning there are more than three points you agree with him on. so why so negative about him ? this is a gross misrepresentation dripping with sarcasm ( which is not a good look ) and i just dont goddamn like it, but i do however love you and pretty much every single other one of your videos and podcasts (lots) which are such high quality and you are brilliant reporter and a brilliant mind. full respects. kris

  5. teal says:

    I am very, very happy to see someone defending Noam Chomsky, without whom the world would have been a poorer place. In the early days after 9-11, I agreed with his position that it was a waste of time to worry about “solving” that crime against humanity. Now I find myself morbidly fascinated by it, and, in keeping with ks’s worst fears, have wasted waaay too much time learning details that make no difference. I would be pleased to hear Chomsky say, “It was them what dunnit” – but realistically, rather than him inspiring thousands to investigate it, I think he would immediately be marginalized. To my mind, his demurral is justifiable.

    I do think he adequately qualified his comments about the Fed. I hope that we on the fringes are allowed to disagree about priorities once in a while. To label Chomsky as a gatekeeper is to foster divisiveness in a way that, ultimately, serves the Powers That Be. I realize that gatekeepers exist and are a serious problem, but their misinformation can be addressed without naming names, without mounting what appears to some to be a personal attack.
    In my opinion it is more important to put information out there than to focus on individuals. And even if Chomsky were consciously trying to protect the status quo (which I don’t believe), he would have contributed more to the debate than the vast majority of humans just by virtue of having produced this: “If you assume that there is no hope, you guarantee that there will be no hope. If you assume that there is an instinct for freedom, that there are opportunities to change things, then there is a possibility that you can contribute to making a better world.”
    Chomsky is, imo, in a league with Corbett.

  6. teal says:

    I feel compelled to clarify my prior post, knowing full well that no one will ever read it, this podcast being “ancient history” by today’s standards. The points I meant to, should have, hope now to make, are as follows.

    First, I agree with people’s concerns about Academic Gatekeepers. I happen to disagree with the assessment that Chomsky is one of them, but am fully aware that I could be wrong. My concern vis à vis this podcast is that many might perceive a singling-out of one of their favorite intellectuals as reason enough to discount the rest of the information provided here; thus, a general discussion of the problem would be more productive than a personal reference.

    Second, there are undoubtedly people blogging about how James Corbett must be a government tool, with various analyses to “back up” that claim. Such accusations are, imo, largely irrelevant. Both Noam Chomsky and James Corbett have provided the world with invaluable information. Both have also, rightly, exhorted people to do their own research! and that is what matters fundamentally. One can and should disagree occasionally, even with one’s most trusted sources. No one is right all the time. The cult of personality, albeit ubiquitous and seemingly indestructible, must be resisted (a corollary to which is that the attack on personality should, depending on circumstances, be avoided).

    As for trying to dissuade Truthers from spreading the word, I spoke too cavalierly. After listening to a podcast in which James talks about his own awakening 5 years after 9-11, I understand why he sees the Truth movement as vital. My own experience was quite different – namely, that as soon as I learned of the attacks on that day, I assumed that the US government had at the very least allowed them to happen, in full awareness of their scope and horror. I wasn’t at all disinclined to believe they were an inside job, except insofar as I thought there was not enough competence in high circles for them to have been pulled off from the inside.

    I tend to forget that others who might appreciate, or create, a website like CorbettReport aren’t all as jaundiced as myself. I hereby retract my comments minimizing the importance of getting others to accept the facts about that, and countless other, atrocities perpetrated by the Powers That Be. Hopefully before things erupt apocalyptically in Ukraine, or at the various nuclear power plants currently being primed for meltdown…

    Peace to all you nonexistent readers!

    • kris weston says:

      well actually i read it, because this particular point fascinates me. I disagree with several things that james proposes. this being one of them. but what fascinates me is the underlying annoyance i picked up from james on this one. im quite sensitive to people, and i sense in this talk that there is something else chomsky has done or some other event linked to james past that im not understanding here. i could guess that its because of the whole 9/11 thing. but you know what i think. this may sound strange and its a complete guess but i think that someone somewhere made james feel small once about 9/11 and the attitudes here and its linked in some way to that. sorry james, i may be completely off the mark, but it seems to me a lot of the time, when i find peoples actions disproportionate there is a reason from the past that explains it. and i do find your behaviour in this odd. god could be completely wrong, mebbe james had an argument with his wife beforehand, who knows! he just seems very different in this video. perhaps a reptilian friend of david icke decided to use him as a host for an hour or so. lolly.

      of course, it is ridiculous to think chomsky is purposefully helping the very people he has fought against most of his life. i agree with your first post completely. well said. and the argument that its precisely because he has said so many pertinent things, that its more powerful when he ignores something – no, just not buying that either. mind you i dont buy this whole NWO thing. ive seen a couple of nasty people say it. but then i saw a historian say it the other day in reference to chinese history, after the first great emperor from chin conquered all the other states. the guy referred to it as a new world order for the chinese, i keep coming back to the ‘sharks swimming in parallel lines’ quote 🙂

      i also went and looked into this more after saying this, and i follow james’ talks on 9/11 with interest and in reference to this. to be honest, im kinda hooked on conspiracy theories. its like watching coronation street or something, same sheet. thank god i got over the youtube conspiracy video stage tho, you could end up thinking that your dinner being slightly too hot was a conspiracy to burn your tongue. maybe it is! so yeah theres certainly some very interesting connections etc, but as i say, nothing will ever be done. and im willing to bet my life on that!

      its true that 9.11 can sometimes be for some people a catalyst to higher thought and ‘awakening’ though. have you seen some of the people claiming to be awake on the internet these days. sadly deluded freaks who believe basically anything thats got a low bass drone soundtrack on youtube, and if you dont agree with them you are blind and a ‘sheep’ – id be willing to bet my penis that GCHQ/NSA (same thing) have disinformation programs going on on youtube, and what better way to throw a spanner in the works than to have us fighting amongst ourselves. divide and conquer.

      oh btw i am KS! (and spartacus)

      best 😉

      (and sorry james if im completely off the mark on my psycho-analysis 🙂

  7. teal says:

    Greetings and thanks for the feedback, ks/kris/spartacus. Interesting about the Chinese history. Did you, by chance, read that in the original Chinese? Just wondering if a modern-day historian didn’t inject his/her bias in the translation. Not that it matters – the same words can be used to describe very different things (War is Peace, and all that).

    I wonder, too, how close to reality the NWO is or isn’t. To me, it looks very much like the Big Kids on the Block are getting their way at every turn, and the only thing that could take them down is infighting (so let’s all plant rumours about the betrayals and nasty fungal infections of the rich and famous! Divide-and-conquer can work both ways, after all 😉 I know I don’t like how things are going, and have no faith left in the system itself. I agree wholeheartedly with the view, often expressed here, that our best hope is to stick together, or at the very least be tolerant of each other, and collectively withdraw from *their* version of the new world.

    Since this website attracts (I assume) lots of bookish nerds, I’ll take this opportunity to recommend Montesquieu’s Lettres Persanes (Persian Letters?) as the ultimate template of tolerance. And a fun read!

    • kris weston says:

      bizarre, i had just wondered as you were typing that if you had replied. i clicked on the website and you hadnt, then i got an email that you had, literally as i clicked off it. spooooooky. obv something to do with reptilian NWO 9/11 conspiracies.

      it was this:

      its a little cheesy, but james’ china NWO episode the other day made me want to understand chinese history more. thanks for the recommend, ill have to check it out after sutton!

      yeah the whole NWO thing, i mean im absolutely sure rich people are trying to control the world, but whether their organisation and success is as accomplished as people make out on youtube, i really dont know. and indeed – neither do they. altho they will happily call you ignorant for not believing what they made up in their minds.

      • kris weston says:

        oh and one other thing. that doco has some amazing info about the burial complex of Qin Shi Huang that i never heard of. especially that mercury stuff. thats amazing! its weird how they havent dug it up tho. there must be some amazing stuff in there. i think it shows the difference in culture there. the reason is ‘they dont want to disturb his spirit’ – over here the bulldozers would be out in a second. ok spades then.

  8. bubromer says:

    Dear James, I just wished to make a semantic point which I think is exceedingly relevant to your work and that of other truth tellers. You say that Chomsky was ‘ignorant’ of facts pertaining to JFK’s assassination and therefore cannot be blamed. The word you’re looking for is ‘nescient’. The distinction is important:
    – nescience is not knowing because the information is unavailable or does not exist at all
    – ignorance is not knowing because you choose to ‘ignore’, i.e. look away from information that does exist and is readily available.

    In other words, nescience does not carry any blame but ignorance is almost always blameworthy as it is a misuse of free will that chooses to ‘ignore’ information and thereby chooses non-knowledge over knowledge and the responsibility that comes with it quite deliberately.

    All best

  9. ivan says:

    I’m glad to found this video! Better late than never! James, 100% agree with you on Chomsky! You got it right. Thanks!!

  10. bcrsmith says:

    Playing the high-brow intellectual understanding of morals to reinforce his support for the-corrupt-system clap-trap.

    Vote for the lesser of two evils? “The answer to that is yes if you have any moral understanding”

    And his neat facts about Clinton, “Her positions are much better than Trump on every issue I can think of.” Righto Noam.

  11. boxrattler says:

    After listening to your podcast Noam Chomsky academic gatekeeper. I was left with the impression that you are a “Satriani” to his “Clapton” ha…

  12. manbearpig says:

    In the comments section of the following link

    there was the following link

    where the following link could be found

    I’ve but very quickly skimmed most of all this

    and the least I can say is that it is all very rich in info about Chomsky, his entourage and his family.

    Very, very interesting even if no explicit mention is made of the Institute for Policy Studies though George McBundy of the Harvard Society of Fellows is (whose Great Uncle allegedly founded the Society) as is the name Sassoon (a family that helped fund its creation along with Warburg) that shows up in the Elsie Chomsky acknowledgements and one of her best friends’ son Ron became a Weatherman in 1970, with, according to other sources (Estulin? among others) Chomsky apparently becoming involved in 1963 (very shortly after its founding…)
    From an old Larouche article:

    “Institute’s Crucial Link
    The ICLC has determined that the crucial nexus of the NSC
    nuclear terror plot is the Institute for Policy Studies and its
    Massachusetts-based subdivision, the Cambridge Institute.
    The spawning ground for virtually every terrorist
    organization in the United States, the Institute for Policy
    Studies and the Cambridge Institute, were both set up as a
    National Security Council covert operation by McGeorge
    Bundy and Henry Kissinger. The head of the Institute is
    Marcus Raskin, a “former” “Special Staff” member of the
    National Security Council, whose duties included monitoring
    of CIA covert operations and nuclear planning. The other two ‘
    heads of the Institute are Richard Barnett and Arthur
    Waskow, both of whom have served on the National Security
    The very same Institute terrorist controllers who created,
    trained and deploy the crazed Weatherman bombers, the
    Black Liberation Army killers, the Maoist arsonists and
    rapists, and the Bicentennial rioters have for the last 13 years
    acted as “advisors” and “consultants” to the NSC and other
    nuclear planning and development government agencies on
    matters pertaining to nuclear warfare strategy and tactics,
    nuclear proliferation, and nuclear procurement. Institute
    Fellows and Trustees all still hold their high-level National
    Security clearance!…

    cont’d below:

    • manbearpig says:

      Another extract from the Larouche article published on June 1st, 1976:

      “…How the Institute Created The Weathermen

      Virtually every terrorist organization in the United States
      – both “left” and “right” – is an Institute creation. In fact
      the Institute founded its Cambridge Institute Boston branch
      in 1969 specifically for the purpose of developing the synthetic
      Weathermen terrorist gang and seizing control of the
      American deserters’ movement and organizations in Europe
      for Kissinger-directed operations against the USSR and East
      On the Cambridge Institute’s Board of Advisors and among
      the editors of their publication, the Working Papers, are most
      of the NSC’s top terrorist controllers and nuclear warfare
      planners including:
      * Noam Chomsky – the RAND Corporation artificial intelligence
      computer program designer and brainwash
      specialist; Bo Burlingham, the “ex” Weatherman Central
      Committee member, who ran the Paris section of the
      American Deserters’ Committee co-chairman; Emma
      Rothschild, the Rothschild family scion and Council on
      Foreign Relations genocidal food control planner; and Andrew
      Kopkind, American Deserters’ Committee espionage
      operative, “former” Weatherman Propaganda Minister, and’
      Real Paper editor.
      Every top Weatherman – now called the Weatherunderground
      – leader received his indoctrination, training,
      and marching orders from either the Institute for Policy
      Studies or the Cambridge Institute…”

      Quite incidentally, Propaganda/Public relations founding father Edward Bernays (Freud’s nephew) lived out his days in Cambridge, Massachusetts…

      UPenn, MIT, Harvard, Cambridge, the Institute for Policy Studies…

      Collectively a treasure trove of info that needs to be carefully combed and complemented with additional sources by anyone with a little time on their hands…

      • pearl says:

        Incredible. I’ve certainly got my reading cut out for me, all these fortified links you’ve contributed. Thanks so much, manbearpig! And speaking of Bernays, I’m about half way through “Century of the Self” documentary (thanks to the recommendation by all the boys in the “Tinfoil Farm Ripple Report” (hope I didn’t leave anyone out). Another jaw-dropping red pill moment for me; how does a documentary like that get broadcast on the BBC?!

        • manbearpig says:

          Hey Pearl! Just for the record, I don’t confuse sources with hearsay and it’s one thing to dig this stuff up by accident and quite another to actually have the time to really investigate it.

          It’s been only a short decade since my tumble down the rabbit hole and Chomsky and the notion of gatekeeping was one of my first major slaps in the face. Gatekeepers were almost more guilty than the actual perpetrators of terrible crimes as they enabled them by deflecting scrutiny.

          One of my very first comments on the InformationClearingHouse site (before getting kicked off) was to try to demonstrate that Chomsky was working for the secret services as I attempted clumsily to focus on his activities during the late 50s (before his alleged collaboration with the Washington D.C. based Institute for Policy Studies. I looked just long enough to discover that info on Chomsky’s early life seemed extraordinarily scarce (rather like info pertaining to Sibel Edmonds’ early life).

          Now I’m super late for work and since my computer died I have much less access to the internet which is mildly irritating.

          Take care! Be happy and tumble lightly!

          • pearl says:

            Oh no! That is so frustrating about your computer! I hope you get it resolved with as few headaches as possible.

            I’m 9 pages into Barry Zwicker’s chapter (linked below) and encouraged by his logical breakdown of the tried and true default “conspiracy theory” dismissal card. His is another name that’s new to me; good reading so far.

            Appreciate your clarification. I will take the other sources with a grain of salt, tuck their findings into my messy, disorganized mental file, and (as you so adequately nailed it) tumble lightly down these uncertain passages leading me away from La La Land.

  13. manbearpig says:

    The original link I enthousiastically explored in the last two comments was originally posted by Pablo de Boer in his comment just above.

    And this comments board would not be complete without a mention of Barrie Zwicker’s early dissection of Chomskian non-sequiturs etc…

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Back to Top