Prof. Noam Chomsky - Washington's Propaganda Is Orwellian

The famous history professor and social philosopher of MIT Noam Chomsky said that any news media that does not repeat Washington's propaganda in global affairs is intolerable, since they don't want Americans to know the culpability of the US in the various frictions going on in the world. ...So true to form, the House Foreign Affairs Committee formed a committee about how Russia is weaponizing information and dividing societies. ..

Basically what it comes down to is, they don't want the Russian media telling people what's really going on. ..after all, how can they run a country when only half the people are brain washed into believing things, and the other half are not? I mean they can't have people believing that when Washington says the 'international community' that there is no such consensus, that it is nothing more than what Washington wants it to be.

Of course in all this Russia is to blame, I mean shame on them for telling the American people what's really going on. Here are a few quotes of Noam Chomsky:


“The West means the United States and everyone else that goes along,” he said. “What’s called the international community in the United States is the United States and anyone who happens to be going along with it. Take, say, for example, the question of Iran’s right to carry out its current nuclear policies, whatever they are. The standard line is that the international community objects to this. Who is the international community? What the United States determines it to be.”

“any reader of [George] Orwell would be perfectly familiar with this. But it continues virtually without comment.”

“The most interesting one is the charge that Iran is destabilizing the Middle East because it’s supporting militias which have killed American soldiers in Iraq,” Chomsky told RT’s Alexey Yaroshevsky.

“That’s kind of as if, in 1943, the Nazi press had criticized England because it was destabilizing Europe for supporting partisans who were killing German soldiers. In other words, the assumption is, when the United States invades, it kills a couple hundred thousand people, destroys the country, elicits sectarian conflicts that are now tearing Iraq and the region apart, that’s stabilization. If someone resists that tact, that’s destabilization.”

“International law cannot be enforced against great powers,” he said. “There’s no enforcement mechanism. Take a look at the International Criminal Court, who has investigated and sentenced African leaders who the US doesn’t like. The major crime of this millennium, certainly, is the US invasion of Iraq. Could that be brought to the international court? I mean, it’s beyond inconceivable.”

“Basically, most of the population is disenfranchised,” he said, referring to public polling. “Their representatives pay no attention to their opinion. That’s roughly the lowest three-quarters on the bottom of the income scale. Move up the scale, you get a little more influence. At the top, essentially policy is made. That’s plutocracy, not democracy.”

http://rt.com/usa/250717-chomsky-media-ukraine-cuba/

 

The international community is a euphemism for the permanent members of the UN Security Council.

 

"The International Community" is
The Multi National Corporations that run governments & create the agenda.



Agenda? What a wonderful expansion of markets Ukraine would make, especially if they would have to exclude Russia.

The Villain,
The Multi National Corporations with no allegiance to any country.
Once envisioned as the Elders of Zion or Marxist nightmares
The Capitalist Villain has been realized.
International profiteers who would set the workers of one nation against those of another via wars for profit or the threat of unemployment unless a lower standard of living is accepted.
We use to have "tariffs" as expressed in the Constitution to protect the integrity of America from such shenanigans.
Consider, Jimmy Carter observed the Middle Class today live like "Poor People" of his administration.

What went wrong?
How did it go wrong?
It was the internationalist I tell ya, their avenue to foster international exploitations by those with no loyalty.


Moi
Yes I Mean It !


r > g
Credit is a fools bet

View attachment 34799
Ottawa did the above to the Provinces
that use to enjoy FREEDOM​

 

I believe Naom Chomsky is right when he asks: "Who is the international community? What the United States determines it to be.” China and Russia for instance are permanent members of the Security Council, and yet many times when the term international community was used, China and Russia were in disagreement with Washington.

 

Right now reading one of his books, i wish it cud be more popular in the west to open eyes of majority not a minority like now.

PS litwin its a must read, they won't pay u an euro for it but u ll be informed-))




Books name is "How the world works"

 

I don't doubt any more that the USA can strike a nuclear attack to New Zealand and accuse of it Putin.

 

This professors presents [himself] something self referring ... the reference to that notorious "international law".

No, international law doesn't exist. It exist a system of multilateral agreements which have got the force of laws in any single country according to how any single country adopt them and apply them.

In fact he reminds that there isn't a world authority to endorse any "international law.

For the rest, it doesn't need a MIT professor to say so banal things. US are The Superpower of reference and to defend their interests [overall to grant to Americans their level of life] US act as a Superpower, in all fields. Russia does the same in its own sphere of influence, like China, India ... What's new about this?

 

Many people don't like Chomsky but he hits the nail on the head here.

The "international community" certainly is what America says it is.

Western media is simply Goebbelian in its scope today and even though RT and Sputnik have their share of Russian propaganda and story slanting, I read them (and others besides) simply as an antidote to British and American news stories as I just can no longer trust them to be straight up and honest.

 

Hmm, I am afraid you are way too generous. It's not just minority, it's tiny fringe minority of western ultra-leftists extremists and other radicals who take him seriously.... People interested in politics are well aware of him, his writings and his views....and the overwhelming majority of these people reject him as as irrelevant extremist, catering to lunatics.

 

So when Washington has a coup in Ukraine and calls it democracy building, it's not Orwellian? And when Washington calls foreign jihadist terrorists in Syria moderates (Syrians) it's not Orwellian? And when people are protecting their cultural heritage, family and homes from an illegitimate government and they're called terrorists it's not Orwellian? Interesting!

 

The UN is the world authority, and there is international law, and there is an international court. Of course the US only uses it when it's to their benefit, otherwise it breaks it outright. There's a lot of politics involved, since the UN is dependent on funds which comes mostly from the US and the Sunni oil states, so the consensus might not always be objective.

What I find interesting is when an issue is being discussed at the UN, our Orwellian media will only publish what the American representative says, never what a foreign representative says. The last time Obama spoke he repeated one lie after the other to the delegates knowing that they are not stupid and are perfectly aware he was lying, so it was purely for the consumption of the American public.

The problem is whose interest is America defending? Is it the interests of the American people, or the interests of the lobbyists - such as the Pentagon and the military establishment, oil corporations, drug industries, agriculture industries, Israel, etc?

We're heading into WWIII because of our aggression and inhumane policies, is that in the interest of the American people...unless you think pitting Europe with Russia would be in our interest? I don't!

 

We do not like him because he is an idiot and has pretty much been debunked on everything outside of linguistics (of which he is brilliant.)

The man has flipped his stances so many times it would make your head spin. The ONLY reason he has any notoriety at all is because liberal professors continue to push him as some sort of genius but when you actually read his stuff, depending on which version he is using, its nothing but anarchical drivel.

 

That's exactly what I was describing in my previous post, he is a fringe extremist catering to a tiny number of anti-western lunatics.

 

One can always tell when a view is indefensible because of the ad hominem attacks.

 

Do you talk about the same Chomski who denied the Cambodian genocide. Some of his 'thoughts' about it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide_denial

His opinions on world affairs don't deserve a spot even in the most loony forum.

 

So you're saying that when our government calls a coup 'democracy building', and calls people protecting their homes and families from a fascist and illegitimate regime; terrorists, that it's not Orwellian? Well then I guess calling foreign terrorists; moderates, would not be considered Orwellian as well?

Does this also mean that bombing a foreign nation is not really an aggressive action, but a defensive one when its to our benefit, and that volunteers in a civil war should really be considered an invading army and that to say so is not Orwellian? I guess then Kerry is right when he said it's the objections to aggressions and bombings that are destabilizing the region and not the aggression itself...

 

No, the UN are the authority of the countries who accept that UN are an authority and only until they accept to consider UN an authority ... UN is a variable authority, its nature changes from global to local to useless according to the will of this or that power [not only US].

By the way, I don't pay taxes to UN and I don't vote the representatives of the General Assembly, so it's not a democratic institution ... then its "authority" is simply based on the level of agreements of the member states. Nothing else.

 

Of course it doesn't exists. Its been proved when USA attacked Iraq without approving of UN.

 

Or when Russia invaded Georgia without approving of UN ...

 

Perhaps u are not informed but its been proved by international community that Georgia started the war not Russia

 

but since its been mentioned only at the bottom line of the page 55 of the main stream media outlet - its not so well known as if it cud be told daily on the main page of all media sources worldwide... don't u feel urself as a victim now?

 

1) "he is an idiot" Are you listening to yourself ? You have obviously never read any of this books. What is idiotic is claiming someone is an idiot when you hardly know anything about this person.

What has been debunked ? Do you know what logical fallacy is ? If so then please tell me which one you have committed.

Then read your signature line Please.

 

But he is an idiot. Drawing parallels between Nazi Germany of 1943 and the USA as is featured in the OP is a sign of utter lunacy. Generally speaking all moral equivalence proponents (mostly anti-western leftist/anarchist extremists) are idiots and he is one of the biggest.

 

So what?

Ossetia had a particular status [I make reference to the second war]. As for I remember there were Russian peace keepers in South Ossetia. After that Georgians attacked Russians reacted. No problem with that. I was active on an American social network in those days and I discussed in a rude way with an American just because I defended Russians about their reaction ...

But on which base did Russians enter proper Georgian territory arriving at some kilometers far from Tbilisi?

Did UN General Assembly or UN Security Council give the permission to Russians to go that deep into Georgian territory?

 

If Chomsky was a Russian, living in Russia, saying these things about Russia, he would have been arrested and put in a Gulag for life.