Noam Chomsky’s “Requiem for the American Dream”: Jewish Activism by Omission

I discussed this video with Frodi Midjord on the Scandza Forum.

Noam Chomsky is, as this documentary notes, “widely regarded as the most influential intellectual of his time.” Given that Chomsky is on the left, it might seem that he has little to offer. But in many respects, his comments here reinforce many of the ideas linked to the populist right, although, as with the influence of the (never mentioned) Israel Lobby, he also has an very large blind spot when it comes to Jewish power. Chomsky, born in 1928, was already a superstar linguistics professor at MIT by the 1960s when he became a fixture among New Left activist intellectuals, joining such figures as Paul Goodman, Herbert Marcuse, and Howard Zinn. The documentary is really a history of America beginning in the 1950s seen through the eyes of a New Left intellectual.

Unlike the continued vilification of the 1950s that streams out of Hollywood, Chomsky labels the decade a relatively egalitarian “golden age,” noting that the relative wealth of the bottom 20% increased about as much as the top 20%, labor unions were strong, working class people could afford a home and a car, and taxes  (including taxes on capital gains and dividends) were relatively high on the wealthy. Nowadays we are told only about Jim Crow practices that still occurred  in the South in the 1950s, but Chomsky notes that Blacks were able to get good jobs working in automobile factories, etc.

All that changed, beginning with what Chomsky calls the “significant democratization” of the 1960s—the Civil Rights movement, feminism, and environmentalism. In my writing, both in The Culture of Critique and Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition, I regard the 1960s as a watershed, transformative decade, marking the rise of a new Jewish-dominated left-of-center elite based on power in media and the academic world. Chomsky does not agree, claiming that beginning in the 1970s there was a reaction against the 1960s that culminated in the relative dispossession of the working class. This is true as far as it goes, but it fails to come to note the rise of Jewish power in finance and business also occurred during this period.

In arguing for his position, Chomsky emphasizes that the 1970s marked the beginning of the rise of the financialization of the economy. Whereas in the 1950s manufacturing was 28% of the economy and finance 11%, the balance had reversed by 2010. Chomsky notes that companies like General Electric realized they could make more money with sophisticated financial maneuvering than by manufacturing. Complex financial instruments were invented and financial regulations that had been in place since the 1930s to prevent economic crashes were removed. And it was the beginning of outsourcing manufacturing to foreign countries with cheap labor and the consequent decline of labor unions and the economic and political power of the White working class. And when the complex financial instruments blew up (as happened in 2008 with collateralized debt obligations [the result of bundling good and bad (including “liar loans’) loans into one financial product]), the government bailed out “too big to fail” Wall Street but not individual homeowners.

As Chomsky notes, the result of these developments was rising economic inequality—the rise of the super-rich top 0.1 percent to unrivaled political power. Chomsky notes that the super-rich much prefer oligarchy to democracy and indeed the data support him. they are able to control the political process via donations to political candidates and control of media messages. Jews are recognized as the “financial engine of the left,” as Norman Podhoretz phrased it, and contribute around 75% of the funds for Democrats and probably at least 50% for Republicans (Sheldon’ Adelson’s generosity toward Trump. (A prominent example is Sheldon Adelson whose support of Trump [north of $200 million] is predicated on a pro-Israel foreign policy; in general the Republican Jewish Coalition favors a pro-Israel foreign policy and moving the party to the left on social issues like immigration and gender).

Illustrating the importance of media control, Chomsky notes that Obama’s presidential campaign received an award for the most effective public relations media campaign and he decries the Supreme Court’s decision in the Citizens United case which framed financial donations to political campaigns by corporations and labor unions as free speech, in effect further opening the gates for the wealthy to control the political system. He then notes this is quite unlike media corporations like CBS which are “supposed to be a public service.”

This of course, is absurd, implying that CBS (and by implication other mainstream media corporations) has no political biases and acts as a public service. CBS is part of ViacomCBS, whose major owners are the Sumner Redstone and his family, who are Jewish and whose values are typical of the liberal-left attitudes of the mainstream Jewish community (here, p. xlvi–lvi).

Chomsky clearly has a distaste for oligarchy but he fails to mention the very large body of writing by Jews opposed to populism—a major theme of The Culture of Critique, especially Chapter 5. As noted there, citing Paul Gottfried (After Liberalism) and Christopher Lasch (The True and Only Heaven):

In the post–World War II era The Authoritarian Personality became an ideological weapon against historical American populist movements, especially McCarthyism (Gottfried 1998; Lasch 1991, 455ff). “[T]he people as a whole had little understanding of liberal democracy and . . . important questions of public policy would be decided by educated elites, not submitted to popular vote” (Lasch 1991, 455).

In his 1963 book The Tolerant Populists,  Walter Nugent, was

explicit in finding that Jewish identification was an important ingredient in the [anti-populist] analysis, attributing the negative view of American populism held by some American Jewish historians (Richard Hofstadter, Daniel Bell, and Seymour Martin Lipset) to the fact that “they were one generation removed from the Eastern European shtetl [small Jewish town], where insurgent gentile peasants meant pogrom.” 

Indeed, another example comes from Chomsky which occurred well before the rise of Jews to cultural dominance. Walter Lippmann, also Jewish, is quoted as writing in 1925 “The public must be put in its place.” Throughout European history down to the Soviet Union and post-World War II communist societies in Eastern Europe, Jews have always made alliances with ruling elites, often alien ruling elites and often in opposition to other sectors of the population.

Chomsky’s blinders on the media and populism are part of a larger pattern. Chomsky sees post-1960s America as a backlash against the 1960s but in fact the post-1960s America described by Chomsky is the result of the same forces that produced the 1960s counter-cultural revolution: the rise of Jewish power discussed in The Culture of Critique. Chomsky fails to mention that Wall Street and corporate America are decidedly on the left when it comes to the social issues that came to prominence in the 1960s: civil rights (now morphed into racial identity politics for all non-Whites), feminism (now morphed into gender identity politics), and the environment (now dominated by “climate change”). Leftist attitudes on these issues pervade elite media, the academic world, and corporate America.

And he fails to mention that Wall Street is well known to be a center of Jewish power. In his 1999 book, The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State Benjamin Ginsberg claimed that Jews comprised 50% of Wall Street executives. It’s doubtless at least that high now, and that number doesn’t really get at the extent of Jewish control of key Wall Street players like Goldman Sachs.

Kevin Phillips provides some detail on Chomsky’s economic history of America since the 1980s:

My summation is that American financial capitalism, at a pivotal period in the nation’s history, cavalierly ventured a multiple gamble: first, financializing a hitherto more diversified U.S. economy; second, using massive quantities of debt and leverage to do so; third, following up a stock market bubble with an even larger housing and mortgage credit bubble; fourth, roughly quadrupling U.S. credit-market debt between 1987 and 2007, a scale of excess that historically unwinds; and fifth, consummating these events with a mixed fireworks of dishonesty, incompetence and quantitative negligence.

The Occidental Observer has posted 44 articles on the topic of Jews in the Economy/Finance. (This link goes to the most recent of these articles, Edmund Connelly’s “Jews and Vulture Capitalism: A Reprise.” If you scroll to the bottom of the page there are links to the other articles in this topic—an awkward system; will fix.) Connelly has contributed several other articles on these topics, including “The Culture of Deceit” illustrating the legitimacy of financial fraud within the mainstream Jewish community and several articles on how the Jewish role in financial manipulation has been airbrushed by Hollywood. Also included in this collection are are several articles by Andrew Joyce (“Vulture Capitalism Is Jewish Capitalism,” Paul Singer and the Universality of Anti-Semitism,” and “Jews and Moneylending: A Contemporary Case File), and by me (“Does Jewish Financial Misbehavior Have Anything To Do with Being Jewish?” and “Now Comes the Anger.”

Finally, another enormous blindspot is Chomsky’s never mentioning immigration at all, despite its tranformative effects on America. Chomsky dutifully mentions the role of outsourcing jobs in compromising the interests of the working class but never mentions that immigration is a major part of the reason for wage stagnation since 1970 as well as forcing working-class Whites to move out of formerly White areas in areas like Southern California which have been inundated by immigration. Chomsky champions a class-based politics, but the Democratic Party, formerly the bastion of labor unions, has become the party of diversity, embodying all the themes of the 1960s counter-cultural revolution and ignoring the interests of their White working-class constituents, with the result that the White working class was the largest group supporting Donald Trump with his populist rhetoric during the 2016 election. Because of importing of millions of non-Whites, the class-based politics of the 1950s has been destroyed in favor of a coalition of non-Whites and upper-middle-class White liberals (Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition, Chapter 8).

Another blind spot is free speech. Free speech was a rallying cry for the Old Left in the 1950s and for the New Left in the 1960s, at a time when the anti-communist movement was able to force professors to sign loyalty oaths. The original 1960s protest movement at the University of California was called the Berkeley Free Speech movement. Even during the 1950s, Jews were deeply involved in creating a culture of the left that was mainly concerned to protect communist professors and other leftist dissidents, such as Hollywood screen writers, targeted by McCarthyism. Inherit the Wind (by Jerome Lawrence Schwartz and Robert Edwin Lee) was written to oppose McCarthyism. Another famous example of anti-McCarthyism from the 1950s is Arthur Miller’s The Crucible which implicitly condemned the  House Un-American Activities  Committee by comparing it to the Salem witch trials. Although quite powerful, the culture of the left was not yet the dominant elite that it has become since the 1960s.

Chomsky thinks that free speech is still championed by the left, but he is sorely mistaken. The rise of the new elite has coincided with the power of organizations that support leftist attitudes on free speech—organizations like the now discredited Southern Poverty Law  Center and the ADL that  specialize in getting people fired for  thought crimes and care nothing  for  free speech. Mainstream conservatives are  prevented from speaking at universities or greeted with riots and protests. There is clearly an  ethnic aspect to this transformation,  with Jewish organizations acting as leading proponents of “hate speech” legislation throughout the West. While there are endless tears (see here and here, pp. 39–40) for Hollywood screenwriters blacklisted during the anti-communist fervor of the 1950s and since promoted to cultural sainthood, don’t  expect our new elite to condemn witch hunts like the ones that have targeted right-wing dissidents, many of whom have been fired from their jobs and ostracized from their families and friends. And don’t expect a hit Broadway play based on an allegory in which the ADL or the SPLC are condemned for their persecution of race realists and White advocates.

Since Chomsky, the renowned professor of linguistics, is an intelligent person, it’s hard to believe that he is not aware of all this. Of course, self-deception is always a possibility.

54 replies
  1. Chris Moore
    Chris Moore says:

    You describe Chomsky as having a “blindspot” for his Hebrew syndicate and their racketeering, bad deeds and criminal conspiracies, but that’s like saying the Ancien Regime had a blindspot for the monarchy and royal abuses. The (self-serving) blindspot is baked into the syndicate. Hence Chomsky pretends not to see the divide and rule agenda adopted by his syndicate, or frames his syndicate’s divide and rule strategy as a civil rights initiative, when in reality the goal is and always has been the Hebrew syndicate oligarchy outcome that we increasingly have today.

    For example, I don’t for a second believe that Chomsky doesn’t know that Hebrew syndicates dominate MSM, and that left-liberal propaganda that comes out of MSM is designed to serve the Hebrew supremacist agenda of divide and rule. But he chooses to frame it as a generic class/capitalist conspiracy of manufacturing consent and totally ignores the more salient ethnic conspiracy angle. True, divide and rule is a technique employed by corrupt elites everywhere, but divide and rule specifically to shill for the (proven) Hebrew syndicate that politically, economically and culturally dominates America is what’s going on here.

    And then there’s the censorship. Imagine trying to wage an info war against the Ancien Regime, but not being allowed to name it and the royalist network of which it was comprised. That’s the advantage that the Hebrew oligarchy has today by utilizing, for example, Holocaust narrative propaganda.

    Where does Chomsky stand on manufacturing consent to Holocaust propaganda (by shouting anti-Semitism and Nazism at anyone who raises the subject)? Exactly where you’d expect a beneficiary of the Hebrew rackets to stand: in silence.

    This isn’t to say there are no High IQ conspiracies in America that aren’t Hebrew supremacist, but rather that the biggest, most dangerous and far reaching conspiracy is the network of Hebrew fascists and crypto fascists that has hijacked this nation and is using it for its own Zionist and Talmudist ends.

      • michael severson
        michael severson says:

        Very well put, very so true. The analogy is fit.

        I have wondered too many times with Chomsky’s message/philosophy, which it is, really, and noticed too many overlooked issues.
        Of the overlooked issues, that is one way of glossing aside something that won’t be addressed.

        You may share my appreciation and agreement, as to your comment and to the content of the Occidental Observer analysis.

    • Richard B
      Richard B says:

      “Hence Chomsky pretends not to see the divide and rule agenda adopted by his syndicate, or frames his syndicate’s divide and rule strategy as a civil rights initiative, when in reality the goal is and always has been the Hebrew syndicate oligarchy outcome that we increasingly have today.”


      It’s impossible, for those who move through the world with eyes open, not to come to the conclusion that Jewish Supremacy Inc. is a criminal operation that constructs and clings to victim narratives to conceal their criminal pathology.

      It’s so unbelievably, heartbreakingly sad and beyond infuriating, that the entire history of the human race has led to this moment, with them in power.

      But I still maintain another conclusion I came to long ago. That the best they’ll ever manage is a Pyrrhic Victory.

  2. Iconoclast
    Iconoclast says:

    Chomsky can be worth listening to but unfortunately you always have to try to see how he is “gate-keeping” for his race which causes cognitive dissonance when trying to sort out what is what.
    I remember him saying something to the effect that 911 should just be forgotten about and we should just move on, no doubt he would say the same about the USS Liberty.

  3. Richard B
    Richard B says:

    Good to read another article from KM. It’s been a while.

    Looking forward to reading part II.

    This might seem off topic, but it’s not.

    No need to explain why it isn’t to TOO writers and readers.

    It’s certainly symptomatic of the influence of Jewish power in the USA, or, what I prefer to refer to as Jewish Supremacy Inc.

    This one minute video of Dr. Carol J. Baker, Baylor College of Medicine and Texas Children’s Hospital is truly a must see.

    Perhaps many here have already seen it. I haven’t and thought I’d share it here in the event that others haven’t either.

  4. Eric
    Eric says:

    Whether on the Left or on the Right — and in whatever nation happens to be hosting them — Jews will try to undermine the average non-Jewish person. History has demonstrated that fact over and over again.

    In the United States, the average non-Jewish person has been a white working-class or middle-class man or woman of Christian heritage.

    As the Jews gain power, the well-being of the average American (as described above) declines.

    So increasing Jewish influence on the Democrat Party has caused that party to stop defending its traditional white working class constituency. Instead, Democrat leaders viciously attack that constituency as undeserving trailer trash. They promote a policy of replacing white people with brown people from foreign countries — a policy of white genocide through:

    * Mass Third World immigration

    * Forced racial integration

    * Promotion of miscegenation (breeding of whites out of existence)

    * “Affirmative action” programs that discriminate against whites (especially white males)

    * The deliberate fomenting of outright hatred of whites based on false historical narratives

    * A mythology of “white privilege” that completely ignores a much more significant Jewish privilege and ignores the fact that whites are the only racial group in the United States that is perfectly legal to discriminate against.

    Jewish influence on the Republican Party has transformed “conservatism” from a defense of tradition and custom to a “Leftism-Lite” where the only significant difference between liberals and conservatives is that conservatives pause for a few seconds, minutes, months or years before abjectly surrendering to the Left.

    So a “conservative” will say that he wants “even more” Third World immigration, “but it has to be legal.”

    He’ll strenuously deny that he’s racist. “I don’t see color.”

    He won’t even talk about affirmative action (legalized discrimination against whites and males) anymore. That battle was given up long ago.

    When it comes to enacting policies and legislation, his true self will come into view: Nation, tradition, culture — they count for nothing.

    Confederate statues torn down? He supports it, or at least doesn’t seriously object.

    Diversity (discrimination against white males)? He supports it, or at least doesn’t seriously object.

    The only thing that excites his interest is finding ways to make the very rich even richer — by importing cheap labor and offshoring jobs and companies to nations where labor can be had for cheap.

    To be sure, he’ll make nationalist and patriotic noises about “defending America.”

    But what sort of “defense” is he talking about? Attacking small, weak countries half way around the world that are no threat to the United States. All so that arms dealers and related industries can make money.

    He’ll talk about the Constitution, defending individual freedom, standing up for our God-given rights, small government, fiscal responsibility, and “the land of the free and the home of the brave.”

    Then he’ll approve of spying on American citizens and denying them their constitutional rights in the name of “national security.”

    He’ll go along with locking down the country and denying the people their rights and liberties in the name of protecting them from an obviously lied-about and almost certainly fake pandemic.

    It has been interesting to watch the Republicans in Congress for the last few weeks: Hardly a peep out of them about their constituents’ civil liberties being trampled upon. Instead, they’ve carried on “politics as usual,” talking about Biden, Flynn, and other topics that aren’t especially relevant at a time when America is being transformed into a police state.

    As for being “against Big Government” and “deficit spending,” that is a preposterous lie, judging from the Republicans’ grudging approval of lavishly funding everything form the Iraq War, to Wall Street during the crisis of ’08, to the Cares Act windfall for billionaires right now.

    Rising Jewish influence has transformed liberal Democrats into Cultural Marxists. Rising Jewish influence has transformed conservative Republicans into globalists.

    The dirty little secret that Americans have yet to discover is that Cultural Marxism (white genocide and trampling on individual rights) and globalism are like two peas in a pod — perfectly compatible with each other.

    • Karen
      Karen says:

      Excellent comments, Eric.

      I want to say that I enjoyed watching the video clips. Time well spent. Thank you, TOO.

  5. Jody Vorhees
    Jody Vorhees says:

    It is common for accomplices to murder to later attend the victim’s funeral and to then make loud lamentation.

  6. Trenchant
    Trenchant says:

    No mention of the Fed’s fundamental role in the creation of private and public debts, without which foreign wars and social programs would meet taxpayer resistance.

  7. Junghans
    Junghans says:

    Thank you again Kevin for another spot on article on the kosher left, and their corrosive machinations. For the last century or so, ever hostile Jewry has been deceitfully conducting a SLOW MOTION ANTI-WHITE RACIAL POGROM. This subversive, low level race war has gradually escalated over the years to where it is becoming ever more obvious for what it, (in actual fact) really is.

    With the current financial melt-down occurring, it remains to be seen how the on-going economic debacle is going to play out socially and politically over time. Now that the bubble economy has burst, hard reality is going to come into play. The hijacked system itself is going to be hard pressed to contain the economic and racial damage it has wrought. Will most Whites finally come to realize the existential danger, and their literal dispossession, after having imbibed a lifetime of toxic, kosher ideological kool aid? I would suspect that we are going to find out in the coming….very stressful years.

  8. Armoric
    Armoric says:

    According to Chomsky, the super-rich are able to control the political process via donations to political candidates and control of media messages…

    But Jewish money isn’t enough to explain why there are no pro-White media and no pro-White political parties, and why you can’t have a peaceful pro-White rally in Charlottesville. The Jews do not simply buy the media and the politicians, they are able to shut down the opposition, including internet opposition, by shutting down bank accounts, using intimidation, defamation and violence, with the complicity of the judicial system. It’s a Jewish anti-White dictatorship.

    “Jews are recognized as the “financial engine of the left,” as Norman Podhoretz phrased it”

    I would say they are the financial hijackers and subverters of the left. The Jewish-manipulated left is no longer the left. They see themselves as “New Left intellectuals”, and “left-of-center elites” with “liberal-left attitudes”. I see them as shameless frauds.

  9. bruno
    bruno says:

    Good to see that Kevin is writing again. I was worried, as he had not appeared for a while. As for Chomsky, as kid he studied like most Zs. Obviously he’s smart. However, his reputation as super intelligent has been manufactured by Zs. I once bought a DVD book composed by him and it was simply praising third worlders and knocking what was at that time W America.

  10. Reb Kittredge
    Reb Kittredge says:

    Wonderful review. Chomsky’s intellectual career is a prism through which to view Jewish thinking in this country. His greatest mark on intellectual history was his critical review of BF Skinner’s Verbal Behavior in the late 1950s. He is widely credited with destroying behaviorism as a psychological paradigm. Interestingly, his alternative theory was a nativist, mentalistic model that replaced Skinner’s blank slateism. So, Chomsky is useful for several reasons.

  11. Surtr
    Surtr says:

    I have to admit being persuaded quite a bit by Chomsky. His Manufacturing Consent still has an enormous impact on me as with a number of his arguments. The problem that I have is that it is also responsible for a great deal of mistrust of the chattering class (academics included) that I still struggle with greatly to this day. I grew up in the working class. For as long as I can remember we have been sold out by academics and politicians that artfully pay lip service. To this day, the only one I really trust to represent the working class is a genuine working class member such as a plumber or electrician or something. I think it comes down to an actions speak louder than words authenticity issue. This became more meaningful to me when I found out that the whole idea of communism was the working class be in control of its own labor. So why then should not the working class be in control of its own advocacy and representation? The other issue came when I listened to Yuri Bezmenov. I realized that if you write one of the defining books on propaganda (Manufacturing Consent), then why should someone such as myself not consider that very book to be a work of propaganda itself? It becomes a what’s in a name sort of issue. I turn toward Yuri Bezmenov more and more everyday over Chomsky now. His insights are off the charts as far as I am concerned, but I do not want to come across as seeing myself in either Bezmenov’s, Chomsky’s, or MacDonald’s intellectual league. I have openly admitted to not seeing much of myself intellectually repeatedly, and yet as with all people I strive to be more and try to develop as others do. Sadly I see myself as a bull in a china chop when it comes to my own personal development, so my words and thoughts should be taken with skepticism as well unfortunately.

    • Anne
      Anne says:

      Surtr, your comment about seeing Chomsky in a new light after listening to Bezmenov was very insightful. I too used to think Chomsky was someone to be admired intellectually, although nowadays I see him more as a first-class charlatan.

      And don’t underestimate your own kind of intelligence – the practical kind that is (to our detriment) far too undervalued in modern society. My husband has both an engineering and a trades background, and he laments the time when engineers used to come from the trades instead of universities. In his experience, too many academically educated modern engineers lack the genuine aptitude and innovative capacity of their earlier, more hands-on counterparts who started their careers in the trades.

  12. Kevin MacDonald
    Kevin MacDonald says:

    I have added some material on Chomsky’s comments on free speech as well as a link to my discussion of the documentary with Frodi Midjord as part of the Scandza Forum series.

  13. JR Kipling
    JR Kipling says:

    If a new edition of “The Culture of Critique” is ever written. Noam Chomsky deserves a chapter of his own. Unlike Freud or Boaz, Noam Chomsky commands an intellectual movement that is very much alive. The Campus Left and “Critical Theory” has been more successful than any movement in world history. It has corrupted every aspect Western Civilization. Its most recent advance are marked by last nights media broadcast, or the last corporate advertisement you or political speech you endured promoting the themes of Diversity, Inclusion, Equality, Tolerance. The Campus Left created Barack Obama and repudiated him for not having gone far enough.Critical Theory has driven every campaign to stop, destroy, or impeach Donald Trump. It controls ever corner of our civilization. Hard line Communism hid in the shadows pursued by the FBI. Jewish Critical Theory operates openly on every public stage and is enforced by highest officers of the FBI

    It does no good to say Chomsky doesn’t support this or that item of the Progressive agenda. Critical Theory believes in nothing but itself. Any positive manifestation of any kind must be criticized and destroyed and that includes Israel. This impulse is unconscious and automatic. Kevin MacDonald points out that while Chomsky laments the destruction of revolutionary ideals of the 1960’s, Chomsky also completely fails to see that what followed for the next 50 years was a projection of those ideals. Its a stunning admission by Chomsky that he lacks the slightest self awareness about this.. Its like watching a Communist excusing the mass graves and economic failures because, after all, real Communism was never attempted..
    Today Chomsky pretends to lament the destruction of the American “worker” forgetting that his ideas destroyed that man and his culture. But for Chomsky “worker” is never anything but an abstract term. Chomsky wants nothing to do with actual flesh and blood men who come with unwanted allegiances, allegiances which Critical Theory is dedicated to destroy.
    Kevin MacDonald seems to lament failing to make common ground with Chomsky. There is no common ground with him or any of his minions. . When Chomsky smiles it looks like an inhuman rictus torn out of him against his better judgement. It is a quality shared with all his followers. With them there only Critical Theory .. and it has fueled a hatred that has gone on decade after decade; corrosive and obsessive. It is a droning narration of deliberately twisted narratives, factoids without context, deceptive statistics, inflated body counts, intertwining conspiracies of fantastic complexity that can only be confuted once one digs deep into some archive, and there is never the time to do that. For 60 years every unfortunate event whether Latin American coups, Islamic terror attacks , African tribal massacres have all been laid with utmost maliciousness at the doorstep of America. There can be no common ground with these people.

    Watching the Chomsky/ William F. Buckley debate dated April 3, 1969 Chomsky pretends to be in possession of secret State Department communiques concerning Gulf of Tonkin Incident in order to shut down Buckley. Who knows if they exist? Who can reconstruct the context in which that information originally existed? Fifty yeas later Chomsky is claiming the US Government funded the Wuhan virus. The tactics and goals never change but few have an explanation of why Chomsky does it.

    Control for the sake of control is why Chomsky does it. Chomsky doesn’t argue in good faith. He creates an impregnable Talmudic labyrinth of words . That is what drew him to a Ph.D in Linguistics. The goal ha always been power and the mission the extirpation of a civilization. Chomsky has been called a “leading intellectual”, but there is absolutely nothing of benefit to show for his intellectual work. Only wreckage. While Chomsky has had passionate opinions on every public or historical event for the last six decades.Ideas which he claims are of immense benefit to the world, he has never run for political office, never created a company, or met a payroll or fired anyone or made any effort to implement his ideas. Instead he has been content winning classroom arguments with 19 year old students. Pathetically for Chomsky this game never grows old.

    Chomsky is the master Jewish Intellectual of our age, Which says he is the newest iteration of a very old war consisting of endless talk, and theory trying to countervail the dominant culture. It is in essence a Jewish conversation with itself that began at the foot of The Cross and was codified in the 60 volumes of fine print legal opinion called The Talmud, a book written over centuries by exiled Jews trying to prove that Christ never happened. They are still talking.

    Today Noam Chomsky is 91 years old. Which means he was walking the halls of MIT during the Korean War.. (no doubt kvetching about American hypocrisy in thwarting the freedom loving armies of Kim il Sung). Indeed a Letter to the Editor exists dated 1937 written by 8 year old Avriam Noam Chomsky passionately denouncing Francisco Franco and all forms of European nationalism. Intellectual formation this early argues that Noam Chomsky’s politics are not the result of Marxist dogma, nor is it an evolving philosophy that changes as new facts or more experience is gained. It argues that Chomsky’s modes of thought are not learned, but absorbed at a very early age from Talmudic Judaism. No one spots this. Instead they all try to catch Chomsky in some factual error or misstatement. It never works. Facts don’t matter.
    Dealing with nihilism this total is exasperating. If you ask Chomsky what Chomsky really wants.. you get some abstract burble about “peace” or “justice” But there is no actual real world historical environment Chomsky finds acceptable. If pressed Chomsky will mention an admiration for the Anarchist militias of 1937 Barcelona. This is hilarious. Chomsky has entombed himself alive in Academia . The air conditioner hums, the filing cabinets and the fluorescent lights and linoleum are eternal The monthly pay check is slipped under the door, and one day the pension check arrives. Chomsky pretends to dislike centralized power, but nothing has been more institutionalized, bureaucratic, centrally controlled and routinized than Noam Chomsky’s life. Chomsky has known exactly what he will be doing at any hour of any day years ahead of time and will be peevishly indignant if anything deviates from that schedule. . And yet he pretends to himself that he would have been happy just living another day in the trenches of the Aragon Front. Being buried alive in Academia did give Noam Chomsky what he really wanted more than anything, which was control. It gave him the role of “Gatekeeper”. a position from which Critical Theory could be leveraged to control and destroy a whole civilization through the indoctrination of its young.

    Chomsky arrived on the American scene at the height of that civilization’s grandeur. It is hard to imagine any time in human history more filled with confidence, promise, prosperity and domestic tranquility than 1950’s America. But for Noam Chomsky it was intolerable. He spent his entire life poisoning that country with Critical Theory until nothing was left. Today Chomsky’s “critique” is repeated in the mouths of every quarter-witted graduate coming off the Higher Education assembly line. .

    After the war and the Holocaust the West lost its will to defend itself against Jewish intellectual subversion.. and that failure, more than anything, was its undoing. To see that that struggle encapsulated witness the Life and Thoughts of Noam Chomsky, Ph.D.

    • ChilledBee
      ChilledBee says:

      Excellent comment, J.R.

      “After the war and the Holocaust the West lost its will to defend itself against Jewish intellectual subversion”

      This sentence encapsulates so succinctly the reason America has become so corrupt and beyond redemption. Seeing old videos from 1950’s America certainly highlights the irreparable, intentional damage that can be inflicted upon a country in 70 years. I can’t imagine the horrors that await America once they have been in power for a whole century.

      • moneytalks
        moneytalks says:

        Here is another gem by commenter JR Kipling __

        ” Critical Theory believes in nothing but itself.”

        which succinctly answers the question of why jewish Critical Theory is the most destructive intellectual tool ever used against western civilization .

        • Armoric
          Armoric says:

          “the most destructive intellectual tool”

          I don’t think critical theory needs to be taken seriously. It is probably just nonsense. What’s destructive is the Jews themselves. Their subversion doesn’t rely on intellectual power, persuasive arguments or any theory, but on hijacking institutions through bribery, intimidation, and other dirty tricks. Once in power, they resort to censorship and replace the intellectual debate with gobbledygook, so as to stifle real intellectual life. Critical theory is probably little more than an academic space filler. Any influence it has is due to the censorship of normal White people.

          Some Jews may honestly believe in Marxism and psychoanalysis, just like Muslims honestly believe in the Coran. But they still have ethnic motivations. There is no magical power in the writings of Marx, Freud, Mohammed, and “critical theorists”. Their success, and Chomsky’s success, always depended on tribal support. The same is true of other Jewish movements like phony antiracism, transsexualism, artistic modernism, anti-protectionism, etc.

          Jewish theories are accepted in spite of their absurdity because they come from the top institutions. So, the best way to discredit them is not by seriously criticizing their content, but by helping people see the hijacking of our institutions and the Jewish racial animus behind it.

          Some Jewish theories, like critical theory, are based on the ramblings of Jewish charlatans. But the Jews can also seize any legitimate discussion and push it in a crazy direction. In the current virus crisis, they are clearly not helping us to get moral and intellectual clarity. They stir up craziness in the media and agitate against reasonable voices. They have been at it for so long that we now have a lack of competent, rational, responsible people in the administration. A lot of politicians now think it’s all right to just stop the economy and keep importing millions of non-Whites. It’s like being in an airplane without a pilot.

          • moneytalks
            moneytalks says:

            I doubt that critical theory is ” just nonsense “. However , as you astutely noted

            ” What’s destructive is the Jews themselves.”

            You could say that a toothpick is harmless nonsense until a maniac comes at you with it to pick out your eyeballs .

            Therefore , I would agree with your implied insinuation that critical theory is like a knife that is harmless until someone wields it against you . In the case of Critical Theory , which was established by jewish intellectuals of the german Frankfurt School , it is the most powerful intellectual tool used by ” the jews ” to destroy White western civilization — as commenter JR Kipling brilliantly and concisely noted .

            Critical theory is to analytic philosophy what the Gaussian Distribution ( aka The Bell Curve ) is to mathematics — the most studied formulation in mathematical history .

            If you can find an intellectual tool that has been studied and developed more than Critical Theory , then please let us know about it .

            See Critical Theory articles in the jew owned and dominated Wikipedia at this link __


    • Dave Bowman
      Dave Bowman says:

      Thank you so much, JR, for genuinely one of the sharpest, clearest, most focused, perfectly-worded, piercingly-accurate and altogether heartening comments I’ve ever read on this site – or anywhere else on the internet. Your last-but-two paragraph beginning “Dealing with nihilism…” is simply masterful. You have pin-pointed Chomsky’s breath-taking self-deception and laughable ivory-tower ignorance, to a degree of perfection.

      Long before I understood that most chattering-class opinions are worthless I believed profoundly that, no matter how many statements I heard or words I read to the effect of Chomsky’s genius, and no matter how many plaudits from a thousand fawning sycophants were heaped on his head, he was in reality simply an over-valued and over-promoted journeyman, an insecure windbag masking his incompetence and self-deceit with the same unceasing Ashkenazi verbal diarrhea which has forever been symptomatic of a tedious, pretentious Levantine charlatan and fraud. He is full of nothing more than his own self-importance, and in the past has actually come close to admitting in stray moments that he is mostly concerned with the safe-guarding of his own position, and his golden pension.

      And, like every one of his ethnic brethren in the public eye across the planet, he is also constitutionally incapable of ever seeing or measuring the depths of his own gross, disfiguring and shameful moral hypocrisy.

  14. TJ
    TJ says:

    . . .House Un-American Activities Committee. . .no such creature
    It was House Committee on Un-American Activities
    The left reversed the words to make it seem that the committee itself was un-American

    If one searches for the correct name, HUAC is what appears

  15. Smart guy
    Smart guy says:

    I saw a video of him a while ago where he was explaining that Anarchists demand all power structures justify themselves. I thought “why doesn’t he demand that the Jewish power structure justify itself” – but the answer is obvious.

  16. Tom
    Tom says:

    Chomsky never impressed me as a political thinker because he’s simply not original in any of his viewpoints. I think his appeal and following lie in the way he delivers his sermons with an overwhelming smug self-assurance that enraptures the true believers on the Left. Heck, how can the guy be wrong when he knows he’s right? But for me, the points on which he is “correct” are virtual platitudes that can be adopted by many of differing political persuasions. Patrick Buchanan is certainly no man of the Left yet if it were up to him America would have stopped playing world’s policeman decades ago. So, one doesn’t have to be a leftist to decry, for example, American military imperialism abroad.
    However, where Chomsky is dead wrong, wherein also all leftists are dead wrong, is in the outrageous presumption that civil society is his (or theirs) to “democratize” in any manner he or they see fit. This proposition is like an exercise in total stupidity yet it comprises the untested intellectual base upon which all leftist politics rests. Chomsky and the rest of the quacks on the Left really are so dumb that they view civil society as a giant nursery school that they have the right to control. My middle finger goes out to these useless jackasses on the Left who have never contributed anything significant to society’s technological and material progress. Then again, I’m a deplorable.

  17. Bill Karenin
    Bill Karenin says:

    Noam Chomsky is a proverbial lightweight.

    In a seminal article from 1970 in Language, Professor Hans Aarsleff of Princeton University exposed this pretender, and for that matter, provocateur.

    From Aarsleff:

    Language, vol. 46, no. 3, Sept. 1970, pp. 570-585
    “The History of Linguistics and Professor Chomsky”

    “I must conclude with the firm belief that I do not see that anything at all useful can be salvaged from Chomsky’s version of the history of linguistics. That version is fundamentally false from beginning to end—because the scholarship is poor, because the texts have not been read, because the arguments have not been understood, because the secondary literature that might have been helpful has been left aside or unread, even when referred to. The nearly hysterical reception that has greeted Cartesian linguistics has already had its consequences. The book catalogs are bursting with announcements of series that will reprint all that pertains to ‘Cartesian linguistics’, and texts are being read as if they were Cartesian when in fact they are not. Universal grammar is profoundly important in the history of linguistics, but Chomsky’s account fails to grasp both the nature and the history of that importance. In the meantime, other equally important aspects of the study of language in history are being ignored. A good example is Leibniz. He took the study of words, of dialects, of etymology and meanings to be worth practically all of the time he spent on the study of language (his ‘philosophical language’ is not concerned with natural languages and is thus another subject). In the as yet unpublished ‘Epistolaris de historia etymologica dissertatio’, he cites at least two hundred little-known works from the 16th and 17th centuries (cf. Aarsleff 1969b). These works constitute a very significant body of work pertaining to the history of the study of language. Yet, with a very few exceptions, they are totally forgotten and ignored today; they do not appear in attempts to deal with the history of linguistics, and are not listed in the reprint catalogs. Professor Chomsky has significantly set back the history of linguistics. Unless we reject his account, we will for a long while have no genuine history, but only a succesion of enthusiastic and ignorant variations on false themes.”

    We could’ve also listened to the Apostle Paul who 2000 years ago by direct revelation warned us not to give “heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn away from the truth.”

    Had we had ears to hear what the great Apostle to the Gentiles instructed us, we should not have listened to Chomsky, Harold Bloom, Theodore Adorno, or any of the other like miscreants who’ve plagued the course of human history.

    • smart guy
      smart guy says:

      I believe Herman Rosenblat said something very similar. “It wasn’t a lie. In my imagination, it was true”.

      • Dave Bowman
        Dave Bowman says:

        Not, of course, forgetting…

        “Some things are true which never happened” – Elie Wiesel.

  18. TJ
    TJ says:



    Eugenicist thinking was revived by scientists convinced that the human species had exceeded the “carrying capacity” of its ecosystem. The most prominent was Paul Ehrlich, whose scientific specialty was the study of butterflies. Undeterred by his ignorance of agriculture and economics, he published confident predictions of imminent global famine in The Population Bomb (1968). Agricultural economists dismissed his ideas, but the press reverently quoted Ehrlich and other academics who claimed to have scientifically determined that the Earth was “overpopulated.” In the journal Science, ecologist Garrett Hardin argued that “freedom to breed will bring ruin to all.” Ehrlich, who, at one point, advocated supplying American helicopters and doctors to a proposed program of compulsory sterilization in India, joined with physicist John Holdren in arguing that the U.S. Constitution would permit population control, including limits on family size and forced abortions. Ehrlich and Holdren calmly analyzed the merits of various technologies, such as adding sterilants to public drinking water, and called for a “planetary regime” to control population and natural resources around the world.

  19. Frozy
    Frozy says:

    I agree, Noam Chomsky might be what he is, on the left, and with blind spots towards some influences as described in this article. But as far as free speech is concerned, he has displayed courage like very few people on the planet are capable of, at least in one instance I know of. He accepted to preface the book by Pr Faurisson “Memoire en defense (1980)” with an essay entitled “Some Elementary Comments on the Rights of Freedom of Expression”. When the ensuing fury, accusations of treason, opprobrium and the like came from the usual circles, he refused to back down one inch, at a point where 99% of known academics in the Western world would have instantly rolled into grovelling and abject supplications for mercy. Since that time, I will listen to the man, if only the great courage he displayed then. I can take my pick of what he says, and disagree with him, generally along he lines mentioned in this article.

    • Armoric
      Armoric says:

      Chomsky’s preface to Faurisson’s work is here: (Oct 1980) (Feb 1981)

      Excerpt: “it is precisely in the case of horrendous ideas that the right of free expression must be most vigorously defended”

      Chomsky’s argument is that popular opinions need no protection because they can’t be banned anyway. By that logic, only unpopular opinions need protection. But he is wrong. First of all, not all unpopular opinions should be allowed in the media. We are better off banning the apology of pedophilia. The free speech ideal doesn’t have to be blindly applied to degenerate views.

      Secondly, many popular opinions are banned by the Jewish minority, especially opinions that go against the ideology of replacing White people with Brown migrants.

      Chomsky says that Faurisson seems to be “a relatively apolitical liberal of some sort” but should still have a right to free speech if he was a horrendous man with horrendous ideas. That sounds to me like an insult, more than a defense.

      WW2 revisionism may be horrendous to the Jews, but most people don’t have an opinion about it. What Chomsky should have said is that there is no moral justification for the Jewish minority to censor White people. Instead of that, his preface blamed the lack of free speech on French intellectuals, as if (((Pierre Vidal-Naquet))) had been a French intellectual.

      Faurisson should have been praised for politely presenting facts and arguments. By comparison, Jewish activists are aggressive, violent, dishonest, and don’t care about evidence.

      One thing I’ve learned from the revisionists: it’s not just that gas chamber “witness accounts” are implausible, but there are very few of them in the first place. That’s why the Jews have to rely on their own intimate conviction. It’s like a supernatural revelation.

    • Rerevisionist
      Rerevisionist says:

      Chomsky made it perfectly clear in a film that he viewed Faurisson as mad. You don’t seem to understand the control exercised by Jews. He pretends to be courageous but does not in fact display anything Jews dislike. His participation in Russell’s Tribunal on Vietnam had nothing to say on US ‘elites’; he was just part of the Jewish control, like Kissinger in the fake 9/11 enquiry. I find it difficult to believe how naive Americans are! There is and was a lot of Jewish noise about Trump, but in fact Trump has behaved in pure Jew deception style. There’s no reason to believe anything they say in their media!

  20. Prof. Woland
    Prof. Woland says:

    I think it was Sherlock Holmes that quipped that the false clue is the most deceptive. Chomsky does a pretty good job of leading his readers to identify corporate influence in the media but he seems to never really go beyond that point. I am not sure what stops him. Perhaps he is just feigning ignorance to throw us off the scent but he never really puts his finger on who the corporations are specifically marketing to and who is actually making money from it. It is just those nasty ‘corporations’ like the ones Rockefeller and JP Morgan control selling us war.

    Women make approximately 80% of the discretionary purchases in the US. In the advertising world, this is all that really matters because this is who companies have to reach if they want to make a profit. This means that for every female viewer, it takes 4 x as many male views to offset advertising revenues. When you look at it that way it does not sound real conservative. It is the job of all the main stream media and now social media to make the airwaves and social space safe for female viewers who don’t want to be bothered by “inconvenient truths.” There is actually enough room for all voices but that would only get in the way of selling to the prime target market.

    Worse, much of the media is no longer even interested about making money but is simply advancing the elite’s tribal interests. They are just as happy to do it by banning content and de-platforming as by selling advertisements for interests they approve of or writing about things and people they want to promote for free. These are not corporate interests. Media organizations such as the Washington Post, the NY Times, and CNN are basically just personal blogs expressing opinions they want to promote. They could lose money every year for eternity and would still find people to invest in their content; not to make money for their shareholders but to promote their narrow genetic nepotistic interests. Meanwhile Chomsky just drones on about evil corporations.

  21. Penny Gamlin
    Penny Gamlin says:

    As a school student I loved Grammar. I even loved all the homework, which forced us to try hard to construct good sentences and develop a wide vocabulary and so on. But studying English at university did not qualify us to be teachers of Grammar in the sixties. I took up Linguistics, but left when I found out the whole field was dominated by Chomsky and what I decided pretty quickly were mad ideas which would do no good for the English language. Since then, I have seen our young people’s command of English to be in free-fall decline. Even the simple apostrophe is apparently too hard for them to comprehend.

    • Armoric
      Armoric says:

      ” I took up Linguistics, but left when I found out the whole field was dominated by Chomsky ”

      Fake intellectuals had begun dominating academic departments, publishing houses, newspapers and radio programs, in a whole number of fields: literature, sociology, psychology, philosophy, history, economics, political science… The same thing was happening in France, where phony fakes were praised by the media as perfect examples of French intelligence, very different from the less intellectual American mindset. You knew they were big intellectuals because you couldn’t figure out what they were talking about.

      Actually, they were frauds, either Jewish or friends with the Jews, but they had fun playing their role, holding cigarettes and looking intelligent, like actors in a spy movie. The intellectuals of the 1960s and 1970s also make me think of the TV series Mission Impossible, where every actor looks super-smart, especially Peter Graves and the electronics guy Greg Morris. Today, we have even more phony fakes occupying all positions. Their role is to kill any genuine reality-based public discussion. But we no longer pay attention to them, and they make fewer efforts to impress us.

      By the way, the real intellectuals are the nationalists who oppose race replacement. You don’t have to be an intellectual to talk about it. And you can be an intellectual while talking about other topics. But you are less relevant if you ignore the biggest crisis in the history of the White race.

      • Dave Bowman
        Dave Bowman says:

        By the way, the real intellectuals are the nationalists who oppose race replacement


    • Dave Bowman
      Dave Bowman says:

      “Simple apostrophe” ? Apostrophes are the equivalent of rocket-science to your average school-leaver today ! Personally I’d settle right now for a graduate class of school-leavers which had enough understanding of a simple plural to see the problem with the sentence “I left the most important book’s at the library unread”.

Comments are closed.