First of all, I saw the movie "Chomsky: Rebel Without a Pause," and in that, Carol Chomsky, who's been Noam's life-partner (and woman) for a long, long years says ever so of it is simply extremely hard sheeting by Noam. And, of course, whatever the netlion, how could this not be? defensible if you thin out a world-class netsecond job of datarmation suppliers, what happens to the incidental releasermation, if you don't prioritize your own filiation of it?

Personally, I am inspired by Noam Chomsky's long-standing wire service of his own motives and roosts. If you conjecture the world's as messed up/able to be better as Chomsky does, then you underestimate a chaste inevitability to populate hard to increase the dissimilarity munitions with total dedication get better. Certainly, if the voyeuristic and masterful do unworthy, then befuddlement is the inheritance, as that is quite indubitably the major key material philosophy of "our" societies.

Meanwhile, it is a big gun question. In circumstance, does anybody the scoop of declassified documents in connection with the state-corporate planning of the automotive infrastructures with which we're now murderously stuck? I'm concludeing as things go about records of Eisenhower finagling with the businesses involved, but and Roosevelt, Truman, and cyclic post-Eisenhower allay...

Muchas gracias in advance...

The George Washington University has a website called National Security Archive

I'll just read you the last paragraph of this chapter;
“Chomsky's recommendation that people practice intellectual
self-defense is well taken, but, how many could dream that the person
warning you is one of the most perilous against whom you'll need to
defend yourself? That he is the Fire Marshall who wires your house to
burn down? The Lifeguard who drowns you. The doctor with the disarming
bedside manner who administers a fatal injection. If Noam Chomsky did
not exist, the diaboligarchy would have to invent him. To the New World
Order, he is worth 50 armored divisions.”

This is rediculous. You really have no counter argument to the Chomsky attacks, and you also attempt to slyly imply that Chomsky himself is bought out or owned by some large corporation, though when reading through it more closely, it is clear he is not. All you do is belittle him as an intellectual bully. I got news for you, he can't bully you without ammo, and he has plenty. Chomsky coming out against 9/11 conspiracy theories is a deathnail to your cute little movement. Unless you can come up with some pretty good facts to rebuff his rebuke, which is both more factual and logical than any 9/11 conspiracy I have ever heard. What do you come back with? Namecalling, and an implication of his status as a corporate man that is disgusting. This blog epitomizes your "movement." You make things up that seem crazy, but when a person actually looks into it, its clear that it is an exagerration or misleading fact. You make the left look stupid, and give republicans creedence when they call global warming a conspiracy theory.

I'm going to revisit this site, and if my comment is deleted, we'll see who really wants the whole truth out

This is rediculous. You really have no counter argument to the Chomsky attacks, and you also attempt to slyly imply that Chomsky himself is bought out or owned by some large corporation, though when reading through it more closely, it is clear he is not. All you do is belittle him as an intellectual bully. I got news for you, he can't bully you without ammo, and he has plenty. Chomsky coming out against 9/11 conspiracy theories is a deathnail to your cute little movement. Unless you can come up with some pretty good facts to rebuff his rebuke, which is both more factual and logical than any 9/11 conspiracy I have ever heard. What do you come back with? Namecalling, and an implication of his status as a corporate man that is disgusting. This blog epitomizes your "movement." You make things up that seem crazy, but when a person actually looks into it, its clear that it is an exagerration or misleading fact. You make the left look stupid, and give republicans creedence when they call global warming a conspiracy theory.

I'm going to revisit this site, and if my comment is deleted, we'll see who really wants the whole truth out

This is rediculous. You really have no counter argument to the Chomsky attacks, and you also attempt to slyly imply that Chomsky himself is bought out or owned by some large corporation, though when reading through it more closely, it is clear he is not. All you do is belittle him as an intellectual bully. I got news for you, he can't bully you without ammo, and he has plenty. Chomsky coming out against 9/11 conspiracy theories is a deathnail to your cute little movement. Unless you can come up with some pretty good facts to rebuff his rebuke, which is both more factual and logical than any 9/11 conspiracy I have ever heard. What do you come back with? Namecalling, and an implication of his status as a corporate man that is disgusting. This blog epitomizes your "movement." You make things up that seem crazy, but when a person actually looks into it, its clear that it is an exagerration or misleading fact. You make the left look stupid, and give republicans creedence when they call global warming a conspiracy theory.

I'm going to revisit this site, and if my comment is deleted, we'll see who really wants the whole truth out

Browse recently declassified documents:

The original link doesn't work anymore…

I have to agree that whoever was behind the WTC attacks, the purpose before us is still to understand and change the fundamentals of a system of governance and distribution which allow and cause such attacks.  If the US government (or elements therein) planned and carried out the attacks, then it needs changing, but if private individuals linked with overseas groups attacked the WTC, it remains to be seen why, and what productive measure can be taken to prevent future occurrences.  That cannot happen in an environment of secrecy and exploitation, which is certainly what the US government has always promoted.  So, either way, it really doesn't matter who did it, what matters is how we deal with the underlying causes. 

Victor I wish I could. I have a good idea on motion to dismiss because i download lots of stuff from the net. ( i am also stuck fighting legal Labour road blocks to obtain natural justice against two faulty unions, hoepefully one more year of fighting will do..)

Any Chance you could write one of those for Emperor Bushie and minions?

Victor, I do not infringe any copy right nor violate any law by providing a link on the copied book. if I get sued, its simple, I'll write a motion to dismiss, thats all.

Ahlam's Story

New video.



Ahlam Souidi speaks frankly about her time as an asylum seeker in Glasgow. Her family are at the moment threatened with deportation back to a country, Algeria, where they face grave danger.

Please watch and circulate the links to this video. The idea is to get this woman and her family so well known that the Home Office will not be able to send her back to Algeria.

There will be a demo on 7th October in support of Ahlam and her family, feeding into the main UNITY refugee demo in George Square.

Anyone with a blog or website – lift the html code at the youtube site and please place these on your blog.





The first minute and a half of this video is silent.


Ahlam's Story part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sr7jSWLjg8
Ahlam's Story part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31rojR3prCA
Ahlam's Story part 3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kl1RIiO1Tgc


Full length videos (1/2 hour) can be sent to those interested by emailing nwsocialist@yahoo.co.uk



Pamela Page did a review of this video:



I used Ahlam's story in my work with a class of students doing a project on Human Rights. I've also used the Dungavel dvd in the past about dawn raids which is also an excellent way to dispel the myths around asylum.

Ahlam's story is powerful in that that is what it is. Her story in her Voice. Her humanity, honesty and vitality shine through everything she says about her experience.

The honesty of one of the Glasgow women who spoke of her own ignorance and racism prior to meeting Ahlam was especially touching and brave. Ahlam is actively involved in many local initiatives and is a valued by her community. Let's make her so well known that it's impossible for her to be forced to leave her home.

It went down great in school and i'm getting copies made. Funnily enough a guy from the local Amnesty group popped into our branch the other night and I think Neil gave him a copy so hopefully they will take it up too.

Great job Nwsocialist!

Px

cyrano I hope you enjoy the book. You know, you are very generous, but do you think you should allow people to download the book for free? Perhaps the author would object?... ;-) We are never safe from evil, cyrano. Such people smile and reach into your pockets while you enjoy the sunshine.

Victor , you once wanted me to read the book crossing the rubicon, I have found a copy here in a pdf format, just download yourself a copy. of course cyrano is not safe from evil, today evil greedy shop owner wanted to charge cyrano $550 for a job that cost $130.00. (Garage repairs shops no better than scam artists are abusing people wallets).. most of them charges 1.5 hour for jobs that takes 1 hour at most.

In matters of the intellect, no one can be trusted....ever. All "truths" must be challenged for all truth bearers are human. And in today's world, no human is safe from evil - not Chomsky, not even Cyrano....;-)

I just finished reading Barrie Zwicker's new book Towers of Deception. Zwicker is a left-wing journalist from Canada, who has worked for years in the media, at the CBC and at The Globe and Mail.

If you want a serious look at the questions addressed in this the comments of this posting, look no further. Zwicker is no right-wing idiot, in fact he is a respected left-wing political activist and documentary filmmaker, and his criticisms of Chomsky are vital to understanding today's American Left. This book is a must-read for anyone who claims to be a Chomskyite, and an essential step forward for the Left.

Americans MUST hold Chomsky's feet to the fire on the issues addressed in this book, especially on his constant efforts to divert attention away from the CIA and its shadowy activities.

And to Mr. Chomsky: if you read this blog, please respond to the charges placed against you. Please help us understand why most of what you say stays true to the facts, but on the most important issues, like the one that is used to justify all of the current American atrocities you expose tenaciously in your work, you stay mostly silent. And when you do address it, your words are full of distortions and embarrassing emotional rhetoric. Many of us have lost our once near-unbreakable trust in you. We now see that you are pulling the ol' bait-and-switch. You have become Emmanuel Goldstein.

You must come clean on 9/11, the CIA, the Federal Reserve, and America's shadow government.

Please prove to us that you aren't just another example of that old truism, that George Orwell knew so well, that the best disinformation is 90% true.

Nice try but you don't fool anyone here : Chomsky is one hope that someday american people will wake up and say : we can't stand this anymore !

All great country can be led into error when the power of evil has no more.

Just one question to you : show me any serious paper showing Chomsky mistakes clearly and I will consider it.

Dozen of times I have checked some of it sources myself over Internet and they were all true...

I would also they this : greatest minds are beyond countries frontiers. Chomsky is more part of humanity as US citizenship.

Check out these links for more on your favorite so-called "progressive" magazines and websites, and who funds them:

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/FordFandCIA.html

http://www.questionsquestions.net/gatekeepers.html

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

http://www.911blogger.com/taxonomy/term/587

http://www.911blogger.com/taxonomy/term/29

Will Znet tell us a bit about who funds them?

Will Chomsky explain his contradictions?

As divisive as it may be, these are issues that must be addressed - anybody who says these things don't matter is either foolish or hiding something.

Chomsky's comment on 9/11 are rather old, I suggest at the time it was to risky for him to espouse the involvement frm the CIA, if you pay attention you will see he speand most of his time evaluating the new US policies.. I believe it is a good thing people question 9/11 and raise doubts about the events. although chomsky opinion may seem at odd with yours or mine, do not undermine chomsky, just keep on proving it to him.. look the left seem to be made of anarchist-syndicalist, marxist and now pareconist, its is similar as it attempts to curb down capitalism somewhere around the line all of these people can cooperate and make the world a better place.

Look at these two Chomsky quotes and tell me you don't see a problem here:

PARIS - President Jacques Chirac said Saturday that information contained in a leaked intelligence document raising the possibility that Osama bin Laden may have died of typhoid in Pakistan last month is "in no way whatsoever confirmed." Chirac said he was "a bit surprised" at the leak and has asked Defense Minister Michele Alliot-Marie to probe how a document from a French foreign intelligence service was published in the French press.more..

gatekeeper, Chomsky is not interested to find proof that 9/11 was secret services orchestrated, I think he rather take the official version that Bin Laden did it and chomsky rather show that the whole of policies of the US are causes for conflict.

Was 9/11 US made ? its possible. Conspiracies and cover-ups are somewhat difficult to prove. Nobody eluded JFK death after 40 years!

Reagan had a conspiracies going with humanitarian aid and got nailed.
it does not exclude the possibility that the PLOT could had originated in a CIA office outside the US. Chomsky's work evolves around policies, if yours evolves around 9/11, I think its a good thing, it could becomes helpful when and if it is revealed that it was subversive attack. Trust me, the mere facts that there is doubt about the integrity of the US about 9/11 is pervasive of the US policies. so keep doing your job.

Look it seem that the CIA is able to monitor Al-Quaida:

"We've seen nothing from any al-Qaida messaging or other indicators that would point to the death of Osama bin Laden," IntelCenter director Ben N. Venzke told The Associated Press.

Al-Qaida would likely release information of his death fairly quickly if it were true, said Venzke, whose organization also provides counterterrorism intelligence services for the American government.

"They would want to release that to sort of control the way that it unfolds. If they wait too long, they could lose the initiative on it," he said.

The last time the IntelCenter says it could be sure bin Laden was alive was June 29, when al-Qaida released an audiotape in which the terror leader eulogized the death of al-Qaida in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who was killed in a U.S. airstrike in Iraq earlier that month.

That quote about the lifeguard? Give me a break. These 9-11 people need to quit hiding behind the all-powerful unseen hands. Read the Zmag conspiracy page, people. Quit wasting your time and our time.

Chomsky mentions it briefly in his statement, but the link below is to an in depth article from the National Security Archive discussing the reclassification effort. Matthew Aid was the first to notice this effort to my knowledge.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB179/

Pay careful attention to the "memorandum of understanding".

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20060411/index.htm

Perhaps my statements were a bit too sweeping. It's just that I've been involved in dicussing this topic quite a bit lately, and it gets tiresome in the end. It just doesn't make any sense for Bush et al to do something like that. The risk of whistleblowers would be immense, and the risk of something going wrong pretty astonishing. This is especially true when the socalled truth-movement start talking about controlled demolision. Why blow up the building if you've already got two planes on collision course? True, there are many aspects that should be investigated, and a truly independent investigation should have been set up. But I don't believe one wasn't set up, because Bush wanted to hide that he was involved in the attack itself. I rather think it wasn't set up becasue it would show in full clarity how incompetent and negligent the Bush administration is. They knew in great detail about the plans of such an attack, but didn't care. Perhaps like the boy who yelled 'Wolf!'. Perhaps because they saw it could open up all sorts of doors. But even so, the risks would be huge. This could very well have taken a whole different course. The media could have been on Bush' back for not taking the threat of terrorism seriously, and doing next to nothing to prevent it when they saw the writing on the wall (perhaps litterally). When we look at what the US has been involved in the the Middle East, it should be no surprise to anybody that a few people aren't exactly euphoric about it, to put it very mildly. Terrorism could arguably be called 'collateral damage' of Western foreign policy (or more specifically, US foreign policy). That makes a lot more sense - on many levels - than 'Bush did it!' As mentioned in my first post, conspiracy theories have a tendency to expand, as earlier parts of the 'theory' gets picked apart. Now it has expanded all the way to the most critical voices of the US. It's hard to think where else to expand from now. Pangaea Oslo, Norway

Pangaea At the risk of being placed into the same box as the "left gatekeeper" (actualy, I have never heard of this group), I can't in all honesty say that I agree with your sweeping assessment of the lack of possibility of government complicity in the 9/11 event. There are truly serious questions left unanswered that bear serious official investigation (the 9/11 Commission was not an official investigation) carried out, before the physical evidence was removed, by someone with real investigatory powers like the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). And to imply that anyone who believes that a conspiracy took place is a conspiracy theorist exhibits a lack of understanding as to what a conspiracy theorist really is. Conspiracies exist. Any time two or more people collude to a commonly understood end, they are said to conspire, and the act of their collusion is called a conspiracy. Conspiracies take place every day at all levels of society. Some are legal. Some are not. Some involve or have involved a lot of people. Some only a few. To say that such a huge event as this could not have been the subject of a conspiracy of some kind because of its complexity and the number of people who would have to have some part in it, knowlingly or not, is just not true. It's happened many times in the past and will so in the future.

This "left gatekeeper" bullshit just had to come here too. It's the speech of a truly paranoid movement. The single most critical person in the world, who has constantly spoken out against US power for 40-odd years, are now basically in the same boat as Bush. Conspiracy theories has a tendency to constantly expand (as "evidence" is broken apart). Now even Chomsky is in on it. This is ridiculous. There isn't a shred of actual evidence that Bush et al were in on the 9/11 attack. It all boils down to negligence and incompetence. If only people put as much effort into changing the world, as they do silly conspiracy theories, perhaps a few things would change. 9/11 conspiracy theories are becoming the drugs that destroyed the left in the 60s. Let's not destroy today's left and progressive rising movement with conspiracy theories that have no basis in reality. Pangaea Oslo, Norway

For Shame Mr. Chomsky! Why are you hiding the truth about 9/11? I was once a giant fan (and still am of most of what you say), but evidence leads us to something peculiar about you.

You say that investigation into who pulled off 9/11 "doesn't matter". This is insulting and disgusting, and not even Sean Hannity would say something so ridiculous.

Znet and all the other left-wing gatekeepers will be soon be exposed for the frauds they are, and 9/11 will be the piano that broke the camels back. Read this interview with Barrie Zwicker about his excellent new book, Towers of Deception: This is the author talking about what some of us have known for a while now,

Noam Chomsky… this does appear to be one of the most fascinating parts of the book for a lot of people and I'm frankly even a little surprised myself at how well this is being received. I think that a whole lot of people had intuited that there's something wrong with Chomsky. That there's something strange, mysterious, contradictory, absurd, about his refusal to see that anybody other than Lee Harvey Oswald might have killed JFK, his refusal to become involved in looking into, whatsoever, the assassinations of Martin Luther King and Robert F. Kennedy and Malcolm X, and then, of course, although a lot of people cut him slack and were in effect in denial about Chomsky on those decapitations of the Left… but 9/11 came along, it's a Litmus test, I swear it's a Litmus test for every individual, every organization… where do they stand on 9/11?

And of course he just proceeded to fail the 9/11 Litmus test entirely. And I think this has caused a lot of people to just say, to themselves, “There's gotta be something really wrong with Chomsky.” And apparently I've articulated it in this 15,000-word chapter.

And I do believe, that he is, an “agent of disinformation”. Now, I don't say “disinformation agent”, which would imply that he is on the payroll of the CIA, which is something that I cannot prove, and I do not necessarily believe. But he certainly is an “agent of disinformation”. And there are many kinds of disinformation, he engages in about 20 different kinds of nasty propaganda techniques himself, especially in his public lectures… dismissive ness is one of the trickiest cards that he plays in his public lectures. He'll say things like, ‘Oh well, we don't know who did 9/11, but it really doesn't matter,' and then he'll just go on!

And that is a point where in a just, in an intellectually honest world, someone would say, “Hold it right there, Noam. Just hold it right there. WHY does it not matter, who did 9/11?”

But of course when he's speaking before an adulatory crowd, they just accept this, he throws out these great dismissive phrases, and just continues on. And one of the tricks of his trade, is of course that he's written this immense number of books, he's incredibly prolific, I have 16 of his books myself, and in each of those books if you look toward the end, you'll find these massive numbers of footnotes, and he's renowned for tracking down these obscure facts from obscure journals and documents, and so people assume, when he's doing public speaking, that everything he says is equally well-researched, equally well-footnoted, equally valid… and it's not. He makes all sorts of just vague, sweeping generalizations, dismissive statements, complete mis-weighting of things, where something is very important he'll dismiss as unimportant and vice-versa.

He throws up a smokescreen by way of always talking, and I don't disagree with him on this… it's an effective one, in any of his talks he'll talk about Granada, he'll talk about El Salvador, he'll talk about East Timor… no question, he was blowing the whistle on those for a long time, he harks back to them, but you know what?

We don't need Noam Chomsky anymore to tell us about the death squads in El Salvador, we don't need Noam Chomsky to tell us about East Timor. We need Noam Chomsky to be on board, telling us about 9/11, and how it was done from the White House.

And because he consistently steers away from the toxic core of what the oligarchy does by way of massive fraud, and therefore manipulation of the public for their Neocon agenda of global domination and resource theft, he in essence is working for them.

I cannot come to any other conclusion.

I'll just read you the last paragraph of this chapter;
“Chomsky's recommendation that people practice intellectual self-defense is well taken, but, how many could dream that the person warning you is one of the most perilous against whom you'll need to defend yourself? That he is the Fire Marshall who wires your house to burn down? The Lifeguard who drowns you. The doctor with the disarming bedside manner who administers a fatal injection. If Noam Chomsky did not exist, the diaboligarchy would have to invent him. To the New World Order, he is worth 50 armored divisions.”

And I do believe that.

I just started this process myself. I use BibDesk for Mac OS X. It does everything I need, including managing a local copy of the document archive. It uses the LaTex bibliography format, so it was designed for scientific articles... but I just throw everything into one big folder. Between the metadata I add and the operating system's ability to search within files, I think it'll be a decent system.

<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/03/AR2006090300768.html">A recent article</a> in the Washington Post discussed an organization called <a href="http://trac.syr.edu/">TRAC</a>. Looking at <a href="http://trac.syr.edu/tracreports/terrorism/169/">the mentioned report</a>, it includes a section titled "<a href="http://trac.syr.edu/tracreports/terrorism/169/include/side_1.html">About The Data</a>", which explains how they developed their data sets. Regardless of whether you agree with their analysis or conclusions, you may find discover some sources of information by skimming this site.

Looking at his photo, I'm fairly certain I don't know the above person.

Would some sort of annotated wiki or special blogs help? I'm thinking of cooperative annotated listings of e.g. recently declassified documents, which grow with time.

Alternatively, some sort of continuing, online course(s) at a wikiversity.

The idea is that we will eventually have to replace this aspect of Chomsky with some sort of cooperative institution, so what might it be? My own estimate is somewhere between a distributed department and a college. Presumably, a few full time equivalent "exposer analysts" should get us started.

Thanks. Any such programs you would recommend? I just downloaded JabRef (GNU freeware). It looks decent, but I have nothing to compare it with and little knowledge of such programs. Further comments would be much welcome. Pangaea Oslo, Norway

this is curiousmI also have a friend name derek smith,,

It's easy with a computer, just save every document you read. Use a bibliography manager to organize and annotate the collection. Then use that software or your operating system to retrieve information.

What he does is actually simple. He just does a lot of work in reviewing a lot of material, and from a vast array of sources. ...this is called, "Work".

The scientific method is based on gathering as much empirical evidence as possible and in doing meticulous, controlled tests. Unfortunately, there usually just aren't very many short cuts.

Genius is 99% perspiration, and 1% inspiration.
-Thomas Edison

The best you can hope for, as he has said earlier in this chain, is by dint of hard effort and with some intuition or insight, you might be able to gather a preponderance of evidence that puts weight on one of your theories.

Moreover, his talks are an exhortation for people to do the same thing. At least to what extent you can. ...as a Deweyite, he usually says something like, "I urge you to investigate the facts of the Bretton Woods System", or these State Dept. doc's... and you will learn a lot from the process.

 

As always, Noam is brilliant, and smarter than his oppressors, thanks for the question, and the dialogue.

 

The George Washington University has a website called National Security Archive, which is an excellent source of material. You can find it at http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/

First of all, I saw the movie "Chomsky: Rebel Without a Pause," and in that, Carol Chomsky, who's been Noam's life-partner (and wife) for a long, long time says much of it is simply extremely hard work by Noam.  And, of course, whatever the network, how could this not be?  Even if you have a world-class network of information suppliers, what happens to the info, if you don't prioritize your own study of it?

 Personally, I am inspired by Noam Chomsky's long-standing reportage of his own motives and works.  If you think the world's as messed up/able to be better as Chomsky does, then you have a moral obligation to work hard to increase the odds things will get better.  Certainly, if the interested and talented do nothing, then chaos is the inheritance, as that is quite obviously the dominant logic of "our" societies.

 Meanwhile, it is a great question.  In fact, does anybody know of declassified documents regarding the state-corporate planning of the automotive infrastructures with which we're now murderously stuck?  I'm thinking mostly about records of Eisenhower collusion with the businesses involved, but also Roosevelt, Truman, and even post-Eisenhower stuff...

 Muchas gracias in advance...

That's not really what I meant. I know he reads a lot and therefore has a lot of knowledge, but it would be interesting to know what system he has to keep track on all that he's read. For instance when I write articles about anything really, there's obvisouly many things I know about the subjects, things I know I've read somewhere, but not exactly where. Then it's a hell of a job finding the source to put in as notes (which of course is mandatory). This is what I meant. He cites countless articles from newspapers, passages from books, and magazines, and declassified documents. He must surely have a system to keep track of what he's read for future notes. I wouldn't mind knowing how he does this.

There is nothing mysterious to the process. Chomsky reads all of the most respected books and joural articles published by university, academic and scholarly presses. The footnotes cited in those sources can be checked with governmental sources. It's not vague at all. I have done this myself. Also, there is the Cold War History Project that publishes declassified documents in many languages, especially from the former Soviet bloc.

Thanks for posting this. I've always wondered how Chomsky get all the knowledge he has. How he knows what to read from declassified documents, and how to remember where he read what (this is a mystery to me as). Sometimes I think he is a bit too vague, and I think he was here. But perhaps there isn't much explicit he can say about it. It's just one of those things where you have to develop knowledge over time to know what to look for. Like walking in a jungle and knowing what plants are eatable. I would love to see a list of important declassified documents Chomsky recommends to read to get a better insight to how people think and act in the US government. The only document I can remember he's explicitly recommended was Essentials of Post-Cold War Deterrence. He said that this was one of the most terrifying documents he's ever read, and I have to agree. Essential reading, and quite a shilling one. Let's just say that if they do what's said in this document, the US Empire's decline is unlikely to be as peaceful as the Soviet Union's decline...