Chomsky’s Ties to Jeffrey Epstein — and Suspected 9/11 Mastermind Ehud Barak—Exposed
In early summer 1992 I caught the documentary film Manufacturing Consent when it opened in San Francisco’s Castro Theater. That film changed my life. It showcased Noam Chomsky, an accomplished linguistics professor, and his analysis of corporate media propaganda. Manufacturing Consent convinced me that the American academy could tolerate, and indeed celebrate, serious social criticism. If Chomsky, a radical opponent of America’s most powerful institutions, could not only survive but thrive in academia, speaking truth to power and building a huge audience along the way, why couldn’t others do the same?
Before that screening, I had been a profoundly alienated bohemian haunting the margins of academia, so disgusted by all of America’s institutions that I could scarcely have imagined working for them. (Learning the facts about the JFK assassination at age 16 can do that to a person.) But Chomsky’s example inspired me. It made me want to join him and the other academic critics of US empire, convince our colleagues of the truth of our arguments using logic and evidence, and help the USA return to its anti-imperial roots and then some.
So it was largely thanks to Chomsky that I entered a Ph.D. program in 1995. But by then I had noticed two glaring anomalies in his political thought. The first, and most important, was that his analysis of the JFK assassination seemed insane. Chomsky argued that the assassination was obviously a conspiracy, and not the work of a lone nut as the official story has it—but that it didn’t matter who killed JFK, because the assassination didn’t change any policies! Since he felt it was so utterly unimportant that the president was murdered by conspirators powerful enough to force their ludicrous cover story on the world, Chomsky evinced no interest whatsoever in identifying the perpetrators, and discouraged his followers from further interest in the topic.
“Take for example all this frenzy about the JFK assassination. I mean I don’t know who assassinated him and I don’t care, but what difference does it make?” – Noam Chomsky
The other anomaly involved the question of Palestine. Though Chomsky has verbally sympathized with Palestinian suffering, and admitted the justice of the Palestinian cause, he has vociferously obstructed the two most promising strategic efforts that could help Palestine defeat Zionism: The boycott-divestment-sanctions (BDS) movement, and the campaign to expose Zionist control over US Mideast policy.
Alison Weir once asked Chomsky why he opposed BDS and why he had falsely claimed that it was bad for Palestinians (who almost unanimously support it). “The reason is very simple. It’s so utterly hypocritical that it’s basically a gift to the hardliners. They can say, ‘Look, you’re calling for a boycott of Israel, but you’re not calling for a boycott of the United States which has a much worse record…’”
Would Israeli hardliners ever actually say such a thing? And would it matter even if they did? Of course not. Here again, Chomsky is spouting sheer nonsense, prefaced by the obligatory disclaimer “it’s very simple.” When someone as seemingly intelligent as Chomsky says such things, there are really only two possible interpretations: Either he is suffering from some bizarre mental dysfunction, or he is lying and gaslighting us.
Chomsky’s occasional habit of emitting streams of discombobulated blather repeatedly surfaces when he is asked about Israel’s control of US Mideast policy. As James Petras writes, “Noam Chomsky has long been one of the great obfuscators of AIPAC and the existence of Zionist power over US Middle East policy.” The nonsensical gnome ludicrously argues that US policymakers’ enslavement to Israel actually serves US national and imperial interests. For him, Israel is basically a powerless appendage of US empire. Chomsky’s implicit subtext is that anyone who notices Israel’s death grip on US foreign policy, including Walt and Mearsheimer, Alan Hart, James Petras, J. William Fulbright, James Abourezk, Paul Findley, and indeed every honest and informed analyst who has considered the question, must be “anti-Semitic.”
My issues with Chomsky’s repeated bouts of apparent insanity came to a head after 9/11. In November 2001, Chomsky published a “surprise” bestseller. Entitled 9/11 and republished ten years later as 9/11: Was There an Alternative?, the book basically repeats Chomsky’s vacuous diatribes about the JFK coup d’état—“it doesn’t matter who did it, do NOT look behind the curtain”—and applies them to 9/11.
“If if it were true [9/11 conspiracy theories], which is extremely unlikely, what difference does it make? I mean, it doesn’t have any significance.” –Noam Chomsky, interview with David Barsamian
While I was participating in the rise of the 9/11 truth movement from 2004 onwards, I noticed that Chomsky was growing ever-more-strident in attacking truth-seekers and insisting that it didn’t matter who did 9/11. In 2008 I invited him on my radio show, which led to an exchange of emails culminating in his last-minute refusal to appear. I was flabbergasted by Chomsky’s seemingly insane statements and positions. When he finally started lying outright, I concluded that he must be acting in bad faith. I published the private emails in their entirety because I thought the world needed to know the truth about the evident gross immorality (or, charitably, insanity) of America’s most celebrated (fake) dissident.
Then in 2016 I gave a talk at the Left Forum on “Why Chomsky Is Wrong About 9/11.” Though my criticisms of Chomsky were quite restrained in tone, given his appalling betrayals, I was banned from the Left Forum the following year. Apparently going to the Left Forum to criticize Chomsky is like going to the Vatican to criticize the Pope.
Read the full text of “Why Chomsky Is Wrong About 9/11”
Over the years, it dawned on me that if Chomsky were deliberately leading people astray, there would have to be some sort of method in his apparent madness. Why would he herd the critical thinkers and idealists of the left away from the truth about the JFK assassination, 9/11, Zionist control of US policy, and the best strategy for saving Palestine? Whose interests would be served by those four acts of deception?
The question, of course, answers itself. As Michael Collins Piper, Laurent Guyénot, Ron Unz, Alan Hart, and so many others have suggested, the leading suspect in both the JFK and 9/11 coups is the state of Israel and its “American” acolytes. Chomsky has been consistently, systematically gaslighting his followers on the four issues most crucial to the preservation and expansion of Zionist power. As Jeffrey Blankfort writes:
“At the end of the day, it is evident that Chomsky’s affection for Israel, his sojourn on a kibbutz, his Jewish identity, and his early experiences with anti-Semitism to which he occasionally refers have colored his approach to every aspect of Israel’s conflict with the Palestinians and explain his defense of Israel. That is his right, of course, but not to pretend at the same that he is an advocate for justice in Palestine.”
Since our ill-starred 2008 email exchange I have leaned towards acknowledging the likelihood that Chomsky is a lying, gaslighting Zionist scumbag. But I wasn’t sure until a few days ago, when the news broke that Chomsky had repeatedly hobnobbed with then-convicted-sex-criminal Jeffrey Epstein, including meeting Epstein together with pervert and 9/11 suspect Ehud Barak, apparently even flying on Jeffrey Epstein’s Lolita Express. Characteristically, Chomsky dissembled: “If there was a flight (with Epstein), which I doubt…” If Chomsky hadn’t flown with Epstein, of course, he would just say so. His mealymouthed evasions of the truth, whether of JFK, 9/11, Israeli occupation of America, or his relations with Epstein and Barak, have a vacuously passive-aggressive tone that is inimitably Chomsky-esque, but jarringly incommensurate with his reputation as one of the world’s greatest linguists.
Chomsky’s response to journalists’ questions about his relationship with Epstein began: “First response is that it is none of your business. Or anyone’s.” That is, of course, exactly what many people would say when questioned about their sexual activities with consenting adults. So why is Chomsky proffering a stock “don’t ask me about my sex life” response when questioned about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and his stable of underage prostitutes?
Methinks the gnome doth protest too much.
More troubling than whether Chomsky (statutorily) raped young girls is the question of why he was meeting with Israel’s top blackmailer of American leaders, Jeffrey Epstein, alongside the likely mastermind of 9/11, Ehud Barak. Barak resigned as Prime Minister of Israel in May of 2001 and disappeared from public view, presumably spending June through early September working on plans to demolish the World Trade Center, attack the Pentagon, and blame the carnage on Israel’s enemies. Barak’s work on the lead-up to 9/11 recalls Ben Gurion’s resignation as Israeli Prime Minister and disappearance from public view in June, 1963, after which he went underground and presumably orchestrated the assassination of John F. Kennedy in November. The moral: When Israeli PMs resign in the spring, get ready for something big come fall.
Ehud Barak was conveniently pre-placed in BBC’s London studios so he could go live an hour after 9/11, where he recited what would become the official story:
Barak’s coercion was aimed at the masses, who were traumatized by the horrific images they had just seen on TV and open to hypnotic suggestion—which Barak obligingly provided, implanting the pre-scripted official version deep in their subconscious minds. Chomsky, by contrast, was deployed a few months later against leftists and intellectuals, who were understandably suspicious and predisposed to mistrust the Bush Administration and its rush to war against Israel’s enemies. (That Chomsky’s coverup-propaganda broadside 9/11 shot up the bestseller lists in November 2001 was hardly surprising, given the realities of power in America’s media, book publishing and distribution industries.)
Many languages have one or more proverbs that roughly translate as “A man is known by the company he keeps.” By simultaneously meeting Epstein and Barak, Noam Chomsky has unmasked himself as a top-level Zionist sheepdog tasked with keeping the dumb American goyim cattle blind, ignorant, and cooped up in their pens, bleating out the platitudes they are taught by their Zionist betters. To say that the scandal will tarnish Chomsky’s legacy is inaccurate, because there is no legacy to tarnish. Chomsky is a charlatan and a fraud. He stands revealed as an agent of the world’s most genocidal and most systematically terrorist state—a state that has attacked the United States of America repeatedly since 1954, assassinating its best leaders, murdering its sailors and civilians, looting its nuclear arsenal and its treasury, and generally assuming much of the responsibility for its impending destruction.
So what did Chomsky talk about with Israel’s top blackmailer Epstein and 9/11 perp Barak? Did the conversation sound like Netanyahu’s talk with his cronies at Fink’s Bar in Jerusalem in 1990?
At the head of the table was Netanyahu. The group at the table had just stolen 5 American KG 84 cryptographic devices with the help of Canadians serving with the UNTSO on the Golan Heights, giving this Israeli-led cabal real-time access to all US State Department, Naval and NATO communications. This is a transcribed quote taken from an audio recording of Netanyahu at that meeting:
“If we get caught they will just replace us with persons of the same cloth. So it does not matter what you do, America is a golden calf and we will suck it dry, chop it up, and sell it off piece by piece until there is nothing left but the world’s biggest welfare state that we will create and control. Why? Because it is the will of God, and America is big enough to take the hit so we can do it again and again and again. This is what we do to countries that we hate. We destroy them very slowly and make them suffer for refusing to be our slaves.”
Chomsky’s contempt for Americans, and for the intelligence of his American audience, is every bit as palpable as Netanyahu’s. And Epstein’s. And Barak’s.
Maybe it’s time for him to make aliyah… and thank Yahweh that Israel won’t sign extradition treaties.
Thoughts on Tucker
By Kevin MacDonald | Occidental Observor | May 4, 2023
I think Tucker was cancelled because of what he was emphasizing on his show (see also TOO writer Karl Haemer’s Substack piece). To wit:
- condemning the Ukraine war as not in U.S. interests; Ukraine is not a democracy, etc.;
- how the war feeds into the emerging alliance among Russia and China, along with Brazil, India, Iran, Arab countries and likely Africa—and what that will mean for the dollar as the world’s reserve currency as well as U.S. prosperity and power;
- making what are considered White nationalist talking points by the rest of the media and never mentioned by vast majority of conservatives (the Great Replacement, immigration diluting White votes, Democrats’ desire to have a permanent government of the left by importing a dependent, low-IQ, easily controllable non-White population that requires government financial assistance and affirmative action, and can easily see the benefits of blaming all their problems on White racism, whereas mainstream conservatives emphasize migrant suffering and death trying to get to the U.S.; his sympathetic interview with Hungarian nationalist Viktor Orban);
- talking about George Soros’s influence, particularly in electing far-left activist prosecutors, despite the ADL pushing the idea that any mention of him is anti-Semitic;
- condemning the World Economic Forum and globalism generally—likely related to his opposition to the Ukraine war;
- opposing the woke ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) agenda of corporate giants like Blackrock able to use shareholder muscle to force companies to conform to their woke policy preferences; Blackrock is a major investor in Fox;
- angering the ADL and the powers-that-be in general with all of the above; and he often condemns globalist, pro-immigration Republicans like Lindsey Graham and Mitch McConnell who support those same issues;
- opposing climate extremism, like cutbacks in Netherlands’ agricultural sector and his recent “Let Them Eat Bugs” special on Fox Nation;
- being a vaccine skeptic and having people like Alex Berenson on to criticize the vaccines, lockdowns, effects on schoolchildren, etc.;
- repeatedly dissenting on the J6 narrative—showing the video indicating that it was far less violent than depicted and that Merrick Garland’s DOJ is hellbent on outrageous prosecutions, infringing on free speech and civil rights (locking citizens for long periods without trial;
- condemning social media censorship (as revealed in the Twitter files) and the outrageous Garland DOJ, FBI, etc.;
- going off on transgenderism (sterilizing children is civilizational suicide and “evil”)—and wokeness generally
- talking about big media bias in the 2020 election, including Google searches and Twitter shadow banning.
The Ukraine War Is a Globalist Crusade
Tucker also presented standard conservative talking points, like illegal immigration, guns, crime in the cities, Biden’s corruption and senility, etc. But my impression is that he was all alone on many of the above issues among Fox personalities, or he phrased his comments on them in an edgier way. And in general, his commentary was much more incisive and intellectually appealing. All of this terrified the globalist, multicultural establishment throughout the West.
The ADL was thrilled that Fox cancelled his show:
To the Anti-Defamation League, the firing was long overdue. The group’s leader called for Fox to fire Carlson in 2021, after the host first promoted the white-supremacist Great Replacement theory on air.
“It’s about time,” tweeted the group’s CEO, Jonathan Greenblatt, on Monday. “For far too long, Tucker Carlson has used his primetime show to spew antisemitic, racist, xenophobic & anti-LGBTQ hate to millions.”
At the time, Fox rebuffed the ADL’s petition weeks later. The network said that Carlson had actually been talking about voting rights when he outlined the Great Replacement theory, a far-right belief that attributes a diversifying electorate to a shadowy conspiracy, typically engineered by Jews, to replace white voters with immigrants and minority groups.
“A full review of the guest interview indicates that Mr. Carlson decried and rejected replacement theory,” Lachlan Murdoch, CEO of the Fox Corporation, said at the time.
The ADL’s public stance on Carlson’s employment led to criticism from the right, with Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz calling the group “racist.” Carlson also went after them on his program by parroting other white supremacist-adjacent beliefs about Israel. Last year, he gave an extended interview to Kanye West after the rapper donned a “White Lives Matter” shirt at Paris Fashion Week, but before West’s many public antisemitic rants; producers reportedly edited out antisemitic comments West had made during the interview.
The reference to “parroting other white supremacist-adjacent beliefs about Israel” refers to Tucker’s publicizing the ADL’s stance on immigration to Israel in an item that was soon expunged from their website.
The ADL recently condemned Tucker Carlson, an American media personality, because he mentioned that American voters were being replaced by immigrants, terming it “a White supremacist tenet that the White race is in danger by a rising tide of non-Whites. It is antisemitic, racist and toxic.” In response, Carlson highlighted the different attitudes of the ADL regarding demographic displacement of the native European-derived population of the U.S. with their attitudes on a one-state solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Regarding Israel, the ADL has quite reasonably stated that a one-state solution is unworkable given current realities and historic animosities. With historically high birth rates among the Palestinians, and a possible influx of Palestinian refugees and their descendants now living around the world, Jews would quickly be a minority within a binational state, thus likely ending any semblance of equal representation and protections. In this situation, the Jewish population would be increasingly politically – and potentially physically – vulnerable. It is unrealistic and unacceptable to expect the State of Israel to voluntarily subvert its own sovereign existence and nationalist identity and become a vulnerable minority within what was once its own territory.
Regarding the ADL statement that concern with demographic changes in the U.S. is “antisemitic, racist and toxic,” given the long history of racial conflict in America, the recent upsurge in race-based violence, and the contemporary prominence of movements, such as Critical Race Theory that essentially pathologize White Americans in the media and educational system, it is reasonable to suppose that the White population would also be increasingly vulnerable if they become a minority.
This New York Times article indicates Fox’s concerns about his ideas, starting with a text in which he claimed that “It’s Not How White Men Fight,” which was part of his reaction to a group of White men ganging up on an antifa protester, which of course the Times interpreted as yet another indication that Tucker was a “White supremacist.”
Though Mr. Carlson’s show, “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” was only a small factor in the Dominion suit, his personal texts were drawing outsize scrutiny.
The text about the fight came on top of a damaging chain of messages that had been revealed publicly ahead of trial, and that were shocking in their own right. Writing to one of his producers after the assault on the Capitol, Mr. Carlson describes the president he championed on his show as a “demonic force” and a “destroyer.”
A recurring theme of his show during the six years that it ran in prime time on Fox News was the displacement of white Americans by people of color. Mr. Carlson often framed topics in the news as part of a larger struggle between “us” and “them,” with immigrants and other marginalized groups steadily and surely taking from whites what had long been theirs: political and cultural power in the United States.
He attacked Black social justice activists and portrayed immigrants from Central America as a blight on the nation. He said in 2018 that immigrants make the country “dirtier.”
In the aftermath of a mass shooting in El Paso at the hands of a gunman who cited white supremacist beliefs in his manifesto, Mr. Carlson declared on his show that white supremacy was “not a real problem,” likening it to a conspiracy theory.
So there was plenty of reason to get rid of him. Recently, Megyn Kelly has claimed that Fox is leaking videos of Tucker that would produce negative impressions in many views in order to render him so toxic that he wouldn’t be employable. (The above-cited article from the NYTimes was apparently leaked by people connected to Fox.) Kelly also claims that Carlson’s exit is still to be negotiated and he can’t start another show because he is still under contract. Breitbart claims that Fox will prevent him from getting a new show until the 2024 elections are safely in the rear view mirror. Looks like it’s devolved into an all-out war.
The other plausible thing mentioned by some is that getting rid of Carlson and generally moving toward a blander, more traditional type of conservatism like that of Paul Ryan (who is on the Fox Board of Directors) would attract the big-name advertisers back to Fox’s prime time lineup. The boycotts initiated by the left in recent years have left his show with direct marketing advertisers like Mike Lindell, the Pillow Guy. And as mentioned above, Tucker has vigorously opposed the ESG agenda of major Fox investors such as the left-activist Blackrock headed by Larry Fink.
So there’s likely a number of factors that influenced the decision.
What can we expect if Tucker reincarnates somewhere in the media universe? It’s quite possible that he will become even edgier if he is not tied to a corporate giant mainly concerned about the bottom line and eager to stay within the currently allowable boundaries of public debate. As someone who is intimately acquainted with how politics works in Washington, he is undoubtedly aware of Jewish influence, but I rather doubt that he will say anything to suggest Jews are responsible in any way for any of the issues he is concerned about. He will often mention Jewish villains like Victoria Nuland, Alejandro Mayorkas, Merrick Garland, or George Soros without saying they are Jewish. And he will likely continue to invite Jews on his show—Jews such as Michael Shellenberger on the left’s destruction of San Francisco, Darren Beattie of Revolver News on J6, or vaccine skeptic Alex Berenson. And if the ADL calls him out again, I’m sure he will respond as he has previously.
It’s interesting that unlike so many conservatives, he is not slavishly pro-Israel (as is, e.g., Sean Hannity). Anyone with the faintest knowledge of how things work in Washington understands the power of the Israel Lobby, but he just ignores the issue. I can’t recall him even discussing Israel or the Israel Lobby. Haaretz mentions his “lack of enthusiasm for the Jewish state” — likely another reason why ADL hates him.
Tucker’s approach to Jewish issues is not what people on this site would like, but I think he has woke up a lot of people and will continue to do so if and when he reemerges. That’s why he has a huge audience. And it’s entirely plausible that he understands Jewish involvement but believes (reasonably) that it cannot be a good strategy to win political power any time soon. That’s for writers at TOO and like-minded venues playing the long game—putting ideas out there so that intelligent observers who are now in the mainstream understand what is going on, even if they don’t say anything publicly.
Our current orthodoxies won’t last. They’re brain-dead. Nobody actually believes them. Hardly anyone’s life is improved by them. This moment is too inherently ridiculous to continue, and so it won’t.
The people in charge know this, that’s why they’re hysterical and aggressive. They’re afraid. They’ve given up persuasion – they’re resorting to force. But it won’t work. When honest people say what’s true, calmly and without embarrassment, they become powerful. At the same time, the liars who’ve been trying to silence them shrink – and they become weaker. That’s the iron-law of the universe; true things prevail.”
“Where can you still find Americans saying true things? There aren’t many places left, but there are some – and that’s enough. As long as you can hear the words, there is hope. See you soon.
Russia’s coming revenge attack on Ukraine for the attempted assassination of Putin
By Gilbert Doctorow | May 4, 2023
Yesterday The New York Times only published a tiny article on the Kremlin’s assertion that Ukraine had targeted Putin in a drone attack on the Kremlin. On the contrary, The Financial Times considered the issue to be of prime importance and gave it lead position in their online edition. And what about the Russians, how did they deal with this?
The hourly news programs were very restrained, giving the story top place but only a minute or two of attention. However, the talk shows gave it extensive attention. Sixty Minutes focused on the U.S. official reaction to the Kremlin charges, with an excerpt from the interview that Antony Blinken gave. In his remarks, Blinken first put in question the whole incident, saying dismissively that you cannot believe anything the Kremlin says. Then he went on to say that Kiev can do anything it deems necessary to repel the aggressor and recover its sovereign territory, for which it has American support. The hosts left it to the audience to interpret Blinken’s words, though none but blithering idiots would fail to understand from Blinken that the USA was in cahoots with Kiev on such an attack. Those who are politically informed about Washington would understand that Blinken is now wholly controlled by his nominal subordinate, Victoria Nuland, since what he said was exactly what she would say, meaning hawkish, anti-Russian in the extreme.
Beyond that, Sixty Minutes directed attention to Zelensky’s convenient departure for Finland shortly after the attack on the Kremlin. They also noted that his stay in Finland has been extended by a day, that he is now headed for Germany, where there was no expectation of his visit, and that he is being transported by a U.S. military plane. Here again, without saying it, the program hosts allow the audience to reach the logical conclusion that Zelensky was directly involved in the plot to assassinate Putin and that the United States was at his side all the way.
The talk show Evening with Vladimir Solovyov was less subtle. The host opened by reminding his audience of what Dmitry Medvedev, former President and head of the Russian Security Council said earlier in the day: that Ukraine is now a terrorist state, that there is no longer any justification for negotiating with Zelensky and that the Kiev regime must be destroyed.
For those who think that Solovyov and Medvedev were just sounding off and have no credibility, I point out that the Volodin, Speaker of the State Duma, yesterday also called for the destruction of the decision-making bodies in Ukraine, which means, of course, the presidential administration first of all.
While American and European newscasters opine over whether all this spells an escalation of the war, I will say with almost certainty that it does. It is hard to imagine that Vladimir Putin will be able or will even want to remain calm and restrained in the face of the latest U.S.-Kiev provocations. If his position is at risk in this war, it is from Russia’s super patriots.
The Russians have the ability to strike anywhere in Ukraine and to destroy any safe-places of the Kiev leadership including the deepest of bunkers. The question now is will they do so before Zelensky returns home, if he ever does? Will they do so during or immediately after the 9 May military parade in Moscow?
We are once again at a turning point in this war which has been provoked by Washington acting through the puppet regime in Kiev.
©Gilbert Doctorow, 2023
Top Polish general says ‘situation does not look good’ for Kiev
By Drago Bosnic | May 4, 2023
For well over a year, the mainstream propaganda machine has been trying to convince everyone that the Kiev regime forces are “massively overperforming” against Russia. However, behind all the Western disinformation clutter, NATO military commanders are extremely concerned with the fact that what would be the second most powerful military in NATO (if it were a member) is being quite literally wiped out, with the casualty ratio going as high as 10:1 or even 11:1, and not in its favor. Worse yet, the Neo-Nazi junta forces include tens of thousands of NATO mercenaries and radicalized volunteers, whose casualties are estimated to be well into five figures counting. General Rajmund Andrzejczak, Chief of General Staff of the Polish Armed Forces, recently warned about this.
“War always was, is, and there is nothing to indicate otherwise – a matter of politics, and in its determinants has a substantial number of economic factors: finance, infrastructure issues, social issues, technology, food production and a whole set of problems that must be put into this box to understand this conflict… When I look at the conflict in Ukraine, I mainly see it through these political lenses, and unfortunately it does not look good,” Andrzejczak stated in the closing days of April, during a strategic debate at the National Security Bureau, adding: “I think that there is nothing that indicates Russia would be unable to sustain its war effort, and that Western economic warfare efforts had failed to prevent this.”
“Those financial instruments which it had before the conflict, the dynamics of spending, the effectiveness of sanctions, and the whole complex economic situation speak to the fact that Russia will have the money for this conflict,” Andrzejczak said and then warned that Kiev doesn’t have remotely similar capabilities: “We know how much the country needs per month. We know what American assistance amounts to, that of the entire collective West amounts to. We also know what Polish assistance is in this area, because we are the second-largest donor and should probably be a major inspiration for others. The speed of attrition in the financial area is, in my opinion, unfavorable, unfortunately.”
The Polish Chief of General Staff further added: “There was little indication that millions of Ukrainians who had left the country would be ready or willing to return home to rebuild. Many Western leaders failed to realize how far Ukraine is from winning the war. The Western Bloc just doesn’t have the ammunition, industry is not ready not only to send equipment to Ukraine, but to replenish our own stocks, which are melting [away]. This awareness is not the same there as it is here on the Vistula River, and it must be communicated firmly, without an aesthetic, to everyone and in all forums, wherever possible, which is what I’m doing.”
The top Polish general’s concerns are hardly misplaced, especially considering the fact that he’s getting actual, unbiased military reports from Polish and other NATO services. Expectedly, such reports are extremely unlikely to ever be published by the mainstream propaganda machine, but General Andrzejczak’s words alone should be enough to indicate the actual state of the Kiev regime forces. Indeed, in recent days, the Russian Ministry of Defense (MoD) announced that its forces have been able to neutralize nearly 600 enemy combatants and dozens of pieces of hardware in the Donetsk area alone, along with over 200 tons of various types of NATO-supplied munitions.
Battlefield reports for May 1 indicate that the Russian military used long-range weapons to destroy at least two air defense divisions composed of S-300 SAM (surface-to-air missile) systems in a strike on depots in Pavlograd, a city in the Dnepropetrovsk oblast (region). Apparently, these systems were defending a depot in which the Neo-Nazi junta’s “Grom-2” tactical ballistic missiles were housed, which were also destroyed in one of the subsequent strikes. A third strike destroyed an ammunition depot of the 127th Mechanized Brigade based in the Kharkov oblast. Only a day prior, an entire network of munitions manufacturing facilities was also destroyed.
Perhaps the most disappointing (for both Kiev and the political West) aspect of the grossly overhyped performance of the Kiev regime forces is the recent admission that the much-touted HIMARS is nowhere near its declared capabilities. While the mainstream propaganda machine extensively reported on the alleged successes of this system, in reality, it has shown less than limited performance, as Russian air defenses have been able to intercept most HIMARS rockets, while the Russian Aerospace Forces “took care” of most launchers sent by NATO. Modernized versions of the “Buk” SAM system, particularly the M3 “Viking” variant, have proven to be extremely effective in virtually nullifying this threat.
HIMARS was portrayed as one of the Neo-Nazi junta’s “wunderwaffen”, a supposedly “decisive weapon” that could “turn the tide” against Russia. However, just like many of the actual “wunderwaffen” deployed by Nazi Germany in the closing months of the Second World War, this is proving to be futile. Poland’s top general essentially confirms this by pointing out what virtually all military commanders in NATO are perfectly aware of, but can’t disclose publicly.
Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.
My MP and an exercise in vaccine damage denial
By Nicholas Britton | TCW Defending Freedom | May 4, 2023
A few weeks ago I wrote to my MP to ask if he attended Andrew Bridgen’s debate in the House of Commons about the safety and effectiveness of the Covid vaccines. Of course, I knew he wasn’t among the handful of people who stayed in the chamber for the debate, but I wanted to convey my deep disappointment at the lack of interest by those elected by us and paid by us to represent us on such important issues.
I finally got a reply about a month later. He said he was in his constituency that day but was aware of Mr Bridgen’s speech. Below are some extracts from his letter. I have not identified him because this is not a name-and-shame exercise, but an illustration of how politicians are still in complete denial about this issue and are quite happy giving us misinformation in the form of the usual unsubstantiated slogans and tropes. I don’t know whether this MP believes any of what he wrote or whether he is just saying what he’s been told to say. I know he is a party loyalist who always falls in line with the leadership; he is not an independent thinker. Either way, I don’t like being lied to or hoodwinked.
It’s interesting that at no point does the MP refute anything Andrew Bridgen said, nor does he provide any evidence or argument to contradict his statements. That would be a tricky one, I guess, since Mr Bridgen was quoting from official figures. It’s also troubling to see such blatant denial of what is now being revealed around the world about the vaccines and which is even starting to creep into the MSM – I’ve recently noticed a few reports concerning vaccine injuries. Still, it remains an uphill struggle to convince some people that they are being lied to by the authorities. We are not trying to prove the existence of aliens or anything equally intangible, we are just trying to get those in authority to acknowledge what is screaming at them from their own official statistics. The result, as this letter shows, is for them to behave like recalcitrant children told to tidy their bedrooms, and to stick their fingers in their ears while loudly shouting ‘conspiracy theorist’, ‘misinformation’, or ‘anti-vaxxer’.
Here are the extracts (in bold) from the letter. I’ve added my thoughts below each.
‘I would point out that extensive independent research shows that COVID-19 vaccines are extremely successful at preventing deaths. They remain our best line of defence and the most effective way to enable us to live with the virus.’
‘Extremely successful’? Where is the independent evidence for that? I’d have thought he would be able to provide one or two examples of that ‘extensive independent research’ if he believes in it so fervently.
‘All vaccines must go through a rigorous testing and development process before authorisation to ensure that they meet the strict standards of safety, quality and effectiveness set by the independent medicines regulator, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).’
The Pfizer documents which the company wanted to keep under wraps for 75 years suggest more a rigorous cover-up than rigorous testing. As to quality, why have there been different rates of adverse events amongst different vaccine batches? In Japan, two men died after receiving shots from a batch contaminated with particles of stainless steel.
‘The independent Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) provides the latest clinical and scientific evidence on vaccine safety and efficacy. Unfortunately, misinformation about Covid-19 vaccines has spread rapidly through social media and other platforms. It is crucial that we all rely on credible sources of information when it comes to vaccines. Misinformation causes harm and costs lives, and it does an incredible disservice to frontline workers who have been at the heart of the fight against coronavirus, working day and night to protect the NHS and save lives.’
He implies that the government and its ‘experts’ are the only credible sources of information and we should be trusting them alone. When were these people anointed the high priests of truth? Who in their right mind would trust Neil Ferguson and his dodgy computer models? There is indeed a vast amount of misinformation out there, most of it coming from those with connections to a certain wealthy sociopath with financial interests in the vaccine industry.
‘I reject baseless claims, including those which suggest vaccines are harming and killing many people, and that the damage is being covered up.’
As do many of us reject the government’s baseless, unevidenced, and politically-motivated claims that they are ‘safe and effective’ and that the damage is not being covered up.
‘The MHRA operates the Yellow Card reporting scheme, which allows individuals and health professionals to report any suspected reactions or side effects, even if the reporter is not sure they were caused by the vaccine. The nature of yellow card reporting means that reported events are not always proven side effects; some events may have happened anyway, regardless of vaccination.’
Ah yes, the Medical Homicide Racketeering Agency. That body which was once a gatekeeper ensuring the safety of medical products but which now calls itself an ‘enabler’. He is correct in saying that correlation is not proof of causation. However, the government deemed that a positive PCR test within 28 days of death was proof of death caused by Covid, even if you’d actually been flattened by a bus, so it seems that correlation can mean causation when it’s politically useful. The purpose of the Yellow Card system has historically been to flag up possible problems with medicines which need to be investigated. In the case of the Covid vaccines, there have been more red flags than at a Soviet Mayday parade, yet they have been ignored.
‘Where vaccine damage does tragically occur, it is right that individuals and their families can access payments via the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme (VDPS). The VDPS is intended to support individuals and their families who have suffered severe disablement or bereavement as a result of having a vaccine. Covid-19 was added to this scheme in December 2020 and compensation payments under the scheme began last year.’
So why have the vaccine-injured been confronted with so many bureaucratic obstacles in their pursuit not just of the miserly £120,000 compensation but also recognition of their injuries, and of their need for practical help?
‘It is important to stress just how rare adverse reactions are. As with all vaccines and medicines, however, it is right that the safety of Covid-19 vaccines is continuously monitored.’
So why has the AstraZeneca vaccine, that triumph of British biotechnology, been quietly withdrawn in the UK and most other European countries? It has just been banned in Australia too. Switzerland has just removed recommendation for all Covid vaccinations for anybody, including the vulnerable. Surely it’s nothing to do with adverse reactions? The number of recorded adverse reactions for all Covid vaccines has vastly exceeded the total number for all other vaccine injuries over the past 30 years. Other vaccines and medicines have been withdrawn after far fewer recorded (suspected) adverse reactions.
***
I wonder how long politicians will keep up this pretence? I suspect they have dug themselves into such a deep hole they would have great trouble climbing out of it even if they eventually accept they have been complicit in the worst medical scam in history. My guess is they will keep digging because honesty and humility do not come easily to them.
Ivermectin ban lifted: Australia
The ban on off-label prescribing of the anti-viral drug has been in place for over 18 months
By Rebekah Barnett | Dystopian Down Under | May 3, 2023
Doctors will be free to prescribe ivermectin ‘off-label’ from 01 June 2023, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) announced today.
This is a reversal of a national ban on off-label prescribing of ivermectin, which the TGA enacted on 10 September 2021, in an attempt to prevent doctors from prescribing the drug to treat Covid.
At the time, the TGA stated that the restriction was necessary because:
- People would be at risk if they took ivermectin instead of getting vaccinated
- People who took ivermectin may choose not to get tested or to seek medical care if they had symptoms
- Social media posts were promoting higher doses of ivermectin than what is normally recommended for approved uses
- There had been a 3-4 fold uptake in ivermectin and the TGA was worried about a shortage disadvantaging vulnerable people who really needed the drug
So, instead of launching a nationwide education campaign and recommending that the Australian Government throw a few million dollars at bolstering the national stockpile of ivermectin, the TGA effectively banned the drug for all but a narrow set of uses.
The TGA has now relaxed the ban because, “there is sufficient evidence that the safety risks to individuals and public health is low when prescribed by a general practitioner in the current health climate.”
It would seem, though, that there was sufficient evidence of ivermectin’s safety all along. In July 2021, Rebecca Weisser wrote in Ivermectin. It’s as Aussie as Vegemite, for Spectator Australia:
As for safety, 3.7 billion doses of ivermectin have been used since 1987 and in 30 years, only 20 deaths following its use have been reported to the UN’s Vigi-Access database. Compare that to remdesivir, which has been given emergency use authorisation to treat Covid in Australian hospitals. In 12 months, there have been 551 deaths reported. Indeed, a study published in the prestigious Journal of the American Medical Association this week found remdesivir did not increase survival, just time spent in hospital.
The TGA’s stated concerns over ivermectin’s safety back in September 2021 seem incoherent when taken alongside its authorisation of remdesivir.
An Australian doctor, who prefers to remain anonymous, was suspended by industry regulator AHPRA for prescribing ivermectin off-label during the pandemic. He says,
“I think the restriction on prescribing ivermectin off-label was disingenuous from the start. It was always about coaching people toward the option of vaccination by removing a legitimate off-label therapeutic option. The decision effectively punished Australians for being self-educated and aware of the scientific evidence supporting ivermectin.
The reversal of the ban is a good step and it appears that doctors may be restored their full rights to off-label prescribing.
But, there remains the question of whether lives have in fact been lost due to the limitation of ivermectin through this policy.”
This is the question posed by Kara Thomas, Secretary of the Australian Medical Professionals’ Society, and Andrew McIntyre, Gastroenterologist and Coordinator of the Doctors Against Mandates legal action, in an op-ed from March this year, also for Spectator Australia. The article raises more questions than answers, but serves to highlight the disparity between the safety profiles of ivermectin (better) and Covid vaccines (worse), as well as a summary of the scientific evidence for ivermectin’s effectiveness.
The effectiveness of ivermectin in treating Covid is hotly argued in all corners of the internet, but it is worth noting that internationally renowned ICU doctor Paul Marik wept when his hospital enforced a policy preventing him from using it in combination with other therapeutics. There are numerous other frontline doctors who similarly expressed dismay at being prevented from administering the drug, after seeing lives saved under their care.
Though prescribing restrictions on ivermectin are to be lifted, the TGA does not endorse off-label prescribing of ivermectin for the treatment or prevention of Covid.
”A large number of clinical studies have demonstrated ivermectin does not improve outcomes in patients with COVID-19. The National Covid Evidence Taskforce (NCET) and many similar bodies around the world, including the World Health Organization, strongly advises against the use of ivermectin for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19.”
It will now be at the discretion of Australian doctors to make their best clinical judgement on a case by case basis.
Monash University, Melbourne, is running a blinded and randomised clinical trial to test ivermectin’s efficacy for Covid prevention. The trial is led by Dr Kylie Wagstaff, whose preliminary in vitro study in collaboration with the Doherty Institute (April 2020) found that ivermectin stopped the replication of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in cell culture within 48 hours.
Doctors must take back control
Has fear of GMC retribution crushed proper clinical practice?
Health Advisory & Recovery Team | May 3, 2023
Somewhere in England in early 2023, a large group of medics gathered together for an annual conference. No need for the details, lest the GMC attack dogs start frothing at the mouth at the idea of yet another potential witch hunt. Suffice to say, one brave soul among them decided to share some clinical observations with regard to extremely unusual surgical presentations and dared to utter the unspoken heresy that they may be as a result of the mass roll-out of novel mRNA gene therapies.
The main point of this story that should terrify anyone who uses state healthcare is that it took 2 years for this individual to even be able to utter these suspicions in a forum with colleagues. The fear of GMC retribution is so entrenched — and so potentially catastrophic for the individual — that medical thoughtcrime has been self-censored out of existence by the overwhelming majority of clinical staff. The battered corpses of the Andrew Wakefields and the Sam Whites appear like ghouls in the imaginations of anyone wishing to remain employed by the monopolistic NHS.
Of interest, was the response in the room. The speaker reports that it catalysed a measured discussion, suddenly giving others who had noticed similar patterns permission to speak up. An African colleague reported seeing the same phenomena in their own country within an affluent, highly vaccinated population. It provoked something that should be par for the course: a clinical discussion among experts without fear of being tarred and feathered. The surgeon who raised the topic reflected that 10-15 years ago they were taught to critically appraise evidence and dissect articles in regular journal clubs and examinations preparation. That culture has been totally replaced by top-down protocols and bureaucratic policy driven healthcare. An eminent retired surgeon in the room was stunned following the revelations and was moved to remind everyone that they have a duty to raise concerns. He was appalled to hear that the GMC had suspended colleagues simply for questioning the prevailing covid narrative.
In a recent Twitter Space (timestamp 53:45), Dr Simon Fox made a crucial point:
“Medicine has become very politicised, particularly here in the UK…therefore it shouldn’t be a surprise to us that reality is twisted in order to suit ideology and we get this phenomenon of policy-based evidence as opposed to evidence-based policy. We as doctors have become used to following guidelines, saying things that we know not to be the case because that has been handed down from on high…. what I call the third person in the consultation room is always there. The dead hand of the state, the regulatory capture is always there and it is in the back of our minds. And we all have families, we all have hopes and dreams. We would all rather not pick a fight with authorities that would result in us losing our livelihoods. That is a strong force, and it takes serious bravery to start to say things that are manifestly the truth.”
Science begins with observation. Collective observations are more powerful as numbers of anecdotes grow and theories can be constructed and tested. If individuals are not free to collectively observe, or compare notes, progress inevitably stalls. It is a closed-loop system that does not allow for paradigm shift. All totalitarian systems work in this way and they are without exception very, very dangerous. Everyone buzzing around in their own cognitive coffin, not daring to verbalise things they are seeing with their very own eyes in case The Party doesn’t appreciate their particular version of events.
There is currently a theme on social media: doctors being castigated for their part in the last 3 years. This is extremely unfair. It has been a military grade psy-op, decades in the making. That is not a metaphor. It has been rolled out with such an exquisite knowledge of behavioural science, learning from the mistakes of various other attempts (e.g. swine flu, which coincidentally involved an identical cast of characters; Fauci, Drosten, Ferguson), ironing out all the pesky moral obstacles to ensure total psychological checkmate. This is not the fault of (most) well-meaning doctors and nurses. They have been psychologically manipulated within an inch of their lives along with the rest of the population.
It was 6 months after roll-out that this particular medic started to see a pattern. Bizarre occurrences (and recurrences) of cancer in younger and younger patients. Aggressive, inoperable stage 4 cancers with widespread metastases. Cases of thromboses that just weren’t ‘normal’ and an odd uptick in appendicitis, also not in line with expected normal distribution.
The latest edition of Pravda, sorry the Telegraph, is trying to mind-ninja you into believing that these phenomena are all due to lockdowns, lack of screening and so forth. According to our source, this is just not a viable explanation, clinically speaking. Firstly, screenings did not stop. In fact, in their particular Trust, they were inheriting more cases, earlier, due to GPs being inaccessible and referrals coming straight to them. Secondly — and more compellingly — it is the precise nature of the cancers at point of diagnosis that should be causing more than raised eyebrows. This is in fact echoed in data from the US: delayed screenings do not explain an increase in odd and ill-defined cancers, nor a dramatic increase in younger age groups.
All of this calls for an immediate halt to the roll-out of this novel gene therapy along with a prompt and thorough investigation of these hitherto unseen clinical presentations (being coined ‘turbo cancers’) to ascertain whether the injections are indeed the cause. Unless the answer is a categoric, unequivocal ‘no’, no more of these experimental drugs should be injected into a single human being, let alone ‘vulnerable babies’. We are living in a terrifying medical clown world where the whirling dervish just continues to spin, unfettered.
This quote from the Journal of Clinical Investigation, 2006 should make your blood run cold. It is taken from a review of the book Doctors from hell: The horrific account of Nazi experiments on humans written by Dr Andrew Marks of Columbia University:
What lessons have been learned from the medical experimentation horrors of the Nazis? Today, in my own field of cardiology, I am aware of clinical studies now ongoing, particularly in the areas of gene therapy and cell-based therapy, for which there are inadequately convincing animal data, yet patients are being subjected to experimentation that puts them at great risk. What chance do patients have, even the most well informed, when an arrogant and egotistically driven physician tells them that they are going to die unless they submit themselves to an unproven treatment? Are the patients told the truth — that we don’t have a lot of options, and this is an unproven therapy that will likely do more harm than good, but we need to experiment on you?
How shocked the author must be that just 15 years later, they would be experimenting, unencumbered, on entire global populations including young, healthy children.
Unraveling the Epstein-Chomsky Relationship
By Whitney Webb |
Unlimited Hangout| May 3, 2023
Recent revelations that the renowned linguist and political activist met with Jeffrey Epstein several times have surprised and confused many. Why was Epstein interested in meeting with Noam Chomsky? And why did Chomsky agree to meet him despite his past? The answer may surprise you.
On Sunday, the Wall Street Journal published a report detailing information contained within a “trove” of previously unreported documents of the deceased sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein. Those documents, which have not been publicly released and appear to have been passed solely to the Journal, included Epstein’s private calendar and meeting schedules. The documents, per the Journal, contain “thousands of pages of emails and schedules from 2013 to 2017” and – as the report notes – detail Epstein’s dealings with several prominent individuals whose names were not on his flight logs or his infamous “little black book” of contacts. One of these individuals is the renowned linguist, political commentator and critic of capitalism and empire, Noam Chomsky.
Chomsky, who has previously discussed the Epstein case in interviews and who has maintained that Epstein’s ties to intelligence agencies should be considered a “conspiracy theory,” had not previously disclosed these meetings. Chomsky, when confronted by Journal reporters, was evasive, but ultimately admitted to meeting and knowing Jeffrey Epstein.
Many, largely on the left, have expressed dismay and confusion as to why someone with the political views of Chomsky would willingly meet, not once but several times, with someone like Jeffrey Epstein, particularly well after Epstein’s notoriety as a sex trafficker and pedophile. As this report will show, Epstein appeared to view Chomsky as another intellectual who could help guide his decisions when it came to his scientific obsessions – namely, transhumanism and eugenics. What Chomsky gained in return from meeting with Epstein isn’t as clear.
Why Did Chomsky Meet with Epstein?
According to the Journal, Chomsky’s meetings with Epstein took place during the years 2015 and 2016, while Chomsky taught at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, or MIT. Chomsky told the Journal that he met with Epstein to discuss topics like neuroscience with other academics, like Harvard’s Martin Nowak (who was heavily funded by Epstein). On a separate occasion, Chomsky again met with Epstein alongside former Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Barak, allegedly to discuss “Israel’s policies with regard to Palestinian issues and the international arena.” A separate date saw Chomsky and his wife invited by Epstein to have dinner with him, Woody Allen and Allen’s wife Soon-Yi Previn. When asked about the dinner date with Woody Allen and Epstein, Chomsky referred to the occasion as “an evening spent with a great artist.”
When confronted with this evidence, Chomsky initially told the Journal that his meetings and relationship with Epstein were “none of your business. Or anyone’s.” He then added that “I knew him [Epstein] and we met occasionally.”
Before continuing further, it is important to note that aside from Epstein, both Ehud Barak and Woody Allen have been accused of having inappropriate sexual relationships with minors. For instance, Barak was a frequent visitor to Epstein’s residences in New York, so often that The Daily Beast reported that numerous residents of an apartment building linked to Epstein “had seen Barak in the building multiple times over the last few years, and nearly half a dozen more described running into his security detail,” adding that “the building is majority-owned by Epstein’s younger brother, Mark, and has been tied to the financier’s alleged New York trafficking ring.”
Ehud Barak attempting to hide his face during a 2016 visit to Jeffrey Epstein’s New York Residence. Source: Daily Mail
Specifically, several apartments in the building were “being used to house underage girls from South America, Europe and the former Soviet Union,” according to a former bookkeeper employed by one of Epstein’s main procurers of underage girls, Jean Luc Brunel. Barak is also known to have spent the night at one of Epstein’s residences at least once, was photographed leaving Epstein’s residence as recently as 2016, and has admitted to visiting Epstein’s island, which has sported nicknames including “Pedo Island,” “Lolita Island” and “Orgy Island.” In 2004, Barak received $2.5 million from Leslie Wexner’s Wexner Foundation, where Epstein was a trustee as well as one of the foundation’s top donors, officially for unspecified “consulting services” and “research” on the foundation’s behalf. Several years later, Barak put Harvey Weinstein in contact with the Israeli private intelligence outfit Black Cube, which employs former Mossad agents and Israeli military intelligence operatives, as Weinstein sought to intimidate the women who had accused him of sexual assault and sexual harassment.
In addition, Barak previously chaired and invested in Carbyne911, a controversial Israeli emergency services start-up that has expanded around the world and has become particularly entrenched in the United States. Barak had directed Epstein to invest $1 million into that company, which has been criticized as a potential tool for warrantless mass surveillance. Leslie Wexner also invested millions in the company.
Woody Allen and Soon-Yi Previn, 1990 (Allvip)
In Woody Allen’s case, he has been accused of sexually assaulting his adopted daughter Dylan Farrow when she was 7 years old. That abuse claim has been corroborated by witnesses and other evidence. Furthermore, Allen refused to take a polygraph administered by state police in connection with the investigation and lost four exhaustive court battles related to child custody and his abuse of Dylan Farrow. One of the judge’s in the case described Allen’s behavior towards Dylan as “grossly inappropriate and that measures must be taken to protect her.” Actress Mia Farrow, Dylan’s mother, alleged in court that Allen took a sexual interest in her adopted daughter when she was between the ages of two and three years old.
Allen subsequently “seduced” and later married another adopted daughter of Farrow’s, Soon-Yi Previn, whom Allen first met when Previn was a child. However, Previn has stated that her first “friendly” interaction with Allen took place when she was a teenager. In 1992, Mia Farrow found nude photos of Previn in Allen’s home and has stated that this was her motive for ending her relationship with Allen.
In the case of Allen and Epstein, and potentially Barak as well, their sexual proclivities and scandals were well known by the time Chomsky met with these men, making a strong suggestion that this type of behavior was not seen by Chomsky as taboo or as a barrier to socialization. It is more likely than not that there was some other major draw that led Chomsky to overlook this type of horrendous behavior toward vulnerable minors.
In terms of reaching a deeper understanding about why Epstein would have been interested in Chomsky – and vice versa, it is important to review – not just the information recently reported by the Wall Street Journal, but also what Epstein himself said of Chomsky before his 2019 death. According to an interview conducted in 2017, but later published in 2019 when Epstein was a major news topic, Epstein openly stated that he had invited Chomsky to his townhouse and he also explicitly stated why he had done so. Oddly, this early acknowledgement of Epstein’s regarding his relationship with Chomsky was left out of the Journal’s recent report.
In that interview, which was conducted by Jeffrey Mervis and later published in Science, Epstein stated that following about Chomsky:
[…] Epstein readily admitted to asking prominent members of the scientific establishment to assess the potential contribution of these so-called outcasts [i.e. MIT students Epstein described as being “on the spectrum”].
“So, I had Jim Watson to the house, and I asked Watson, what does he think about this idea,” a proposal to study how the cellular mechanisms of plants might be relevant to human cancer. Watson is a Nobel laureate and co-discoverer of the structure of DNA. “Likewise with [Noam] Chomsky on artificial intelligence,” he said, referring to one of the pioneers in the field.
In fact, Epstein expressed great respect for the opinions of these elder statesmen. “It’s funny to watch Noam Chomsky rip apart these young boys who talk about having a thinking machine,” Epstein noted. “He takes out a dagger and slices them, very kindly, into little shreds.”
Thus, per Epstein, his interest in inviting Chomsky to his house was explicitly related to the “artificial intelligence,” which was a major scientific interest of Epstein’s. This also provides a major clue as to how Chomsky and Epstein might have first been introduced.
Chomsky, Epstein and MIT
Chomsky is most widely viewed as a famous linguist, political commentator and critic of modern capitalism and imperialism. So, why did Epstein seek to meet with him instead on Artificial Intelligence matters?
Well, an admitted “friend” of both Chomsky’s and Epstein’s was the AI pioneer Marvin Minsky. Like Chomsky, Minsky was a long-time professor and academic at MIT. It is very possible that Minsky connected the two men, especially considering the fact that Epstein was a major donor to MIT. Epstein described himself as being “very close” to Minsky, who died in 2016, roughly a year after Epstein began meeting with Chomsky. Epstein also financed some of Minsky’s projects and Minsky, like Ehud Barak, was accused of sexually abusing the minors Epstein trafficked.
Marvin Minsky and Noam Chomsky converse bprior to a panel that was part of MIT’s “Brains, Minds and Machines” symposium in 2011. Source: MIT
Chomsky’s views on linguistics and cognition, for those who don’t know, is based very much on evolutionary biology. Chomsky was also a pioneer in cognitive science, described as “a field aimed at uncovering the mental representations and rules that underlie our perceptual and cognitive abilities.” Some have described Chomsky’s concept of language as based on “the complexity of internal representation, encoded in the genome, and their maturation in light of the right data into a sophisticated computational system, one that cannot be usefully broken down into a set of associations.” A person’s “language faculty”, per Chomsky, should be seen as “part of the organism’s genetic endowment, much like the visual system, the immune system and the circulatory system, and we ought to approach it just as we approach these other more down-to-earth biological systems.”
Despite their friendship, Minsky greatly diverged with Chomsky in this view, with Minsky describing Chomsky’s views on linguistics and cognition as largely superficial and irrelevant. Chomsky later criticized the widely used approach with AI that focuses on statistical learning techniques to mine and predict data, which Chomsky argued was “unlikely to yield general principles about the nature of intelligent beings or about cognition.”
However, Chomsky’s views linking evolutionary biology/genetics with linguistics/cognition were notably praised by the aforementioned Martin Nowak, who had attended one of the meetings Epstein had with Chomsky. Nowak, a professor of biology and mathematics and head of the Program for Evolutionary Dynamics at Harvard, later stated that he had “once broke out a blackboard during dinner with Epstein and, for two hours, gave a mathematical description of how language works,” further revealing that Epstein was interested in aspects of linguistics. It is unclear if this particular meeting was the same that Chomsky had attended alongside Nowak to discuss “neuroscience” and other topics.
However, given the importance of evolutionary biology and genetics to Chomsky’s theories, it is hardly surprising that Jeffrey Epstein would have gravitated more towards his views on AI than those of Minsky. Epstein was fascinated by genetics and, even per mainstream sources, was also deeply interested eugenics. Take for example the following from an article published in The Guardian in 2019:
Epstein was apparently fixated on “transhumanism”, the belief that the human species can be deliberately advanced through technological breakthroughs, such as genetic engineering and artificial intelligence.
At its most benign, transhumanism is a belief that humanity’s problems can be improved, upgraded even, through such technology as cybernetics and artificial intelligence – at its most malignant though, transhumanism lines up uncomfortably well with eugenics.
Thus, Epstein’s interest in AI, genetics, and more was tied into his documented obsession with “transhumanism,” which – as several Unlimited Hangout reports have noted – is essentially a rebranding of eugenics. Indeed, the term transhumanism itself was first coined by Julian Huxley, the former president of the British Eugenics Society and the first head of UNESCO who called to make “the unthinkable thinkable again” with regards to eugenics.
Aside from transhumanism, Epstein also had an avowed interest in “strengthening” the human gene pool, in part by impregnating as many women as possible with his “seed” in order to widely disperse his genes. These views may also explain Epstein’s interest in associating himself with people like James (Jim) Watson. As noted earlier in this article, Epstein stated in 2017 that he had invited both Watson and Chomsky to his home on separate occasions.
Watson has been a controversial figures for years, particularly after he openly stated that people of African descent are genetically inferior and less intelligent than their European counterparts. He also previously promoted the idea that women should abort babies that carried a “gay gene,” were such a gene ever discovered. He also felt that gene editing should be used to make all women “prettier” and to eradicate “stupidity”. Notably, Watson made all of these comments well before Epstein invited him to his home.
James Watson in an undated photo. Source: Insider
Watson was also praised, controversially, after these same comments by another Epstein-funded scientist, Eric Lander. Lander, who was recently Biden’s top science advisor, was forced to resign from that post last year after being accused of harassing those who worked under him in the Biden administration’s Office of Science and Technology. Prior to joining the Biden administration, Lander had collaborated with Watson on the Human Genome Project and later ran the Broad Institute, a non-profit born out of collaboration between MIT and Harvard.
Returning to Chomsky, though he may not have been aware of Epstein’s interests in eugenics and transhumanism, it has since become clear that Epstein’s main interest in Artificial Intelligence – his stated purpose for courting Chomsky – was intimately tied to these controversial disciplines. However, Chomsky did know of Epstein’s past, and likely also knew of Woody Allen’s similar past before meeting him as well. He turned a blind eye on those matters, telling the Journal that Epstein had “served his sentence” and, as a result, had been granted a “clean slate”. In saying this, Chomsky is apparently unaware of Epstein’s controversial “sweetheart deal” that resulted in an extremely lenient sentence and non-prosecution agreement. That “deal” was signed off on by then-US Attorney Alex Acosta because Acosta was told to “back off” Epstein because Epstein “belonged to intelligence.” Chomsky had previously told several people, including an Unlimited Hangout reader, that an Epstein-intelligence agency connection is a “conspiracy theory.”
Given Chomsky’s odd views on Epstein’s past and the fact that Epstein frequently discussed transhumanism and eugenics around other prominent scientists, it is possible, though unproven, that Chomsky may have known more about Epstein’s true interests in AI and genetics.
Would Chomsky have been willing to overlook these ethical conundrums? Given his political views on capitalism and foreign policy, many would likely say that he would not. However, finding ways to circumvent these ethical conundrums with respect to AI may have been one of Epstein’s main reasons for heavily funding MIT, particularly its Media Lab. Epstein, in addition to his own donations, also funneled millions of dollars from Bill Gates and Leon Black to the Media Lab.
According to former Media Lab employee Rodrigo Ochigame, writing in The Intercept, Joi Ito of MIT’s Media Lab – who took lots of donations from Epstein and attempted to hide Epstein’s name on official records – was focused on developing “ethics” for AI that were “aligned strategically with a Silicon Valley effort seeking to avoid legally enforceable restrictions of controversial technologies.” Ito later resigned his post at the Media Lab due to fallout from the Epstein scandal.
Ochigame writes:
A key group behind this effort, with the lab as a member, made policy recommendations in California that contradicted the conclusions of research I conducted with several lab colleagues, research that led us to oppose the use of computer algorithms in deciding whether to jail people pending trial. Ito himself would eventually complain, in private meetings with financial and tech executives, that the group’s recommendations amounted to “whitewashing” a thorny ethical issue. “They water down stuff we try to say to prevent the use of algorithms that don’t seem to work well” in detention decisions, he confided to one billionaire.
I also watched MIT help the U.S. military brush aside the moral complexities of drone warfare, hosting a superficial talk on AI and ethics by Henry Kissinger, the former secretary of state and notorious war criminal, and giving input on the U.S. Department of Defense’s “AI Ethics Principles” for warfare, which embraced “permissibly biased” algorithms and which avoided using the word “fairness” because the Pentagon believes “that fights should not be fair.”
Ochigame also cites Media Lab colleagues who say that Marvin Minsky, who worked with the Lab before his death, was known to say that “an ethicist is someone who has a problem with whatever you have in your mind.” Also troubling is the fact that Ito, and by extension the Media Lab, played a role in shaping White House policy with respect to AI. For instance, Obama called Ito an “expert” on AI and ethics during an interview with him in 2016. Ito, on his conversation with Obama, said the following: “[…] the role of the Media Lab is to be a connective tissue between computer science, and the social sciences, and the lawyers, and the philosophers […] What’s cool is that President Obama gets that.”
If you are Jeffrey Epstein, with a history of illegal and criminal activity, and interested in avoiding the regulation of controversial technologies you feel are necessary to advance your vision of transhumanism/eugenics, financing groups that greatly influence “ethics” policies that helps limit the regulation of those technologies would obviously benefit you.
Ochigame goes on to write:
Thus, Silicon Valley’s vigorous promotion of “ethical AI” has constituted a strategic lobbying effort, one that has enrolled academia to legitimize itself. Ito played a key role in this corporate-academic fraternizing, meeting regularly with tech executives. The MIT-Harvard fund’s initial director was the former “global public policy lead” for AI at Google. Through the fund, Ito and his associates sponsored many projects, including the creation of a prominent conference on “Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency” in computer science; other sponsors of the conference included Google, Facebook, and Microsoft.
Notably, Epstein was tied into these same circles. He was very, very close, not just with Bill Gates, but with several other top Microsoft executives and was also known to have a close relationship with Google’s Sergey Brin, who has recently been subpoenaed in the Epstein-JPMorgan case, as well as Facebook/Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg. Notably, many of these same companies are currently pioneering transhumanist technologies, particularly in healthcare, and are deeply tied to either the military or intelligence, if not both.
The MIT-AI-Military Connection
Chomsky is just one of several prominent academics and intellectuals who were courted by Epstein in an attempt to supercharge the development of technologies that could help bring his controversial obsessions to fruition. Notably, many of these characters, including Chomsky, have had their work – at one point or another – funded by the U.S. military, which has itself long been a major driver of AI research.
For example, Minsky and Danny Hillis, a close associate of Epstein’s in his own right, co-created a DARPA contractor and supercomputer firm called Thinking Machines, which was aimed at creating a “truly intelligent machine. One that can see and hear and speak. A machine that will be proud of us,” according to one company brochure. Minsky was Hillis’ mentor at MIT and the pair sought out Sheryl Handler, who worked for a genetic-engineering start-up at Harvard called the Genetics Institute, to help them create their supercomputer firm.
Danny Hillis speaks at the 2013 TED Conference in Long Beach, California. Source: Flickr
Thinking Machines, which made poor business decisions routinely from the beginning, was only able to function for as long as it did due to multi-million dollar contracts it had secured from the Pentagon’s DARPA. With the close of Cold War, DARPA sought to use its clout with Thinking Machines to push the company to develop a product that could deal with things like modeling the global climate, mapping the human genome and predicting earthquakes. Subsequent reporting from the Wall Street Journal showed that the agency had been “playing favorites” and Thinking Machine’s “gravy train” abruptly ended due to the bad publicity, subsequently leading to the collapse of the company.
Hillis, around this time, met Jeffrey Epstein. The introduction may have been brokered by former Microsoft’s Chief Technology Officer Nathan Myhrvold, a friend of Hillis’ who grew close to Epstein in the 1990s and even took Epstein on an official Microsoft trip to Russia. Myhrvold, who was also named as an abuser of the minors Epstein trafficked, was one of the other top Microsoft officials who was close to Epstein beginning in the 1990s. Another was Linda Stone, who later connected Jeffrey Epstein to Joi Ito of MIT’s Media Lab. As previously mentioned, Epstein would later direct the long-time head of Microsoft, Bill Gates, to donate millions to the Media Lab.
Linda Stone at the 2016 SciFoo Conference. Source: JonesBlog
Chomsky’s own history at MIT brought him into contact with the military. For instance, during the early 1960s, Chomsky received funding from the Air Force, which aimed to program a computer with Chomsky’s insights about grammar in an attempt to endow it “with the ability to recognize instructions imparted to it in perfectly ordinary English, thereby eliminating a necessity for highly specialized languages that intervene between a man and a computer.” Chomsky later stated of the military funding of his early career that “I was in a military lab. If you take a look at my early publications, they all say something about Air Force, Navy, and so on, because I was in a military lab, the Research Lab for Electronics.”
Chomsky has since denied that military funding shaped his linguistics work in any significant way and has claimed that the military is used by the government “as a kind of a funnel by which taxpayer money was being used to create the hi-tech economy of the future.” However, reports have noted that this particular project was very much tied to military applications. In addition, the man who first recruited Chomsky to MIT in the mid-1950s, Jerome Wiesner, went on to be Chomsky’s boss at MIT for over 20 years as well as “America’s most powerful military scientist.”
Jerome Wiesner (second from left) at a White House cabinet meeting during the Kennedy administration. Source: The Conversation
To Chomsky’s credit, after this program ended, he became fully, and publicly, committed to anti-war activism. This activism led him, at one point, to consider resigning from MIT, which he declined to do – likely because he was rather quickly granted professorship. As Chris Knight writes, “this meant that instead of resigning, Chomsky’s choice was to launch himself as an outspoken anti-militarist activist even while remaining in one of the US’s most prestigious military labs.”
By staying at MIT, Chomsky chose to maintain his career, in relative proximity to the centers of power he would later become an icon for denouncing. However, it shows that Chomsky, from this time onward, began to make some choices that undermined his radicalism to an extent. Chomsky may have rationalized his decision to stay at MIT in the 1960s because it gave him a better platform from which to espouse his political and anti-war views. It is not unheard of for prominent public figures to make such compromises. However, in light of the recent Epstein revelations and what they appear to signal, it seems that Chomsky, particularly in his later years, may have become too comfortable and too willing to make these types of compromises – ones that a much younger Chomsky would have surely rejected.
Whitney Webb has been a professional writer, researcher and journalist since 2016. She has written for several websites and, from 2017 to 2020, was a staff writer and senior investigative reporter for Mint Press News. She currently writes for The Last American Vagabond and Unlimited Hangout.
House GOP probes State Department’s censorship ties to social media giants
An investigation into outsourcing censorship to third-parties
By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | May 3, 2023
House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan has initiated an inquiry into possible collaboration between federal agencies and social media companies on content moderation. In particular, Republicans on the House Foreign Affairs Committee are seeking information about the Global Engagement Center (GEC), an interagency within the State Department, regarding grants awarded to organizations fighting “misinformation.”
The Gazette reports that a letter sent to Secretary of State Antony Blinken, penned by Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Michael McCaul and endorsed by seven other Republicans, accuses the GEC of deviating from its original mission by funding organizations like the Global Disinformation Index (GDI), the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, and the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensics Research Lab.
These organizations have been accused of contributing to the censorship of online speech.
According to the letter, the GEC was initially established to offer a reliable source of truth about America and its battle against global terrorism. However, the lawmakers express concern over the GEC’s expanded scope and question the legitimacy of its current activities.
We obtained a copy of the letter for you here.
A September 2022 report by the State Department’s inspector general identified shortcomings in the GEC’s efforts to combat foreign threats and assess the use of its overseas grants.
Subsequently, House Foreign Affairs Committee Republicans postponed the reauthorization of the GEC until internal staffing, organizational structure, and policy priorities were addressed. The GEC’s legal authority is set to expire on December 23, 2024, unless Congress takes action, the report stated.
The letter highlights instances of the GEC’s collaboration with the disinformation tracking industry, such as the development of a video game called Cat Park, which aims to “educate” players about disinformation tactics.
Additionally, the GEC-funded GDI has identified the American Spectator, Newsmax, the Federalist, the American Conservative, One America News, The Blaze, The Daily Wire, RealClearPolitics, Reason, and the New York Post as the 10 riskiest news outlets for “disinformation.”
Furthermore, the GEC has allegedly granted funds to the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Lab, which identified over 40,000 Twitter accounts in June 2021 as engaging in inauthentic behavior and promoting Hindi nationalism.
Featured Video
Iran FM Araghchi: “Hormuz Will No Longer Be the Same”
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Sam Husseini: The entire US establishment helped lie their way into the Iraq war
By Slava Zilber | American Herald Tribune | October 14, 2019
Sam Husseini is a senior analyst with the Institute for Public Accuracy, independent journalist and contributor to The Nation and FAIR.
Slava Zilber: Sam, three years ago, you appeared on Talk Nation Radio with David Swanson and spoke about the case of the GCHQ whistleblower Katharine Gun. You pointed out that the people involved in the spying on the UN and the people authorizing the Iraq War were not held accountable:
“Virtually everybody who went along with the war, whether it is Kerry or Clinton, of course, the Bush administration themselves has falsified their own records in terms of why, what they did, when they did, why they did it, to the extent that they’ve been scrutinised at all.”
You also address it in a recent article. And recently, Joe Biden has been lying about his position on the Iraq War. How can such an important issue escape meaningful scrutiny? … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Barghouti: ‘Netanyahu has fallen,’ era of Smotrich, Ben-Gvir over
- China slams US policy on Iran as Russia rejects legality of nuclear meeting at UN
- The Mecca Pact Courts Iran: Containment Comes Full Circle
- Oman FM: Persian Gulf states, Iran, Iraq should form security pact excluding US
- Trump peddles fresh falsehoods, claims Iran ‘started the war’ as US aggression drags on
- Ukraine quagmire? Yes, but it’s for NATO, not Russia
- US intelligence hypes Chinese, Russian space threats while accelerating its own military buildup in orbit
- Iran FM Araghchi: “Hormuz Will No Longer Be the Same”
- EU facing trillion-euro debt hole while seeking more cash for Kiev
- How US, Europe, Persian Gulf states exhausted missile stockpiles, splurged billions to defend Israel
- If Americans Knew
- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
- No Tricks Zone
- Sudden Stratospheric Warming, Powerful El Niño Combination May Lead To Extreme Europe Cold, Energy Crisis!
- Two New Studies Find Thwaites Glacier Melt Cannot Be Driven By Human Activity Or A Warming Ocean
- E-Cars Reduce CO2 Emissions By Only 41% Compared To Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles
- Predictions Made By Renowned Climate Professor Over Past Decades Have Been Proven To Be Poor
- New Study Suggests Large Regions Of The Pacific Ocean Have Been Cooling For The Last 80 Years
- Germany’s Green Energy Debacle: High Energy Costs Force Kahla Porzellan to Close After 182 Years!
- New Study: 50 Years Of The Most Aggressive ‘Net Zero’ Policies Can Only Affect The Global Climate By 0.03°C
- US September “Heat” Was No Record…Many Records Set Decades Ago
- Latest European Green Energy Debacle; Portugal’s Largest Flagship Solar Park Insolvent!
- Green Energy Debacle: German Expert Professor Fritz Vahrenholt Warns Of Severe Economic And Social Consequences
