The Great American Novel
                 The Film
    You will never view the world again the same .......
                            after seeing

 The Great American Novel
       A must see film.....there is no doubt that  everyone in the world will demand that the film

Barack Obama at dinner the heads of the major Internet Companies that control a great percentage of the Internet traffic and browsing on the Internet

The Great American Novel
                 The Film
    You will never view the world again the same .......
                            after seeing

 The Great American Novel
    A must see film.....there is no doubt that  everyone in the world will demand that the film

CRIME In Australia:

Drug trade behind police corruption

by Peter Westmore

News Weekly, June 5, 2004

Following a series of gangland killings of police informers, a former Federal Court Judge, Sir Edward Woodward, made the alarming comment that corruption in Victoria was at the worst level ever. His comments cannot be ignored: not only because they were made to the Criminal Bar Association, but because he was a former Royal Commissioner into the notorious Ships' Painters and Dockers Union.

Whatever the accuracy of his observation, there can be no doubt that in several states of Australia, there has been an alarming increase in police corruption which damages the hard-earned reputation of the Australian police forces.

What is not widely recognised, however, is the link between police corruption, organised crime and the drug trade.

The problem of corruption varies from country to country. Often it is due to factors such as a weak legal system; inadequate pay for public servants; and a lack of accountability and transparency in government.

For Australia and other Western countries where the rule of law is well entrenched and government agencies have well-established anti-corruption practices, it frequently appears in attempts by organised crime to subvert the police force.

Drug revenue

As the main revenue sources for organised crime are drugs and prostitution, these are frequently linked with police corruption.

The direct cost of drug-related crime is huge. A Parliamentary report last year said that drug crimes cost the country some $2.5 billion a year, although the effects extend far beyond the direct cost, in terms of lives destroyed, violence, and the undermining of public institutions.

It is not surprising, therefore, that illegal drugs - heroin, marijuana and designer drugs such as ecstasy - are the common link between Melbourne's gangland killings and police corruption, as Victoria's Police Deputy Commissioner, Peter Nancarrow, said recently.

The position in Victoria has been so bad that the Drug Squad was disbanded in 2001, but it has subsequently become even worse.

Apart from the gangland murder of people who offered to testify in court against corrupt police, others in anti-corruption units have been threatened by both organised crime and corrupt police.

Clearly, the illicit drug trade is intimately linked with both police corruption and organised crime. If drugs could be removed from the equation, the problems in both these areas would be substantially lessened.

The key problem in Australia is that public policy on illegal drugs is hopelessly confused, at a number of levels.

First, the links between organised crime, police corruption and drugs is obscured by the official policy of treating all forms of drug abuse (tobacco, alcohol and illegal drugs) together.

This has been one of the central planks of the lobby which favours legalisation of drugs, on the Dutch model.

Australian governments have accepted this line, which finds its expression in terms such as "harm minimisation", a meaningless expression which actually means tolerance of the drug culture.

Yet there is very little in common between the problems of tobacco use, or even misuse of alcohol - the main "legal" drugs - and the illicit drug trade.

This confusion is perpetuated in the Federal Government's National Drug Strategy, which advocates a "harm minimisation" approach to both legal and illegal drugs, and views drug abuse as primarily a social and medical problem (which it clearly is with tobacco, at least), rather than a legal one (which is untrue, where heroin, marijuana and designer drugs are involved).

This approach was repeated in the recent House of Representatives report into drug abuse, Roads to Recovery, tabled in the House of Representatives in August, 2003.

Additionally, the legal approach to illegal drugs has been hopelessly compromised by policies of toleration pursued by various State governments. These include the legalisation of marijuana for "personal use" in some states, the widespread provision of free injecting kits for heroin addicts, legalised heroin injecting rooms, and the policy of giving heroin addicts access to methadone programs, without ensuring that they are heroin-free.

The result is that law enforcement programs are compromised by governments intent on accommodating the pro-drugs lobby. Additionally, police who lack clear guidelines to enforce an anti-drug policy, are subject to constant attempts to suborn them into accepting a share in the huge profits made by drug dealers, in other words, by organised crime.

If Australia is to deal with this problem, it will have to begin with a zero-tolerance policy towards illicit drugs, vigorous pursuit of drug traffickers, and forced rehabilitation of those convicted of illicit drug use, backed up by the power of imprisonment. Without this, it will be almost impossible to deal with the problems of organised crime and police corruption.

  • Peter Westmore is President of the National Civic Council

Noam Chomsky - Anarchism I

Chomsky's Philosophy

Published on Sep 25, 2014

Chomsky sums up anarchism in 7 1/2 minutes.

Noam Chomsky - Anarchism I

Caption author (English (United States))



News & Politics

Karen Skinner1 year ago

I love Noam Chomsky's brain!!! Brilliant man!

Tom Lahr7 months ago (edited)

Corporations are private tyrannies.

Want to read about a couple of modern tyrants?

Look up the "Koch brothers" on "Wicki".

uoy19971 week ago

oh shit, i'm an anarchist now.

Russell Doyle11 months ago

anarkick capitalism that can lobby to change and delete laws at will.

Silver Fang2 months ago

Russell Doyle Trade being ruled at gunpoint by a corrupt state for a life of being a corporate slave to profit driven businessmen? No thanks.

Eek a Mouse2 months ago

pretty obvious the comment wasn't pro-ancap . lol

Ticket Attorney6 months ago

Corporations are enabled by government, the state is the ultimate oppressor because without the ethereal belief in government, corporations would not be able to bypass non-aggression. So many inconsistencies in his perspective...

Aspie Freethinker1 month ago

@Tasheem Hargrove Realism tends to assume the universe has an easily predictable set of universal,unchangeable and mechanistic natural laws that govern all events.This is easily debunked as many events in history have either not been predicted by realists or at least not accurately predicted.Also,realism often assumes essentialist norms about gender,race and class that are highly outdated.Realism`s myopic focus on State power also ignores the significance of individual choices and actions.I actually agree with you about science and technology.I consider myself something of an empiricist and very much oppose rationalism(The fact that Ayn Rand and Molyneux have identified as rationalists has a strong influence on my feelings about that philosophical model,as do its ties historically to Theism).

Tasheem Hargrove1 month ago

+Aspie Freethinker I'm not a realist. And honestly, most scientists (mainly physicists) would probably be skeptical of the claim that laws are "unchangeable". The Big Bang is an example where it is likely that the laws were different. But with that said, there isn't much evidence beyond the Big Bang that would suggest that natural law has ever changed within the past 13.8 billion years. Essentialism: There's an ongoing debate in science about this but in Reality, the ultimate decider ought to be nature. You have a boat. You start taking parts off the boat, one by one. When is the boat no longer a boat? Here, I agree with non-essentialists. There are no inherent characteristics of a "boat". That's subjective for the simple fact that this concept is a social construction. Boats don't exist naturally. But this Reality we live is complicated. It's rarely ever black and white. Let's use the same way of thinking for humans. When is a human no longer a human? Nature answers this question for us: If he/she cannot reproduce a human, or be the offspring of a human. In other words, we are naturally divided, by nature, into species. This is most evident in bestiality and the attempt to mix humans with other animals. It simply cannot happen because nature forbids it. Am I saying bestiality is wrong? No. There's no such thing. All I'm saying is that nature, itself, sees us as distinct species. Therefore, there are indeed certain characteristics (mainly genes) which can be considered "essence". Rationalism: I am not a rationalist. I value Reason above all, but I understand that it's only useful after observation, testing, and data. Reason is much needed to do calculus but it's useless if you don't know any algebra. Rationalists and "obejectivists" like Ayn Rand or Molyneux are just as naive as the Theist if they really believe the world can be explained through limited knowledge and observation of it.


G. Edward Griffin: The Collectivist Conspiracy


Uploaded on Dec 22, 2011

In this exclusive 80 minute video interview for Prison subscribers, legendary conspiracy author G. Edward Griffin explains how his research, which spans no less than 5 decades, has revealed a banking elite obsessed with enforcing a world government under a collectivist model that will crush individualism and eventually institute martial law as a response to the inevitable backlash that will be generated as a result of a fundamental re-shaping of society.

Propaganda Terms in the Media and What They Mean - Noam Chomsky

The Film Archives

Published on Jun 1, 2012

The United States and the Soviet Union both used propaganda extensively during the Cold War. More Chomsky:

Both sides used film, television, and radio programming to influence their own citizens, each other, and Third World nations. The United States Information Agency operated the Voice of America as an official government station. Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty, which were, in part, supported by the Central Intelligence Agency, provided grey propaganda in news and entertainment programs to Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union respectively. The Soviet Union's official government station, Radio Moscow, broadcast white propaganda, while Radio Peace and Freedom broadcast grey propaganda. Both sides also broadcast black propaganda programs in periods of special crises.

In 1948, the United Kingdom's Foreign Office created the IRD (Information Research Department), which took over from wartime and slightly post-war departments such as the Ministry of Information and dispensed propaganda via various media such as the BBC and publishing.

The ideological and border dispute between the Soviet Union and People's Republic of China resulted in a number of cross-border operations. One technique developed during this period was the "backwards transmission," in which the radio program was recorded and played backwards over the air. (This was done so that messages meant to be received by the other government could be heard, while the average listener could not understand the content of the program.)

When describing life in capitalist countries, in the US in particular, propaganda focused on social issues such as poverty and anti-union action by the government. Workers in capitalist countries were portrayed as "ideologically close". Propaganda claimed rich people from the US derived their income from weapons manufacturing, and claimed that there was substantial racism or neo-fascism in the US.

When describing life in Communist countries, western propaganda sought to depict an image of a citizenry held captive by governments that brainwash them. The West also created a fear of the East, by depicting an aggressive Soviet Union. In the Americas, Cuba served as a major source and a target of propaganda from both black and white stations operated by the CIA and Cuban exile groups. Radio Habana Cuba, in turn, broadcast original programming, relayed Radio Moscow, and broadcast The Voice of Vietnam as well as alleged confessions from the crew of the USS Pueblo.

George Orwell's novels Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four are virtual textbooks on the use of propaganda. Though not set in the Soviet Union, these books are about totalitarian regimes that constantly corrupt language for political purposes. These novels were, ironically, used for explicit propaganda. The CIA, for example, secretly commissioned an animated film adaptation of Animal Farm in the 1950s with small changes to the original story to suit its own needs.

The United States and Iraq both employed propaganda during the Iraq War. The United States established campaigns towards the American people on the justifications of the war while using similar tactics to bring down Saddam Hussein's government in Iraq.

The extent to which the US government was guilty of propaganda aimed at its own people is a matter of discussion. The book Selling Intervention & War by Jon Western argued that president Bush was "selling the war" to the public.

President George W. Bush gave a talk at the Athena Performing Arts Center at Greece Athena Middle and High School Tuesday, May 24, 2005 in Rochester, NY. About half way through the event Bush said, "See in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda."

People had their initial reactions to the War on Terror, but with more biased and persuading information, Iraq as a whole has been negatively targeted. America's goal was to remove Saddam Hussein's power in Iraq with allegations of possible weapons of mass destruction related to Osama Bin Laden. Video and picture coverage in the news has shown shocking and disturbing images of torture and other evils being done under the Iraqi Government.



ericj3052 years ago

Aw man, I wanted to see Chomsky at the chalkboard...


I think Noam Chomsky might be quite possibly the only American I've ever seen who has an understanding of the "real world" outside the media bubble created by US media to transform the US public into sheep. I've never seen any other American fully transcend that


TheHawk2001 George Carlin too

Chomsky & Carlin know as much about the, ' Real World ', as Politicians know about teaching Linguistics, or being a Stand Up Comedian. SMH...

Call me stupid but anyone who drops bombs on foreign soil is not supporting peace - but hey what do I know? I'm not a phd - I only have a brain and tons of common sense... Those in favour of peace ARE peaceful...and behave in a peaceful way... Those in favour of war ARE warlike...and behave in a warlike way... Words matter not to those with eyes to see the actions of those who lie...

your response means you no idea what propaganda is in the first place. You dont know who was actually the bad guys were in ww2

how refreshing it is to hear a well known American telling American politics like it really is. 

you can speak for yourself

I think Noam Chomsky is a genuine humanist.

I completely agree with you. In the U.S., especially amongst the 45+ generations, socialism conjures up images of long lines of people in bread lines with lunch boxes and dreary brown coats. Or walls that hold people desperate to get out, in. We have been so brainwashed here in the U.S.

Secular humanist

If you get your international news and form your opinions based on mainstream media, you need a reality check.

Oh man I NEVER see much of what Chomsky talks about in MSM. Have you actually listened to him? I agree with you about "alt media" but there's also a lot of really good sources in so-called "alt media." But maybe you're more perceptive than I and you can find out if you really dig through MSM with a very critical eye.

Who gets news from the MSM anyways, bunch of liars. I get all my news from Alex Jones.

Basically, Noam is saying that US is a terrorist state!!

Alia Samsara is right, although would benefit from toning down the presentation of the information (sounding like a loon just turns people off). I used to be just like her. When you first start to learn the truth, you become very angry, because you realize that you have been lied to your entire life. (((Avram Noam Chomsky))) does speak a lot of truths, but he stops short of the complete truth. Therefore I am afraid he is controlled opposition.

And the most efficient one existed yet.

Noam Chomsky is an American treasure.  He is amazing in his capacity for retention and recall, like an extremely accurate and knowledgeable West African griot. When the day of his death comes, I hope that arrives before the diminishing of his great mind, for that would be sadder still; except for the lesson that we are all flesh and we will all return to the earth.  Thank goodness that Mr. Chomsky has given his whole life to truth and that we have his lifetime efforts with which to teach all generations. May he live long and stay as sharp as he is.  The only thing I disagree with him about is his take on 9/11/2001.

Always learning new things with Noam

Agustín Lozada He is the wisest of all Gnomes

Mr. Chomsky is a very courageous man to stand-up to the corporate and political elites, as well, he's an intellectually gifted man, who through enormous research and analysis has revealed the subterfuge in our political discourse. Our politicians typically buy into the agenda of corporations, which vaunt the notion of making profits, often at the great expense of others, be it locally or abroad. The politicians, often those who got a business education rather than a background in philosophy and political science, subscribe to the jobs at any price mentality, who furthermore, want the financial means to run a full campaign so they gladly become part of the PR corporate apparatus. The politician is now "accountable" to Big Money which has corrupted the process. Language becomes the first victim in the process now that it is essentially a the tool for manipulation. There are too many things presented as "given" and "indisputable" in our public debate. We need lots more debate in our democracy to flesh out these so-called "givens." We all need to take politics seriously and pay attention to it. We need everyone to vote to remind the politicians and their masters that we need a new deal.

US Politicians are given acrobat training at circuses and games show hosts. With intense lying courses at Langley Virginia and given PHd's in perfidy way ahead of any other country that way!Not allowed to curse in Public!

As you become more aware you perceive life more clearly. When you become completely aware, everything becomes clear. Knowledge can change you and the way you perceive life and now for the first time we can know the fundamental big picture truth of life and it can and will transform mankind and the world when enough people see it. Search "Truth Contest" and check the truth for yourself, when you know and see the big picture you will know and see everything clearly.

Completely aware of what? Some confused ideology based on unproveable first principles and semantics?

to sum it up; US government behaves as criminals while media acts as a shill.

+Richard Smith It doesn't make sense to many people that Chomsky, having such insight, wouldn't call out 9/11. Gatekeeping, it would seem.

crypttonite is right, (((Avram Noam Chomsky))) doesn't name the Jew. I wonder why?

He's still right...

same goes for 2017

Having read through a lot of the comments I have come to one resounding conclusion... Americans are not very well educated. It seems you believe everything you've been told, simply because it's everything you've always been told. There is very little room for rational or reasonable debate, as the American tactic seems to be "Agree with me, bend to my will or I will shout insults at you until I have given myself another aneurysm and have to take a lot more unnecessary pharmaceuticals to slowly kill myself"..... It's OK to be wrong from time to time, especially if you've been spoon fed lies and propaganda by your Government your entire life. What's not OK is thinking your way is the only way. The human race existed for thousands of years before the United States of America. And frankly, I don't care about the torrent of abuse that will be posted in response to this by Americans. I still haven't met one that could formulate a coherent argument. All you get is "Oh my God, you must be a Muslim or a black guy or a woman, you're so freakin' retarded, but you obviously don't believe in God cos you're such a douche bag".... yawn I'll applaud anyone who can make a comment that's above playground humour and petty insults. Oh and correctly utilise spelling, punctuation and grammar in a sentence. Peace

They used bomb´s as diplomatic response for a simple question about 1 man, and they still keep bombing the same country, yet the man is dead. Aperantly they are a bunch of murderes.

The LT Show You make a somewhat fair argument LT Show. However on the other hand your country wheather it is or isnt America uses propaganda and misinformation to control its masses to their benefit. Its just the way the world is and if not propaganda then fear mongering and silencing the dissenters. Not everyone is uniformly informed so when most Americans behave like a hive or a flock of sheep its due to people not thinking for themselves and believing the lies that come out their televisions.

Noam is our 'Bullshit Filter' on the politicians.

+sysrq120 And when he lies to you about 9/11, you follow blindly.

Propaganda is like a magic trick. It seems like magic until you see how it is done then it just looks like a cheap trick.

jeff singleton wrong, it's done thru anyone who wants to manipulate consent.

@4:07 "Cum on its face" -Noam Chomsky

Yeah, he said "cum on its face." Did YOU pay attention??

I'm a shade to the right of Mr. Chomsky, but he is a remarkable man. A sane voice in a sea of liars.

An honest man is a very dangerous one !

Chomsky is a great freedom fighter....and sadly one of the last of a dying breed.

Did this inspire Between Two Ferns?

Lol. You know what, that's not a crazy theory. Zach Galafanakis has mentioned Chomsky in his stand-up. He's probably a fan.

Noam Chomsky - Conspiracy Theories

Chomsky's Philosophy

Radnally9 months ago

Who needs a conspiracy theory ?! The US congress openly bailed out the favored big banks. The nastiest stuff is done out in the open.

RICHTERNEWS1 month ago

But they don't conspire out in the open.

Masudurnero1 month ago


steelersguy741 year ago

I got into an argument over the Iraq war and made a point about PNAC influencing Bush. The people I was arguing with derided me as a conspiracy theorist. The ironic thing is that PNAC is hardly a conspiracy, they have a website for the public to view! That point didn't get through to them.

Reply 56  

Cicero Marcus Tullius11 months ago

When ignorance is bliss tis folly to be wise

Michael Kahn10 months ago

FYF-Look up I need a few well informed people to join resistance. Look me up

Omid1 year ago

i wish this guy was the president of USA instead of these crazy warmongers. i feel sorry for USA people

b rizla1 year ago

just cause you can't understand what he says, doesn't mean he's wrong.

D Nickaroo1 month ago

Chomsky seems to have only partial knowledge. Also he is in his eighties and his mental faculties

pancholordofthecouch1 year ago

Building 7 fell down by itself, it was perfectly normal, nothing to see here, move along! lolol

Ricardo Ruiz11 months ago

If you pay close attention to this link you will notice there's actually a video right above these comments which points out very clear arguments against conspiracy theories. You obviously did not see the video so i recommend you do.

pepelapiu20047 months ago (edited)

What so many reported as molten steel, that was not molten steel. It just looked like it to them without actually being molten steel. And the bombs going off many people reported hearing and feeling? Those were not bombs. They felt like bombs and sounded like bombs to those people without actually being bombs. Even the NIST said they were 'pressure pulses' and 'dust puffs'. And that WTC7. That only looked like a demolition without being a demolition at all. It's not a demolition at all. It just looks like it. Btw, I have a Ferrari for sale. It only looks like a Ford Winstar. But it's a Ferrari, man I swear! Wanna buy my Ferrari?

Defendor1 year ago

The point about fossil fuels and sub urbanization Dr. Chomsky made was really eye opening. This is why I come back, even if I disagree on some points, but I do learn here and there.

John Stockwell Major Smedley Butler7 months ago

Defendor Fully over 60% of personal vehicles, and 90% of public trasnportation was small electrics, or grid powered. Far more efficiant and cleanly, but just not Standard oil profits.

John Stockwell Major Smedley Butler7 months ago

Defendor Wheres the change the world classes? We need to be taught wffective peaceful conquest. without it we are doomed to fail with violence.

Saintly Oswald1 year ago

Chomsky concentrates on JFK's character instead of the evidence of his assassination, just like Sy Hersh. I think they are both part of the conspiracy. What difference does it make whether JFK was a good guy? Does he have to be a good guy for there to have been a conspiracy? No. This is a logical fallacy he uses to debunk a conspiracy theory.

fecklessmovies10 months ago

+Saintly Oswald well, you're entitled to your opinion.

Ricardo Ruiz10 months ago

And that's not what Chomsky said. He only stated that that's the usual line that serves as a reasoning for the conspiracy, he was a good guy doing all sorts of wonderful things when obscure forces tried to stop him.

Nate Buker1 year ago

Not convinced about the "lack of logic" regarding 911. Building 7 pancakes blocks away while everything else in a similar perimeter was intact? If it wasn't a scheduled controled demolition then that would seem easy to prove. Disappearing airlines at the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania? Seems logical inquiry rather informs the theory of an opportunistic inside job. Diverting our population's attention to it's latest bogeyman in Iraq was an easy job given the level of ignorance and passion of the time. The U.S. population has not sense of historical geopolitics since they have been manipulated so extensively. I used to admire Noam Chomsky but this puts a serious dent in my opinion.

Whatever Imtold3 months ago

Nate Buker - I couldn't agree more. I do still admire Dr. Chomsky but the "logic" in his argument against possible government involvement doesn't truly hold water - even according to his own standard. While he was explaining the proven conspiracies regarding wild goose chases, it seemed to me a parallel correlation could be drawn in that the reason Saudis were named as responsible was because if they drew the line directly to Iraq, it would have been too obvious...IMO. And besides, they managed to sneak that in anyway with the false reports of WMDs. The misdirection was enough to obfuscate the truth on a technicality - preventing provability by documentation, really. Pretty sophisticated manipulation which will keep the fighting amongst the plebs. Oh well, I guess like he pointed out maybe we'll find out the truth in 50 years or so.

Kevy Wevs1 week ago

Cannot believe this 911 BS still exists... "Building 7 pancakes blocks away while everything else in a similar perimeter was intact?" - No, everything else was NOT intact. Check out Building 3, Building 4, Building 5, and Building 6... ALL were collapsed and in ruins... and no plane hit them either. But hey, you don't have videos of those collapses to diddle over, to the "911 truth" movement NEVER brings up those buildings. EVER. "scheduled controlled demolition" - you've obviously never personally witnessed, nor skeptically analyzed ANY of the tens of thousands of controlled demolitions via film & video footage from over the decade(s). ALL of them involve howitzer-loud concussions, in extremely detailed (and timed) succession, prior to even a chance of collapse. SLAM SLAM SLAM SLAM SLAM SLAM...then a slight pause as support gives way... then collapse to the ground. Building 7 was a silent workup to an eventual structural failure - from precisely the predictable result when a steel-framed skyscraper is allowed to burn throughout, unfought fires, for 7-8 hours+. Steel loses half it's load-bearing when exposed to campfire-weak heat... if it's easier to contemplate, imagine the building becoming 2X the weight (200%) on the existing structure design... it TOO would collapse. (sigh) PS, if I hear the word 'thermite' ever again, I'm going to throw up. "Disappearing airlines at the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania?" - They never disappeared. Entire wreckage of everything was strewn everywhere - including yes, all the seats and the bodies, and luggage, etc. Just because you don't have the pictures YOU "need" - there are thousands taken that show the true scene(s)... not the scant few banded around by "truthers" for years. "No sizable pieces of plane wreckage were ever found." - OMF shut the fuck upppppp... parrot. There doesn't need to be sizable pieces, there only needs to be PLANE STUFF and PEOPLE. The obliterations of these aircraft and passengers was absolutely brutal beyond any forces and speeds your pea brain can contemplate. As above, wreckage and people were everywhere at those sites - including the huge engine blocks. Plus hundreds of people are now missing from the planet forever... you know, all those REAL humans that were once mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters of REAL PEOPLE, who ACTUALLY were on those flights that day.... jesus fuck! You people are nutcases. "Funny how the hole it made was not as big as any plane with wings." - Parrot. Another repeated talking point by a lemming. The hole and damage was consistent with the size of the airliner. Again, none of you people can contemplate scale it seems. "Now they can build Homeland security, five times the size and cost of the Pentagon, and make Patriot act a law, allowing them to arrest, detain indefinitely, exile, or execute...blah blah blah" - The classic myth of the alleged 'government cares that much about you' ... (facepalm). Without thinking about the true endgame results that would happen IF such an alleged "baby steps to eventual tyranny" plan is in effect - it would decimate the superior American system that keeps America on top - both economically and culturally. The rich would fail and collapse - as their entire systems of production would ring the death nell, as none of it is possible in a civil war police state. Stock market would not only crash completely - but would sit as an abandoned building in ruins and fire. No economy means no state, and no army, and no government. No fucking money !! The entire theory of some creeping control premise put in place by fake/staged events, thrust little by little onto the people, toward an eventual end of complete surveillance and tyrannical govt state... makes absolutely ZERO sense, and not ONE "truther" has been able to walk me through the hypothetical closed-door secret meeting content (examples of conversation and discussion) that would be had in order to script out this long game / end game plan. Somebody PLEASE explain it to me. How exactly is it pitched among these elite puppetmasters? How does a puppetmaster seek to literally throw the entire chessboard into the fire, and still think he's going to play chess in any way? Lose all his mansions, skyscrapers, workforce, means of production? And all his wealth for him and his great grandkids reduced to zip... please explain this master "plan" LOL Yeah... risk ALL that, the death of the entire fucking infrastructure and stability of the country... just to have servitude and a police state over the plebes of the lower and middle class that ALREADY have near-zero power ??? As with all conspiracists, you give yourselves WAYYYY too much credit and assumed value. You're not important. Nobody cares that much about you. In fact, you are needed to be kept as content, happy, fat, and OK with things as possible - so you keep producing and making your own way on your own, as much as humanly possible, without incident. Peace and calm is PRICELESS. CHAOS and CONTROL is a path to complete economic bankruptcy.

David Eilering1 year ago

Most conspiracies are people with the same or similar interests working not necessarily together but in the same direction.

Shawn Drumm7 months ago

+David Eilering you people KEEP forgetting, they did get caught!!! That's why were are here talking about it. The problem is that the wolf is in charge of the chicken house. It's really that simple. They got caught. They destroyed the evidence, shipped it to china. Thermite in the dust. An INSANE amount of witnesses including "journalists" reporting explosions. I mean it goes on and on. THEY GOT CAUGHT. They would LOSE in a court of law!!

Read more

SiliconBong5 months ago

Great definition :D

yves laflute1 year ago

Yes the petroleum companies DESTROYED the functional, efficient electric transport systems we had in cities. We still pay the price of that conspiracy.

Jason Thomson10 months ago

Calgary Alberta, has an functional, efficient electric transportation system, and its the home base of 100's of major oil and gas companies. Its only because of the demands of the people this is so. In my opinion the people, as majority still hold the power for change. The fact is (in my opinion) the masses are to involved in there own lives to incite any kind of change.

nibus93 months ago

yves laflute Your comment has a tendency to start a long chain of for and against commentry about the Tesla mystery.

Jose Balcazar1 year ago

Don't just ask Prof. Noam Chomsky about JFK and the conspiracy theories surrounding his death. Ask this MIT brilliant mind what are his thoughts of JFK signing Executive Order 11110 on June 4, 1963 putting an end to the Federal Reserve Bank only to get shot dead 5 months later.

Jas Sohal3 months ago

You can ask him yourself he answers everyone through email

Warren P3 months ago

+Jeppe Lorentzen If memory serves me, Huey Long suffered the same fate when he revealed his concerns about the money controllers.

Martin k Oconnor1 year ago

Chomsky is without a doubt one of the finest minds on the planet. If the world listened to Noam, you folks wud be a lot more enlightened

Martin k Oconnor1 year ago

Oh I see

Marxian1 year ago (edited)

The biggest problem with conspiracy theories is that establishment uses them to its advantage as these "theories" distract the working class from focusing on class struggle.

Marxian1 year ago

+Equality-Liberty-Democracy = Libertarian Socialism Yep, lol. Don't mention class struggle either because Marx was a Jew plant, BTW.

Ali Kobaissi1 month ago

read Talmud. I'm part Jewish and there are some things that are truly outrageous, espeically towards gentiles(non-jews). The Kaabala is even more strange. These are books that have been in the world for 6000 years.

West African Gooner1 year ago

TPP is a conspiracy.

Marxian1 year ago

+West African Gooner How so? It's no more and no less spoken about than NAFTA.

West African Gooner1 year ago

+Autonomous Anarchist that too. All conspiracies masquerading as free trade. Some of these agreements give licence to corporations to sue foreign governments if they aren't allowed to tap into and produce resources. Example a multinational corporation like BP which is Dutch can sue the USA if the EPA (environment protection agency) in the USA tries to stop it from fracking due to local protection laws. Basically the sovereignty of that nation has been signed away. And the "suing" is done in a secret court by corporate lawyers. The general public will never know the details of any litigation in that sort of case. If that isn't a conspiracy, I don't know what is.

roy borrill1 year ago

The c.i.a coined the term conspiracy theories in the 1960's. chumsky won't counter 9/11 being an Israeli plot because he wants to protect the Tribe. Typical Jew who doesn't mind laying at the door of some old guy living in a cave 5000 miles away. Which one is more likely folks?

Free Your Mind1 year ago

+Jaime Falino It is quite possible, that as most Gentiles don't know the truth about the hard-core Zionist's plans for humanity,  the average Jew has no clue as well. However, most Jews are aware of the extremely racist ideology put forth in the Torah. And how many of them call it out for its extreme racism?  In truth they were "chosen" by a Hebrew pantheon WAR-Volcano god, selected as the "God of the Cosmos" in 600BCE after the Babylonian exile, after Cyrus the Great (a Persian) freed them. Now the Zionists want to bomb Iran. So the average Jew is responsible for researching their tribe's own dark history, which has been largely suppressed. But why should they? When they enjoy the special priviledges that come with  real or feigned ignorance? Gilad Atzmon stated that it makes no difference whether  the "Protocols of Zion" are authentic or not, the goals have been accomplished. Isaiah 61:6 King James Version-(the word "Gentile" is disapeering from newer modern day vernacular bibles, I wonder why? "But you shall be named the Priests of the LORD: men shall call you the Ministers of our God: you shall eat the riches of the Gentiles, and in their glory shall you boast yourselves."

Backgammon Player1 year ago

No proof that Jews were involved? When you aren't informed that doesn't mean there's no proof. PNAC issued a paper before 9/11 saying that the US needs another Pearl Harbor -style event, otherwise there's be no progress. The PNAC members consist of mostly American-Israeli Jews. Nobody could bring that amount of explosive devices into the towers without Jew Larry Shekelstein, who had leased the complex, knowing about it, youtube: Silverstein: New WTC7 First Design Meeting: "April 2000" Youtube: Larry Silverstein no response to WTC 7 lies Jewish Hollywood prepared us for the coming event, youtube: BACK TO THE FUTURE predicts 9/11 Youtube: 9 11 Predictive Programming In Hollywood Movies Part 1 Jewish MSM covered up 9/11, there is no doubt about it. The planning took more than 20 yrs until Silverstein was able to lease the asbestos towers. Renovation would've cost more than to rebuild them. Michael Chertoff finally became attorney general and so it was possible to send home the Israeli art students and the Dancing Israelis and to block any further investigations. So what more proof do you want? That one breaks down in tears on live TV and says "I did it"? Here are names of the perpetrators from Christopher Bollyn, youtube: Solving 9/11 ends the war

Richard Lorych10 months ago

a bunch of yahoos in this comment section, repeating stuff they've read on yt, just ignore them.

Spring Bean1 year ago

His analysis of 9/11 is feeble-minded. It was not really about Iraq, it was about the fake war on terror. Explain WTC7. I think the key lies there. And never a mention of GeoEngineering. This man has some massive blindspots.

djn484 months ago

I'd say his analysis of all conspiracy theories is deliberately feeble-minded (in other words, he's playing dumb). He has a massive reputation to protect. Imagine how all his other great ideas about the shit that governments and corporations do could be easily discredited if he starts talking about things that aren't yet generally accepted truths. His analysis is totally dependant on him protecting his intellectual reputation. It doesn't matter whether he privately thinks the CT's are true or not, but publicly he says that they are not.

Read more

dallasba1 year ago

Conspiracy theories are a good way to shield yourself from the obviously dangerous problems, WHICH ARE RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOUR FACE. Unbidden.

Innerself5 months ago

+foolhunter illuminati one is 100% real and a fact, there is zero doubt about that, people actually deserve whats coming.

foolhunter5 months ago (edited)

Well there certainly exists an 'elite' class, i.e. reality's version of the 'illuminati' myth: that class is exemplified by the likes of the billionaire Trump, Rex Tillerson (Exxon CEO, soon-to-be SoS), Steven Mnuchin (Goldman Sachs, soon-to-be Treasury Secretary) and other neoliberals that Trump is currently installing into positions of power. Yet conspiracy theorists don't seem to have noticed; moreover, they even support Trump and his corporate elite. All this talk of 'draining the swamp' and yet they are cheering on the filling of it by Trump. Utterly bizarre.

akirabrr1 year ago

he cannot say that about kennedy without justification

Reply 6  

View all 9 replies  

Cléo Z1 year ago

+akirabrr Of politicians terrorizing sovereign/neighboring states? You're right, it's not a problem.

bob smith1 year ago

Duality is both his platform and his justification.

getredytagetredy1 year ago

Every thing that ever happened in the annals of power mad rich psychopaths is was and always will be a CONSPIRACY...When 2 or more people plan evil...its a conspiracy...They conspire to advance their agenda while making sure you cant advance yours =  A Conspiracy...Are you reading this Chomsky ?

getredytagetredy1 year ago

...and...was the pit put there on purpose? for these two to fall? or was the pit always there before these two were born? Your statement leaves open too many questions   When ....states that they are destined...casually... states that's an accident...or is it reverse intention?...I think Ive spent too much time on this lunatic comment already...ciao

Captain Kirk1 year ago

+getredytagetredy Dohhhh, and I think you will find that Stalin Knew, and that there were a arrests of people who were involved in the project that gave any information. Don't invent facts, and no you have absolutely no idea about what is involved in bring down towers like that; the first attempt in 1998 failed, and they came up with a better plan. Your idea sounds mush more exciting, and you get to blame your favorite people for your shit job, but in this case it was Islam.

Samizdat Broadcasts1 year ago (edited)

The ideas he's expressing about the Bush administration possibly supporting, or at least being interested in the 9/11 truth movement, I've also wondered about the Obama administration and the so called "social justice warriors." Get whole demographics of young "radicals" all worked up over "white male privilege" so that they won't give a shit about what's REALLY going on in the real halls of power. SJW ideology comes out of academia, main stream media and so on, and I really don't think that anything that's a TRUE threat to the system would be promoted in those quarters.

Mikail Elchanovanich1 year ago

exactly what i've been thinking for a while, and that it even goes further than that. all the anti-SJW "sceptic" lot like Sargon Of Akkad and Thunderf00t are part of it, there to perpetuate it and draw more people to the opposing side in the name of reason and science, getting even more critically minded and intellectually capable people spooled up about all this nonsense that has almost no bearing on the rest of the world. 95% of people don't even know or care that any of this SJW malarkey is happening at all, and i think that's intentional.

BollocksUtwat1 year ago

Usually when people get upset with the direction their country is going they blame it on a scapegoat.


Super rich are in a conspiracy to rule the world - G. Edward Griffin - 2007

Freedom Law School

Uploaded on Jun 11, 2011


A most renowned expert on Federal Reserve and the New World Order will share how the super Rich of the World have organized to create a New World Order that they will control. Recorded at Freedom Law School's ( 2007 Texas Justice, Peace, & Freedom Conference Be a part of the solution, not the problem! "There is no law requiring the average American to file or pay the federal income tax." GET OUR FREE FREEDOM EDUCTATION PACKAGE! Get All of Your Freedom Questions Answered! Any freedom issues about IRS, State income tax agencies, traffic tickets or any government agencies of any kind. Call (712) 432-3900 Conference Room: 460421 Every Tuesday @ 8 PM Eastern #taxhelp #stoptheirs



Some Comments
Marco: we are the people? You still believe in the fairytale?  People are all brainwashed.   This problem will never be fixed

Colin Dempsey

Yes, I agree.

Marie Jose

The NWO means depopulation and a small elite to be boss of a system where nobody is free anymore. Sort of like a lifelong martial law

Interestingly the Masons were what He describes. There are Masons for public view and Then there are Masons that have no name. The idea came from Greek Mythology written by Homer. The circles,expanding circles, is the Ripple effect. The Round Tables are the Rock thrown in the Water,World and create ripples and waves. Symbolic ideas, the all seeing that can never be seen.And Griffen will not name Freemasons,master masons. Yes no one mentions the masons anymore No parades, Shriners, where?  AS always, what He does not say is equally as important as what HE does say. They were all MASONS.
Choosing the evil is not very smart, not very bright at all, because evil has a built in self-destruct clause. 

Do we really know the "Truth" for sure? I've heard the Cold War was a "Hoax" to extort money from citizens to build up a huge nuclear weapons arsenal. Maybe, they used the money for something else. And, maybe they are linked together in "Secret Societies". I have heard this as well. I really don't know, but I do know that rich bankers financed and started most all wars in the past 100 years. They will pay. God's wrath will come upon them, for causing the deaths of 100's of million's of young people's life's. Plus all the civilian casualties . I think about how many have died and what they went through., It's so horrific!

Our flawed political system which was hijacked around 1913 serves the privileged few today and presents a world wide problem .. Those Elite people are the targets today for those who seek a peaceful and well designed world of tomorrow.. These others must be convinced to move forward with honesty and integrity. So far this is not happening as we move closer to a World Order of Governments... "NWO" .. The average educated people of the world are left with a huge undertaking which requires organizing in a common effort to convince these others to act responsibly. Greed and Control of everything are the current motivators.. Silence and acceptance are Our downfall. This must change in order to achieve success for the generations that follow.. If we do not succeed, Hell on Earth will follow from our inaction.
G. Edward Griffin-WOW!  Brilliant, articulate and authoritatively fact-based shining the light on the people obsessed with controlling the rest of us. Why? What is it about us that they envy or want that they do not have?  Why do they take time from their lives to hijack ours?  Is it power? Or maybe it is fear that others not in their circle(s) will have the smartest children, the best houses, the finest food, etc..  The big difference is we the people have to compete with each other and they are guaranteed a prosperous life.  Finest health care, expensive clothes, fabulous vacations while the rest of us who have to work end up with pensions stolen besides much else like our health and families robbed from us. 

Published on Feb 7, 2013

Noam Chomsky - Why Marijuana is Illegal and Tobacco is Legal


Si mon1 year ago

I don't smoke pot because I don't enjoy its effects, but looking at the plant objectively the criminalization of marijuana is about as idiotic as prohibition laws.

Martin. I understand that you are frustrated because its seems that the point you were making was not being heard. But I want you to know that, as part of the group for which you have professed your dislike (former/current/future cannabis user- depending on the day), I understand not only the English language, how it is used, but also the essence of your argument. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the point you were trying to make is that the decriminalization (sorry, not the Queen's English bruv- we Americans like out z's) and regulation would begin to dismantle the criminal organizations that have grown like weeds all over the world this past century. Is that right? don't think that Bayer 10mg line went over everyone's head, either. Some of us are aware that "in 1898, the Bayer pharmaceutical company began an aggressive marketing campaign to sell its commercial preparation of Heroin." That's a direct quote from the Narconon website I am curious about the medicinal benefits you referenced, however. The only "medical" benefit I was aware of is the swift relief of excruciating acute pain. I think that treating chronic pain with heroin is a mistake, unless the severity of said pain warrants it. If you wish to respond to that, fine- however, I will be doing independent research. Oh, Martin- how I wish I could've respected your wishes and left you out of any further discussion. But don't you think it a bit juvenile to just stop talking about an important issue because of a mere disagreement? Do you get your knickers in a twist every time someone calls you a name? Doesn't align themselves with your personal beliefs and biases? See, while both you and lord dabs raised valid points, I found myself more compelled to his argument not only because of my personal bias, but because his research was both academic and personal, and spoke from a place of both pain and compassion. I feel that. What personal experience did you share? A proclivity for white and brown/black, and a disdain for green? X number of drug addicts on your block? Wow. How profound. Wonder what that's like... And Martin, I woulda let you be- if it wasn't for those antibiotics. Yes, when Fleming stumbled on penicillin, it was a game changer. To some, maybe even a miracle. But you ever heard super bacteria? Drug-Resistant MRSA? You're a smart fellow. I'm sure you have. Here's my personal bias. When man tinkers with anything in the natural world- whether it's the cannabis plant, the poppy flower, coca leaves, microscopic bacteria- something amazing happens. We alter it, we enhance it, we make it suit our purposes. There's often glad-handing and pats on the back. But eventually, we start to learn the true consequences of our actions. Human progress is rarely linear. I believe all these things and more were put on this planet in their natural state by our Creator to alleviate the suffering inherent to this world. Unfortunately, man is a glutton for punishment and those who seek to destroy will capitalize on that every time. Doesn't mean we have to like it. Or let them. Cheers!

Interesting pov. No, I don't get my knickers in a twist when called a name, but may be annoyed when someone misunderstands. I enjoyed reading your personal bias though some of us are not convinced there is any creator that was responsible for the things we tinker with. And if there were, why give us the ability to tinker?

weed is illegal because it keeps the prison system running smoothly and wall street makes a fortune from it..

You're probably right. Fucking bureaucrats.

What you rather encounter - a group of drunk dudes outside a bar or a group of stoned dudes outside a dominoes?

I think the main reason that pot is illegal is because it boosts creative/analytical thinking. It promotes individuality. These are not things the government is keen on. Another thing is that there is a seemingly endless list of medicinal benefits in marijuana. It will put a pretty big dent in the pharmaceutical industry, which is one of the most profitable out there. It's no coincidence that these pharmaceutical corporations tend to donate large sums of money to political campaigns. Pills are basically shoved down our throats.

How many documented studies are there correlating placebo effects with real beneficial change? It doesn't matter if it does make you more creative, as long as you think it, it could well happen. People also smoke marajuana when they're in the mood to be creative. It's not going to just create by itself. It's a plant. Humans utilising the plant when feeling creative may receive a cognitive boost from it's effects but I do think that it would vary subjectively

OK everyone is making a point here in the comment sections. But let's look at what he said which is the truth! Marijuana is only illegal because there is no real money to be made simple. Millions and millions of people have died over Tobacco not many people have died from smoking weed! Me personally I think it's ridiculous any society allows governments to tell them what they can and can't do! Little things like smoking a joint shouldn't be illegal. Murdering someone in cold blood on the other hand is a completely different story but anyone who smokes a joint of weed the last thing they'll wanna do is kill someone! They'd just laugh at the idea.

There are plenty of things that people can't make money off of that are not criminalized. Chomsky is right on one angle, but he missed another important one. idk if this has already been discussed, but here, straight from the horse's mouth: "You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities...We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did." - John Ehrlichman, Top advisor to Richard Nixon.

Your an absolute idiot. Smoking weed should be illegal for you.

Pot is illegal because business men decided it was in their best interests. People still think politicians have a purpose other than to serve their corporate overlords.

Because some states have figured out that it is economically beneficial to legalize it. The fact that it is still illegal at the federal level and in most states is due to the pressure by those with opposing economic interests.

Alcohol, pharmaceutical and tobacco groups have been bribing the government to keep cannabis illegal for a long time now. It is good that things are now beginning to change.

The absolute number one cause of death, worldwide, is living.

Actually no it's oxygen. You could potentially live forever if your DNA wasnt constantly damaged by reactive oxygen radicals

While oxygen obviously has some impact (as do cosmic rays), actually most extant organisms are pretty resistant to its effects. Instead, physical senescence is the result of the protective telomere at the end of every nucleotide shrinking every time its cell undergoes division. Essentially, cells have a certain number of times they can divide depending on the length of telomere in that class of cells, and when the telomere runs out, organs degenerate and fail. The most obvious of which is the skin which loses its elasticity quite early as there's, presumably, little evolutionary impact from having wrinkles.

Cannabis is illegal because of DuPont and W.R.Hearst, and our fascist government.

Since when is truth drama? Unless you're a libtard.

Actually one of the reasons for the war on cannabis was so that the government could crack down on liberals. So if you're using the word libtard I'm guessing you should be all for it. Source: "We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities," - top nixon aide John Ehrlichman.

As a Correctional Officer in Canada I was a little shocked that after smoking ( tobacco ) was banned from our jails, the cost of tobacco as contraband is more expensive than marijuana. Illustrating how tobacco is much more addictive than pot.

>>"Illustrating how tobacco is much more addictive than pot" As a long term smoker of both, I concur completely. I love smoking weed and can easily smoke 3 or 4 joints a day, but if I didn't have it, so what? I'd just go without and not worry about it. Arriving at the last cigarette in a pack, though, causes heart palpitations! Must buy NOW! ;)

He's wrong on one point - THC kills cancer cells, it expels phlegm and aids in weak appetite (cancer patients). Other than that, spot on.


Ahh yes, and ol' Bob would have never missed the pleasure of your sarcasm. I never said it was a complete cure-all where cancer is concerned. Cancer is incredibly complex. However, in multiple studies, yes, thc killed cancer cells.

When Chomsky said that marijuana is "Like solar energy", he was right........hemp is a direct competitor of chemical companies like DuPont and Dow.  Hemp can be used to replace harmful chemicals that would put those companies out of business.

I'm not sure why Chomsky says sugar is the most lethal substance known to man. Possibly a reference to obesity related diseases?

+Adrian M I hope you cut out all sugars and complex sugars. I hope you die you fucking idiot... One less moron in the gene pool

Chomsky is a linguist, one of the top, but he is no good when it comes to politics or economics, and this video is a living proof.

I knew about this 30 years ago!!! It was a business/political move...nothing to do with crime!!!

Chomsky is 100% right on.  All this was common knowledge for decades,  esp. on net sites for N.O.R.M.L.  where did they go?  Shut down for telling the truth.  Amen.

A cop once told me that he doesn't think marijuana will be legalized because they make too much money fighting it.

Half the cops would lose their overtime or be paid off

I do not use, or care for, Marijuana, but I would use it on occasion when I needed to sleep better. I do believe that this natural herb has benefits to human beings, even though it's not completely healthy, it still has a lot of benefits for people. It is so wrong for this to be illegal!

Joint a day keeps dr away

Tony Gareth Bhang is healthy

I would like to know how al the heroin crop is being shipped out of afganistan no one ever talks about this the yearly crop is up from 185 tons a year to something like 7thousand it for sure is not getting out by donkeys....

US forces when they were in Afghanistan protected opium producing poppy fields because the Taliban enforced a ban on it's production there that caused massive economic devastation to the Afghan farming population. It's production has risen almost every year since then (2001). If Western forces are aiding Afghan farmers in growing their opium poppy fields (which is no secret at all), what makes you think they're not just shipping it out on their own military aircraft?

We must look to history to truly answer this reply .Air America was a program that help Fund the wars of Southeast Asia ,the same thing is now happening in our new wars of Asia .I was told by SoG commanders this policy is the lesser of two evils .I say to all the American people who benefits from this policy's who gets richer from the military industrial complex to big Pharma and are industrial prison complex.

Greetings from the land of Starbucks, Microsoft, Boeing, and Amazon dotcom, the People's Republic of Washington, aka Bernieland! We legalized marijuana by referendum - there are marijuana stores all over this state. There are no problems at all as a result of this change.

BenjaminFranklin99 Hopefully the arrogant Feds and DEA won't impede your state's rights. After the Gonzales decision, I'm worried for your state.

BenjaminFranklin99 greetings from Bomaderry NSW Australia , home of $20 handjobs. Was just wondering if its legal to grow it in your backyard or in your home or trailer.?

Sugar and tobacco are detrimental to your own health over time. Marijuana and alcohol are potentially detrimental to many people with a single use--such as when driving stoned or drunk. Prohibition of alcohol was tried and failed and discontinued and simply made organized crime very profitable and powerful. Prohibition of marijuana was tried and fails and made organized crime somewhat profitable, but continues for many reasons. It enables control of the underclass and minority races and supports the industrial prison system. Also, alcohol keeps users brain dead and debilitated and better conformist workers while marijuana potentially gives people greater awareness which possibly leads to non-conformist attitudes and behavior.

Alochol is detrimental to society - drunken fights, drunk driving, etc

Reading this is potentially detrimental to you. I want to run u down in my tractor sober. Driving with ur eyes closed is potentially detrimental , having an argument with your gf in the car is potentially detrimental. you

Michael Tarnpoll3 years ago

Legalized marijuana would supplant, by dint of superior efficacy, numerous prescription medications currently manufactured by Big Pharma. This would cost them billions yearly. another reason why it is illegal.

Marijuana can cure cancer and I say this because I seen a family member use oil and completely blow her doctors mind. It also helps suppress seizures. There are cures for cancer and our government would rather depopulate the lower classes.

Did with my family member, stage 4 cancerous tumor. This thing was the size of a softball. I doubt it will work with all cancers but its safer than radiation and was very effective with what she had.

Rönn Manglǝr It is about public opinion about the plant. In India, cannabis was revered. but now it's illegal due to the international laws (NDPS Act, 1985) and now people in India mostly think it's very dangerous.

I want to dislike this because the truth hurts :(

Why Chomsky lovers are so dumb, but still try to pretend to be "intelectuals". Read my comment again.

1, you dont use sentences, therefore one has to guess what youre trying to say. not an effective way to make an argument. 2, nothing chomsky states in the video is disproved by the sequence of events you refer to.

John Lennon channels Noam Chomsky (1969)

Published on Jun 21, 2013

Beatle and political activist, John Lennon echoes Chomsky's thesis about society and war.



I don't hate yoko, i don't really know what to think of her.

John in his relationship with her seemed to become emasculated whether that was her doing or his own i don't know.

This area the 60's was certainly the birth of all this P.C politics, which as made the world a very complicated place.

After all when did we sign up to being told how to speak, how to think and how to feel , sounds like fascism to me.

 John should have stuck to singing being a radical millionaire is a bit hard to swallow.

I appreciate and respect Lennon but Noam Chomsky is a fucking gatekeeper.

Marc Bell9 months ago (edited)

Hating Yoko says more about the hater's inner ugliness and confusion than anything about Yoko. She was a known artist before Lennon met her and together they spoke out for peace. They were way more useful than most couples. Especially women hating her is absurd.

Marc Bell haw! she was and is an evil bitch.....wake up!



Reactionaries like you zionists will be stomped like roaches.

(Hail. Hail.) But come on man...Assuming you're Catholic, your catechesis should have included Christ and all the Apostles being Jewish. Moreover, Christ laid down His life willingly. Remember what He said? "No one take my life from me but I lay it down of my own accord." (St. John 10:18) You know...As Celts (Irish and Scots), the more we play into these easy narratives the easier it is to give away our freedom to think. Can you imagine? Celtic peoples giving away their freedom to think? You mark my words...Same people that are saying Free Palestine, will be the same ones telling people to encourage their absorption into a new world caliphate order. Palestine is a distraction every bit as Niocla Sturgeon uses Scotland's inclusion into the EU as a pretext for independence. Why in the hell isn't there a third option that says, get it in ye Brussels and get it in ye, Westminster - Scotland for Scots and we'll find our own way? Know what Palestinians were called before and after WW2? Jordanians. Research it yersel. Jordanian passports. Now...Look into what the King of Jordan wants and look into the house of Saud and what they want, and I'll tell ye, it's not in any poor Palestinians interest. And if there's no loyalty to them - any more than African governments have been loyal to their needy people in wasting all of that western aid, then what are people talking about when they say "Free Sudan" or "Free Palestine"? It's contrived distraction. If it wasn't wouldn't something , anything, change? But it doesn't. If we're all bloody "global citizens" why wouldn't my Aunt or your Aunt be welcome in a place like Mecca? Why shouldn't they be safe in Mogadishu? Because reality is a lot mare strange than any controlled news outlet would have you really, really, know. A better cause to follow is our roots: Celtic and Catholic. Brother Walfrid had it right. Charity at home, charity for those in need, but CATHOLIC charity from a Catholic mind and heart...And don't you believe for one moment that those truly poor Catholics in the middle east and in Palestine getting driven out because Islam says so aren't the real victims. They're behaved differently in Scotland (to an extent) than they would in their countries. And if ANY people should spot an invader and a sleekit one at should bloody well be Scots and Irish, shouldn't it!? Get those Catholics into Scotland and Ireland? Absolutely? Fight for some false freedom because it sounds like our fight? Brainless endeavour because it's not the same thing. Not by any stretch...And if you know your history...You'll see this "Free Palestine" bit as a move made by the same people on the other side of it...Sound familiar? One war with "two" sides getting people to believe there's two sides when there's only one? Like I said...the LAST people who should be falling for this are the Scots and Irish (and Welsh)...Because it was done here first.

The things they have to say are certainly similar, and it's always interesting to hear what both these great men have to say. Still, I'm not sure if John Lennon was channeling Chomsky. The idea of the masses' complacency being partly responsible for atrocities is not a new concept, and wasn't one in 1969.

Neither Chomsky nor Lennon is trying to be innovative here; they're trying to get something actually accomplished.

+Herbert Wells And MinamuTV is simply saying that Chomsky and Lennon could have acquired that mindset independently of each other.

Lennon was an art school dropout and Chomsky was considered brilliant even before he became an activist. You really can't compare them.

no i can confirm i am but one person...and albright started that fight for no good reason and i made sure i ended it.....still if you read it i hope it provided some amusement!

Sure you can , they both have penises

Lennon couldn't have been that smart, I mean look at what he decided to marry : /

+Carla M Aw, what a sad boy.

You've never met the woman, you've never met John, I cant see how you can get so angry about people you dont fucking know. You insulted someone's mum and got all defensive "oooh im a minor' fuck off no one cares if youre a minor if you chat shit. You are scum. And by the way John cheated on Yoko with May Pang so he wasnt a saint either. Just appreciate the music and leave it at that.

Great admirer of Lennon. He was a genius in music. He was very easily influenced and was under Yoko's spell. He was an idiot at most everything else. Especially in the political world.

Oh, is that it. So what's that got to do with Lennon?

It means your opinions about John Lennon are pointless and yeah, USELESS!

Well.. actually they're both talking about slightly different things. Chomsky is talking about public intellectuals (like Buckley, who he is talking to in that clip) and Lennon is talking about the public in general.

this yoko ono becomes famous for what? hanging with celebrity like a purse.

If she played at Carnagie Hall people heard her, just not backward jealous apes like you.

+Mieowinkles i m even more jealous at michael jordan and kobe bryant since we are same height. all world knew this guy. can u say same for her?

well, well, well- I guess everyone here seems to know everything and has it all figured out by insulting each other.And that's why it's easier to just go on you tube instead of reading and listening?

Ultimately their words are useless because they reject good and evil as real. Hitler was evil because he chose to be. The response to crush him was out of goodness, though it took greatness to do so.

But if Hitler won you'd be saying the same of the other side. Defeated communism, they killed millions, ended colonialism, they killed millions, ended genocide in America, killed millions, etc.

octopibingo good and evil are subjective depending on what side you're on. Being evil is a very vague concept that anyone can be accused of.

naom is anagram for O man, Lennon is like Lenin with an i.

the most feeble attempt to make a point I've seen yet on tube. well done

just imagine if everyone tried harder

Problem is, everyone has their own idea of what peace looks like.

Lennon was a brilliant musician and an interesting articulate guy.

right on !!

John Lennon and Noam Chomsky - two great human beings.

Two great usefull idiots and Chomsky also a great liar.

+Maglioso Jones sick profile background image broh. That a angel or some shyt?

He lies about 9/11. Says he believes the official narrative.

Yap yap yap......yawn.....

I don't hate yoko, i don't really know what to think of her. John in his relationship with her seemed to become emasculated whether that was her doing or his own i don't know. This area the 60's was certainly the birth of all this P.C politics, which as made the world a very complicated place. After all when did we sign up to being told how to speak, how to think and how to feel , sounds like fascism to me. John should have stuck to singing being a radical millionaire is a bit hard to swallow.

I appreciate and respect Lennon but Noam Chomsky is a fucking gatekeeper.

Individualism vs. Collectivism: Our Future, Our Choice

Craig Biddle | Philosophy | AUDIO 

From The Objective Standard, Vol. 7, No. 1.

National Archives / Time Life Pictures / Getty

Frederick Douglass

Frederick Douglass

This essay is part of a compilation ebook,  Objectivism, available at

The fundamental political conflict in America today is, as it has been for a century, individualism vs. collectivism. Does the individual’s life belong to him—or does it belong to the group, the community, society, or the state? With government expanding ever more rapidly—seizing and spending more and more of our money on “entitlement” programs and corporate bailouts, and intruding on our businesses and lives in increasingly onerous ways—the need for clarity on this issue has never been greater. Let us begin by defining the terms at hand.

Individualism is the idea that the individual’s life belongs to him and that he has an inalienable right to live it as he sees fit, to act on his own judgment, to keep and use the product of his effort, and to pursue the values of his choosing. It’s the idea that the individual is sovereign, an end in himself, and the fundamental unit of moral concern. This is the ideal that the American Founders set forth and sought to establish when they drafted the Declaration and the Constitution and created a country in which the individual’s rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness were to be recognized and protected.

Collectivism is the idea that the individual’s life belongs not to him but to the group or society of which he is merely a part, that he has no rights, and that he must sacrifice his values and goals for the group’s “greater good.” According to collectivism, the group or society is the basic unit of moral concern, and the individual is of value only insofar as he serves the group. As one advocate of this idea puts it: “Man has no rights except those which society permits him to enjoy. From the day of his birth until the day of his death society allows him to enjoy certain so-called rights and deprives him of others; not . . . because society desires especially to favor or oppress the individual, but because its own preservation, welfare, and happiness are the prime considerations.”1

Individualism or collectivism—which of these ideas is correct? Which has the facts on its side?

Individualism does, and we can see this at every level of philosophic inquiry: from metaphysics, the branch of philosophy concerned with the fundamental nature of reality; to epistemology, the branch concerned with the nature and means of knowledge; to ethics, the branch concerned with the nature of value and proper human action; to politics, the branch concerned with a proper social system.

We’ll take them in turn.

Metaphysics, Individualism, and Collectivism

When we look out at the world and see people, we see separate, distinct individuals. The individuals may be in groups (say, on a soccer team or in a business venture), but the indivisible beings we see are individual people. Each has his own body, his own mind, his own life. Groups, insofar as they exist, are nothing more than individuals who have come together to interact for some purpose. This is an observable fact about the way the world is. It is not a matter of personal opinion or social convention, and it is not rationally debatable. It is a perceptual-level, metaphysically given fact. Things are what they are; human beings are individuals.

A beautiful statement of the metaphysical fact of individualism was provided by former slave Frederick Douglass in a letter he wrote to his ex-“master” Thomas Auld after escaping bondage in Maryland and fleeing to New York. “I have often thought I should like to explain to you the grounds upon which I have justified myself in running away from you,” wrote Douglass. “I am almost ashamed to do so now, for by this time you may have discovered them yourself. I will, however, glance at them.” You see, said Douglass,

I am myself; you are yourself; we are two distinct persons, equal persons. What you are, I am. You are a man, and so am I. God created both, and made us separate beings. I am not by nature bound to you, or you to me. Nature does not make your existence depend upon me, or mine to depend upon yours. I cannot walk upon your legs, or you upon mine. I cannot breathe for you, or you for me; I must breathe for myself, and you for yourself. We are distinct persons, and are each equally provided with faculties necessary to our individual existence. In leaving you, I took nothing but what belonged to me, and in no way lessened your means for obtaining an honest living. Your faculties remained yours, and mine became useful to their rightful owner.2

Although one could quibble with the notion that “God” creates people, Douglass’s basic metaphysical point is clearly sound. Human beings are by nature distinct, separate beings, each with his own body and his own faculties necessary to his own existence. Human beings are not in any way metaphysically attached or dependent on one another; each must use his own mind and direct his own body; no one else can do either for him. People are individuals. “I am myself; you are yourself; we are two distinct persons.”

The individual is metaphysically real; he exists in and of himself; he is the basic unit of human life. Groups or collectives of people—whether families, partnerships, communities, or societies—are not metaphysically real; they do not exist in and of themselves; they are not fundamental units of human life. Rather, they are some number of individuals. This is perceptually self-evident. We can see that it is true.

Who says otherwise? Collectivists do. John Dewey, a father of pragmatism and modern “liberalism,” explains the collectivist notion as follows:

Society in its unified and structural character is the fact of the case; the non-social individual is an abstraction arrived at by imagining what man would be if all his human qualities were taken away. Society, as a real whole, is the normal order, and the mass as an aggregate of isolated units is the fiction.3

According to collectivism, the group or society is metaphysically real—and the individual is a mere abstraction, a fiction.4

This, of course, is ridiculous, but there you have it. On the metaphysics of collectivism, you and I (and Mr. Douglass) are fictional, and we become real only insofar as we somehow interrelate with society. As to exactly how we must interrelate with the collective in order to become part of the “real whole,” we’ll hear about that shortly.

Let us turn now to the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature of knowledge.

Epistemology, Individualism, and Collectivism

What is knowledge? Where does it come from? How do we know what’s true? Knowledge is a mental grasp of a fact (or facts) of reality reached by perceptual observation or a process of reason based thereon.5 Who looks at reality, hears reality, touches reality, reasons about reality—and thereby gains knowledge of reality? The individual does. The individual possesses eyes, ears, hands, and the like. The individual possesses a mind and the capacity to use it. He perceives reality (e.g., dogs, cats, and birds, and death); he integrates his perceptions into concepts (e.g., “dog,” “animal,” and “mortal”); he integrates his concepts into generalizations (e.g., “dogs can bite” and “animals are mortal”); he forms principles (e.g., “animals, including man, must take certain actions in order to remain alive,” and “man requires freedom in order to live and prosper”). And so on. Knowledge is a product of the perceptual observations and mental integrations of individuals.

Of course, individuals can learn from other people, they can teach others what they have learned—and they can do so in groups. But in any such transmission of knowledge, the individual’s senses must do the perceiving, and his mind must do the integrating. Groups don’t have sensory apparatuses or minds; only individuals do. This, too, is simply unassailable.

But that doesn’t stop collectivists from denying it.

The relevant epistemological principle, writes Helen Longino (chair of the philosophy department at Stanford University) is that “knowledge is produced by cognitive processes that are fundamentally social.” Granted, she says, “without individuals there would be no knowledge” because “it is through their sensory system that the natural world enters cognition. . . . The activities of knowledge construction, however, are the activities of individuals in interaction”; thus knowledge “is constructed not by individuals, but by an interactive dialogic community.”6

You can’t make this stuff up. But an “interactive dialogic community” can.

Although it is true (and should be unremarkable) that individuals in a society can exchange ideas and learn from one another, the fact remains that the individual, not the community, has a mind; the individual, not the group, does the thinking; the individual, not society, produces knowledge; and the individual, not society, shares that knowledge with others who, in turn, must use their individual minds if they are to grasp it. Any individual who chooses to observe the facts of reality can see that this is so. The fact that certain “philosophers” (or “dialogic communities”) deny it has no bearing on the truth of the matter.

Correct epistemology—the truth about the nature and source of knowledge—is on the side of individualism, not collectivism.

Next up are the respective views of morality that follow from these foundations.

Ethics, Individualism, and Collectivism

What is the nature of good and bad, right and wrong? How, in principle, should people act? Such are the questions of ethics or morality (I use these terms interchangeably). Why do these questions arise? Why do we need to answer them? Such questions arise and need to be answered only because individuals exist and need principled guidance about how to live and prosper.

We are not born knowing how to survive and achieve happiness, nor do we gain such knowledge automatically, nor, if we do gain it, do we act on such knowledge automatically. (As evidence, observe the countless miserable people in the world.) If we want to live and prosper, we need principled guidance toward that end. Ethics is the branch of philosophy dedicated to providing such guidance.

For instance, a proper morality says to the individual: Go by reason (as against faith or feelings)—look at reality, identify the nature of things, make causal connections, use logic—because reason is your only means of knowledge, and thus your only means of choosing and achieving life-serving goals and values. Morality also says: Be honest—don’t pretend that facts are other than they are, don’t make up alternate realities in your mind and treat them as real—because reality is absolute and cannot be faked out of existence, and because you need to understand the real world in order to succeed in it. Morality further provides guidance for dealing specifically with people. For instance, it says: Be just—judge people rationally, according to the available and relevant facts, and treat them accordingly, as they deserve to be treated—because this policy is crucial to establishing and maintaining good relationships and to avoiding, ending, or managing bad ones. And morality says: Be independent—think and judge for yourself, don’t turn to others for what to believe or accept—because truth is not correspondence to the views of other people but correspondence to the facts of reality. And so on.

By means of such guidance (and the foregoing is just a brief indication), morality enables the individual to live and thrive. And that is precisely the purpose of moral guidance: to help the individual choose and achieve life-serving goals and values, such as an education, a career, recreational activities, friendships, and romance. The purpose of morality is, as the great individualist Ayn Rand put it, to teach you to enjoy yourself and live.

Just as the individual, not the group, is metaphysically real—and just as the individual, not the collective, has a mind and thinks—so too the individual, not the community or society, is the fundamental unit of moral concern. The individual is morally an end in himself, not a means to the ends of others. Each individual should pursue his life-serving values and respect the rights of others to do the same. This is the morality that flows from the metaphysics and epistemology of individualism.

What morality flows from the metaphysics and epistemology of collectivism? Just what you would expect: a morality in which the collective is the basic unit of moral concern.

On the collectivist view of morality, explains “progressive” intellectual A. Maurice Low, “that which more than anything marks the distinction between civilized and uncivilized society is that in the former the individual is nothing and society is everything; in the latter society is nothing and the individual is everything.” Mr. Low assisted with the definition of collectivism at the outset of this article; here he elaborates with emphasis on the alleged “civility” of collectivism:

In a civilized society man has no rights except those which society permits him to enjoy. From the day of his birth until the day of his death society allows him to enjoy certain so-called rights and deprives him of others; not . . . because society desires especially to favor or oppress the individual, but because its own preservation, welfare, and happiness are the prime considerations. And so that society may not perish, so that it may reach a still higher plane, so that men and women may become better citizens, society permits them certain privileges and restricts them in the use of others. Sometimes in the exercise of this power the individual is put to a great deal of inconvenience, even, at times, he suffers what appears to be injustice. This is to be regretted, but it is inevitable. The aim of civilized society is to do the greatest good to the greatest number, and because the largest number may derive benefit from the largest good the individual must subordinate his own desires or inclinations for the benefit of all.7

Because Mr. Low wrote that in 1913—before Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Mussolini, Pol Pot, and company tortured and murdered hundreds of millions of people explicitly in the name of “the greatest good for the greatest number”—he may be granted some small degree of leniency. Today’s collectivists, however, have no such excuse.

As Ayn Rand wrote in 1946, and as every adult who chooses to think can now appreciate,

“The greatest good for the greatest number” is one of the most vicious slogans ever foisted on humanity. This slogan has no concrete, specific meaning. There is no way to interpret it benevolently, but a great many ways in which it can be used to justify the most vicious actions.

What is the definition of “the good” in this slogan? None, except: whatever is good for the greatest number. Who, in any particular issue, decides what is good for the greatest number? Why, the greatest number.

If you consider this moral, you would have to approve of the following examples, which are exact applications of this slogan in practice: fifty-one percent of humanity enslaving the other forty-nine; nine hungry cannibals eating the tenth one; a lynching mob murdering a man whom they consider dangerous to the community.

There were seventy million Germans in Germany and six hundred thousand Jews. The greatest number (the Germans) supported the Nazi government which told them that their greatest good would be served by exterminating the smaller number (the Jews) and grabbing their property. This was the horror achieved in practice by a vicious slogan accepted in theory.

But, you might say, the majority in all these examples did not achieve any real good for itself either? No. It didn’t. Because “the good” is not determined by counting numbers and is not achieved by the sacrifice of anyone to anyone.8

The collectivist notion of morality is patently evil and demonstrably false. The good of the community logically cannot take priority over that of the individual because the only reason moral concepts such as “good” and “should” are necessary in the first place is that individuals exist and need principled guidance in order to sustain and further their lives. Any attempt to turn the purpose of morality against the individual—the fundamental unit of human reality and thus of moral concern—is not merely a moral crime; it is an attempt to annihilate morality as such.

To be sure, societies—consisting as they do of individuals—need moral principles, too, but only for the purpose of enabling individuals to act in ways necessary to sustain and further their own lives. Thus, the one moral principle that a society must embrace if it is to be a civilized society is the principle of individual rights: the recognition of the fact that each individual is morally an end in himself and has a moral prerogative to act on his judgment for his own sake, free from coercion by others. On this principle, each individual has a right to think and act as he sees fit; he has a right to produce and trade the products of his efforts voluntarily, by mutual consent to mutual benefit; he has a right to disregard complaints that he is not serving some so-called “greater good”—and no one, including groups and governments, has a moral right to force him to act against his judgment. Ever.

This brings us to the realm of politics.

Politics, Individualism, and Collectivism

The politics of individualism is essentially what the American Founders had in mind when they created the United States but were unable to implement perfectly: a land of liberty, a society in which the government does only one thing and does it well—protects the rights of all individuals equally by banning the use of physical force from social relationships and by using force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use. In such a society, government uses force as necessary against thieves, extortionists, murderers, rapists, terrorists, and the like—but it leaves peaceful, rights-respecting citizens completely free to live their lives and pursue their happiness in accordance with their own judgment.

Toward that end, a proper, rights-respecting government consists of legislatures, courts, police, a military, and any other branches and departments necessary to the protection of individual rights. This is the essence of the politics of individualism, which follows logically from the metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics of individualism.

What politics follows from those of collectivism?

“America works best when its citizens put aside individual self-interest to do great things together—when we elevate the common good,” writes David Callahan of the collectivist think tank Demos.9Michael Tomasky, editor of Democracy, elaborates, explaining that modern “liberalism was built around the idea—the philosophical principle—that citizens should be called upon to look beyond their own self-interest and work for a greater common interest.”

This, historically, is the moral basis of liberal governance—not justice, not equality, not rights, not diversity, not government, and not even prosperity or opportunity. Liberal governance is about demanding of citizens that they balance self-interest with common interest. . . . This is the only justification leaders can make to citizens for liberal governance, really: That all are being asked to contribute to a project larger than themselves. . . . citizens sacrificing for and participating in the creation of a common good.10

This is the ideology of today’s left in general, including, of course, President Barack Obama. As Obama puts it, we must heed the “call to sacrifice” and uphold our “core ethical and moral obligation” to “look out for one another” and to “be unified in service to a greater good.”11 “Individual actions, individual dreams, are not sufficient. We must unite in collective action, build collective institutions and organizations.”12

But modern “liberals” and new “progressives” are not alone in their advocacy of the politics of collectivism. Joining them are impostors of the right, such as Rick Santorum, who pose as advocates of liberty but, in their perverted advocacy, annihilate the very concept of liberty.

“Properly defined,” writes Santorum, “liberty is freedom coupled with responsibility to something bigger or higher than the self. It is the pursuit of our dreams with an eye toward the common good. Liberty is the dual activity of lifting our eyes to the heavens while at the same time extending our hands and hearts to our neighbor.”13 It is not “the freedom to be as selfish as I want to be,” or “the freedom to be left alone,” but “the freedom to attend to one’s duties—duties to God, to family, and to neighbors.”14

Such is the state of politics in America today, and this is the choice we face: Americans can either continue to ignore the fact that collectivism is utterly corrupt from the ground up, and thus continue down the road to statism and tyranny—or we can look at reality, use our minds, acknowledge the absurdities of collectivism and the atrocities that follow from it, and shout the truth from the rooftops and across the Internet.

What would happen if we did the latter? As Ayn Rand said, “You would be surprised how quickly the ideologists of collectivism retreat when they encounter a confident, intellectual adversary. Their case rests on appealing to human confusion, ignorance, dishonesty, cowardice, despair. Take the side they dare not approach; appeal to human intelligence.”15

Return to Spring 2012 Contents


1 A. Maurice Low, “What is Socialism? III: An Explanation of ‘The Rights’ Men Enjoy in a State of Civilized Society,” The North American Review, vol. 197, no. 688 (March 1913), p. 406.

2 Letter to Thomas Auld, September 3, 1848, in Frederick Douglass: Selected Speeches and Writings (Chicago: Lawrence Hill Books, 1999). Also available online at

3 John Dewey, “The Ethics of Democracy,” in The Early Works of John Dewey, Volume 1, 18821898: Early Essays and Leibniz’s New Essays, 18821888, edited by Jo Ann Boydston and George E. Axetell (Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 2008), p. 232.

4 The roots of this idea can be found in Plato’s The Republic.

5 Cf. Ayn Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 2nd ed., edited by Harry Binswanger and Leonard Peikoff (New York: Penguin, 1990), p. 35.

6 Helen E. Longino, “Knowledge in Social Theories of Science,” in Socializing Epistemology: The Social Dimensions of Knowledge, edited by Frederick F. Schmitt (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 1994), pp. 139, 142–43.

7 Low, “What is Socialism? III,” pp. 405–6.

8 Ayn Rand, “Textbook of Americanism,” in The Ayn Rand Column (New Milford, CT: Second Renaissance Books, 1998), p. 90.

9 David Callahan, “The Biggest Idea in Obama’s Speech: A Common Good,” The Demos Weblog, January 26, 2012,

10 Michael Tomasky, “Party in Search of a Notion,” The American Prospect, April 18, 2006. Available online at

11 Barack Obama, Keynote Address, Sojourners/Call to Renewal-sponsored Pentecost conference, June 2006,; Penny Starr, “Obama Calls Health Care a ‘Moral Obligation,’ But Pro-lifers Say Tax Money for Abortions Is ‘Moral’ Issue,” August 21, 2009,; Obama, Commencement Speech at Wesleyan University, 2008,

12 Hank De Zutter, “What Makes Obama Run?,” Chicago Reader, December 7, 1995. Available online at

13 Rick Santorum, It Takes a Family (Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 2005), pp. 14–15.

14 Jonathan Rauch, “A Frothy Mixture of Collectivism and Conservatism: America’s Anti-Reagan Isn’t Hillary Clinton. It’s Rick Santorum,” Reason Magazine, September 6, 2005. Available online at

15 Ayn Rand, “The Cashing-In: The Student ‘Rebellion,’” in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal (New York: Signet, 1967), p. 269.

Noam Chomsky - On Social Cleansing, the 'war on drugs', Marijuana and prohibition

Published on Dec 15, 2011

.. chemical warfare, and oppressing+imprisoning the "dangerous classes" - in the guise of the (so-called) "War On Drugs"; excerpt from "Hosting the Stranger: Hospitality and Hostility in World Politics" (113 min, lecture+Q/A) 2009-04-22 --


Noam Chomsky On [the (really interesting!) history of criminalization of] Pot --//

Graham Hancock - "Its Not A War On Drugs, Its A War On Freedom" [and Consciousness, a return to the..Inquisition] -- //

Noam Chomsky - "What is 'globalization'[always under quotes!]" -- //

" Each year 600,000 die from passive smoking worldwide: study " --



womble dung2 years ago

incidently, in new zealand in the 1970s, with a high proportion of maori, samoan, and other pacific islander men filling up prisons, an old maori lady, anna tia began spending much of her time going into prisons mainly around auckland i think,and began teaching in particular maori men and youths about there actual indigenous culture, language, history,marttial arts,stories, dances,ceremonies, and in short TAUGHT THEM WHO THEY REALLY WERE,and the re-offending rate of many of them went noticably down. they would then be much more productive members of society  without necessarily just following the status quo as such. they now KNEW who they really were. this i believe is what missing all over the world in regards to crime and anti-social behaviour.  it's as if there is a silent war to prevent us from relearning this, and being a healthy part of our planet and community. it sort of parallels noams view on prevention and rehab.

womble dung makes you wonder about whats going to happen to the native americans

All though to be honest it would be better if we treated drugs as a health issue rather than a criminal issue in the first place

wow just wow that kid in jail story just fucking blew me away, what the fuck is wrong with us that we don't bother to get informed and do something to change the system? ...rather most ppl make an almost conscious decision to stay ignorant and let their brain go to shit obsessing over celebrity gossip, pointless sports, and TV reality shows smh.

+deathuponusalll You, hammer, your point, nail. Now if we could just bring the rest of the world up to such a sober level of reasonable logic... Well, we do have to keep trying, cuz imagine a world where the bastards win. Will be a world of hurt for ALL! Even the short sighted CRIMINALS who created it. Peace...

yeah man, like even if it's NOT true, this CERTAINLY happens in places like Thailand, Russia and the Philippines and other far-right wing nations. I mean, for ANYBODY to be locked up for HAVING a substance or USING a substance..... Okay, that's sheer lunacy, by ANY standard. EVEN IF people don't like drugs (as they sip some coffee or drink a coke), to just LOCK UP people for those things not only is totally savage, it also gives the police NKVD like powers and in the long term, in effect, abolishes constitutional protections not only for the general population, but ESPECIALLY for minorities. I can't stand people who pretend like drug prohibition does any good. I mean, with whatever metric you'd like, we can show that prohibition has failed with price reduction, use, demand, drug safety, purity of drugs, violence, crime.... for all these metrics, I can point out the academic research which points out that it either has little to no effect in the intended direction or, in worse cases, achieves the opposite of the stated goal. For people to pretend as though the drug war is based on crime, addiction or some other metric does good for propaganda, but is POORLY misused. If it hadn't ruined millions of REAL PEOPLE'S lives in this country ALONE, nevermind the world, it would be excellent comedy.

"Can't have a war on poverty, so they got a war on drugs so they can bother me" - Tupac Amaru Shakur

Dan Baker "It's always someone else's fault" Every black guy today

Recommended viewing: "The true History of Marijuana" (2010), "Cancer - The Forbidden Cures" (2010), "The New American Century" (2007)

Another problem that the drug prohibition causes is it makes it far more profitable to grow and produce heroin or cocaine than to grow corn,wheat etc.leaving billions of people hungry.

Yea, I mean, just look at Afghanistan. And instead of buying their opium which could improve their economy, it's being destroyed.

Jails ARE just a place for undesirable people. Most "crazy"/insane people end up in jail, when they should've just been on meds in the first place. But all the Mental Hospitals with permanent in-patients are being shut down, so there's no other place they would really end up (assuming they've got mental problems that they will inevitably result in conflict with the law at some point.). FUTURISM TIME: The most effective form of prison would be human hibernation, if we could ever figure that out. Removes the people from society without letting them make trouble in the prisons and waste our tax dollars controlling them Inmates would require minimal food or exercise. Too bad that this method does not seem like very much justice is being done,  since the punishment would be to just sleep through your sentence and then have the advantage of aging much slower than everyone who is not hibernating.. But if a person is put in human hibernation for life, it's like they have been executed anyway, but for the small price of keeping them alive and having them exercise every now and again, and the ability for them to wake up and get visitors

> FUTURISM TIME:... hibernation [-as prison)  = interesting idea, which has been dealt with in various forms by several SciFi-authors > would require minimal food or exercise but, certainly in the beginning, some maintenance as costly as an ICU

> Jails ARE just a place for undesirable people. Most "crazy"/insane people end up in jail, fully agreed > when they should've just been on meds in the first place. let's make that "when when they should've been cared for and receiving help & therapy, which for a certain (in a sane society probably quite small) percentage percentage of cases would include medication.

Opium (Morphine, Codeine, Heroine, etc.) made illegal to drive out Chinese immigrants.  Pot made illegal to drive out Mexican immigrants and Mexican Americans.  Cocaine illegal to oppress and suppress the Black American population.  All of these cases boiled down to religious intolerance and ultimately special interest money making.  That is a gross over simplification but it seems to me and according to the research that I have done to be correct.  In each case we have exchanged freedoms for "protection" in the same way that a mobster would demand businesses in his jurisdiction to pay for "protection."  The truth in both cases is that both liberty and safety are lost to oblivion.  

Libertarian Atheist So tell me what are the conspiracies against meth? What about Krokadil? What about laws against date rape drugs? It's interesting that many of these same drugs are outlawed throughout the world including China, Russia, Europe, Africa, Latin America, is there some sort of hidden racial conspiracy theory in all these countries? Seriously think about these things, you're the one falling for false propaganda dished out by Ron Paul, Alex Jones. Heroin lowers life expectancy by 34 years on moderate users, it can kill within 10 years on heavy users. That is a MEDICAL FACT! Are scientists, doctors. health inspectors also involved in this conspiracy? Just a note China expelled Americans and British based on facts of spreading the opium disease throughout their country. Sometimes governments are trying to protect their citizens. China did the right thing by stopping Opium trade in their country, and the US eventually did the right thing as well.

Libertarian Atheist thank you! obviously marijuana and magic mushrooms should be legal with some controls, especially when operating machinery. Drug laws are definitely too harsh in most cases and a shift toward rehabilitation is the best course of action. Legalizing all drugs?!?! Over my dead body! I like to get high and shit, but b realistic! The US is a major market, unlike Portugal. Drugs do cause violence and crime and can be a tool for a rapist or murderer on a spree. I was disappointed to hear Chomsky say cocaine doesn't cause violence by itself, because it certainly does. Don't b naiive, there is a reasonable middle ground here.

The only thing I would counter him on is presenting tobacco as more harmful than heroin or crack: were there an equivalent number of people using hard drugs (opiates, amphetamines etc, not weed or acid) with the regularity of smokers, I'm sure there would me more ill effects felt from the drugs. Tobacco is the biggest killer largely due to its availability, and although it is more toxic and addictive than many illegal drugs you still can't overdose, and you're not likely to miss work and withdraw from your friends because you're smoking too much. That being said, if you accept his point that the war on drugs has little effect on drug use, I suppose it's fair to take the figures as they are, with tobacco public enemy #1.

+Bunnies Kitties Sure, but the degree to which it accelerates your inevitable demise is very much significant, amounting to total life lost. Better to cut your life short by 20 years than have it abruptly end at 37 no? Like i said, smoking doesnt destroy your active life and leave you isolated and destitute: it would be incorrect to describe it as equally dedructive as hard drugs.

+PlumbDrumb Uhm, no man. No.

My god. So much. Such very this. What a beacon of lucidity. I don't mean to sound credulous, but listening to him talk about anything is humbling. Just a brilliant orator. This particular vid isn't that superlative, but he leaves an impression.

i heard george bush doesnt like black people

I heard George Bush smokes cock.


> REPEAL PROHIBITION!! d'accord! PROHIBITION KILLS! Free drug users, help abusers...decriminalize & watch drug lords weep! (T.Green, the millennium whole earth catalog)

I am incredulous of Chomsky's story about the child imprisoned for life because they "found him on the street".  It sounds really far-fetched.

+TheBuzzati He claimed it was during the 1960s during the Civil Rights era. Considering what went on during that time, it is a very credulous story. If anything, the child was luckier than many.

it's mississippi bro. so it's most likely happened the child was in there for quite some time

He states the reality. The cruel and violent reality. But he leaves an open question concerning the dangerous classes. In this video he is not condemning ''social cleansing''. At least not in public. Since Chosmky is leftist I must assume he is against it. Those type of proceedings sound like Nazi germany. The germans began with it. Think about this: those people who support this kind of cruelty believe they are doing so in the name of a higher cause. In the name of ''god''. That is the scary thing. Its proves that humanity is still trapped on the Dark ages.

I think the dialing back of the war on drugs must contain the irregular combination of not only a removal of such a large criminalized system that costs lots of tax dollars, but must also contain the attitude and principle of not promoting the drugs as anything positive at all (from Coca-cola to heroin... although much more so with heroin). This typically is not the case with activists because they are in direct emotional contact with the drug users (if they aren't users themselves), and resultantly bring along a hype which should not be in society. [Coca-cola has drugs in it- caffeine is a stimulant (which is a type of drug).] Also, the systems of industrialization that nearly all humans engage in or are influenced by have at least as a debilitating effect- if not, even more of a detrimental effect- than the personal narcotic users in terms of the social damage and long term environmental damage that will at least debilitate our descendants. This is the true tree that bears poisonous fruits: Commodities shipped and sent all over the world in ever growing, expanding systems of complex overlapping influence... which are likely as addictive as a narcotic to the public, and spread like wildfire throughout society due to it's strong emotional contagion effects. "It's out there- thousands of grams wrapped in saran" -Mobb Deep.

> cig smokers don't exhibit and experience a large mood change during their drug use (like someone consuming significant amounts of ... cocaine) Agreed. They (some, at least) do, however exhibit large changes (as in: they go crazy, in a way i'd find hard to believe if hadn't experienced it myself (e.g. when traveling with a nicotine-addict who ran out of her drug a few hours walk away from the next cig-machine)) during withdrawal. Also the changes to perception and consciousness of (e.g.) cocaine are far less than those of (e.g.) psychedelics (like LSD, psilocybin, DMT, mescaline, ... and also THC) -- which contributes (imo a lot) to the "devious" high addictive-ness of nicotine and cocaine ...

Well my point is that remedying a problem such as a drug addiction probably would be best as either forcing the person into detox or providing supportive systems to quit the habit. When a person receives a drug charge, their victim on the ticket they receive is "society". However, with extremely lengthy prison sentences and other expensive punitive methods we are creating much more of a victimized society by taking a large economic blow. Hey- at least the prison system might profit some.

noam Chomsky doesn't mention that 80-90% of shootings/homicides are drug/gang(illegality that creates a black market) related in the US..

His explanation of why various drugs were made illegal is at least plausible in the American context, but why are they illegal everywhere on the planet?  I honestly don't understand that, especially with pot, but to a lesser degree with cocaine and LSD, and other "hard" drugs.  Heroin I can understand to an extent due to its violent physiological withdrawal effects.

America is still the most powerful country on earth, easily. They can dictate what countries do by controlling investment. Just look at it's history, the number of counties it has overthrown, invaded, or subverted since WW2. It's staggering, and shows no sign of stopping. Under Obama the war in Iraq was continued, until it failed, the Afghanistan war was enlarged, the Libyan war was launched, with tragic consequences. He launched the drone assassination program in Yemen and Pakistan.

Well said.

Maybe if blacks stopped committing disproportionate homicides, rape and drug dealing, if they stopped attacking law abiding white people and didn't promote and celebrate gangster culture and killing they wouldn't be targeted?

Cory Foster you really not see how delusional and emotional you are, at the expense of critical thinking? It's pathetic really.

No because you don't ask yourself why or where this stems from. Plus you know your original post is made up of obvious fabrications. I suggest you take some higher level college courses on the matter..because I believe everyone would laugh at you and tell you how biased and closed minded you are. ^A good link to start with on some actual statistics of crimes.The next step is to ask yourself why this is and what it stems from? Do you understand anything about poverty and poor neighborhoods?

you cant wage war on drugs, just drug addicts.

5:30 | ah ... those of superior moral rectitude yet again, worried for our souls and livers. so petrified, if fact (not of their own shadows, oh no, or of people enjoying themselves too much or in ways that 'god' thinks we shouldn't (which is all ways)), so selflessly spiritual as to give themselves away by the belt, stick and fist if necessary: the tall-rolling temperance teets, headed by the likes of mary whitehouse and oliver cromwell and bill o'reilly. who was it who said something like 'work is the bane of the drinking classes'? Wilde.

1:01 | "Torches of freedom" indeed. also: this irrational driving of women to smoke to express their political and spiritual equality with old white men of the cloth provides another clear example of a deep flaw within market dogma: that insistence that people are always rational agents and use their rations / 'money' wisely. in this case it is a fact that women buying

Norman Dodd and Stan Monteith - The Enemy Within [Foundations]

Published on Dec 20, 2012

The great tax free foundation decided to take control of schools and universities, text and research books always slanted to the left

Carnegie Foundation

Rockerfeller Foundation

Ford Foundation

Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations and Comparable Organizations 

Norman Dodd (1899 - 1987) was a banker/bank manager, worked as a financial advisor and served as chief investigator in 1953 for U.S. Congressman B. Carroll Reece Special Committee on Tax Exempt Foundations (commonly referred to as the Reece Committee). He was primarily known for his controversial investigation into tax-exempt foundations

The Select Committee to Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations and Comparable Organizations was an investigative committee of the United States House of Representatives between 1952 and 1954. The committee was originally created by House Resolution 561 during the 82nd Congress. The committee investigated the use of funds by tax-exempt organizations (non-profit organizations) to see if they were being used to support communism. The committee was alternatively known as the Cox Committee and the Reece Committee after its two chairmen, Edward E. Cox and B. Carroll Reece.

Dodd stated that the grants given by the Foundations had been used for:

"Directing education in the United States toward an international view-point and discrediting the traditions to which, it [formerly) had been dedicated.

Training individuals and servicing agencies to render advice to the Executive branch of the Federal Government.

Decreasing the dependency of education upon the resources of the local community and freeing it from many of the natural safeguards inherent in this American tradition .

Changing both school and college curricula to the point where they sometimes denied the principles underlying the American way of life.

Financing experiments designed to determine the most effective means by which education could be pressed into service of a political nature."

He cited a book called The Turning of the Tides, which documented the literature from various tax-exempt foundations and organizations like UNESCO showing that they wished to install World Government and collectivism along the lines of Plato's Republic.

He then proceeded to show that the Ford Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, and Carnegie Endowment were using funds excessively on projects at Columbia, Harvard, Chicago University and the University of California, in order to enable oligarchical collectivism.

Norman Dodd (1899 - 1987) was a banker/bank manager, worked as a financial advisor and served as chief investigator in 1953 for U.S. Congressman B. Carroll Reece Special Committee on Tax Exempt Foundations (commonly referred to as the Reece Committee). He was primarily known for his controversial investigation into tax-exempt foundations

The Select Committee to Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations and Comparable Organizations was an investigative committee of the United States House of Representatives between 1952 and 1954. The committee was originally created by House Resolution 561 during the 82nd Congress. The committee investigated the use of funds by tax-exempt organizations (non-profit organizations) to see if they were being used to support communism. The committee was alternatively known as the Cox Committee and the Reece Committee after its two chairmen, Edward E. Cox and B. Carroll Reece.

Dodd stated that the grants given by the Foundations had been used for:

"Directing education in the United States toward an international view-point and discrediting the traditions to which, it [formerly) had been dedicated.

Training individuals and servicing agencies to render advice to the Executive branch of the Federal Government.

Decreasing the dependency of education upon the resources of the local community and freeing it from many of the natural safeguards inherent in this American tradition .

Changing both school and college curricula to the point where they sometimes denied the principles underlying the American way of life.

Financing experiments designed to determine the most effective means by which education could be pressed into service of a political nature."

He cited a book called The Turning of the Tides, which documented the literature from various tax-exempt foundations and organizations like UNESCO showing that they wished to install World Government and collectivism along the lines of Plato's Republic.

He then proceeded to show that the Ford Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, and Carnegie Endowment were using funds excessively on projects at Columbia, Harvard, Chicago University and the University of California, in order to enable oligarchical collectivism.

Category News & Politics

ali g interviews noam chomsky

Published on Apr 5, 2006

title is self-explanatory.




patodiblasi1 year ago

I can't believe this actually happened.

Professor Norman Chompsky handled this pretty well.

Nah, I'd expect academics to be more 'autistic' about their works, especially the really brilliant ones. He wasn't an asshole and really tried to answer questions about his field to the best of his knowledge. Fine for me over some jersey shore prick 'witty' response

danger2709 this is how people with identity and personality behave. something that is so uncommon in american media and generally in americans too. when they see a show about politics they expect to laugh rather than analyzing the message and relating to events happening atound them.

I like how Chomsky keeps the same demeanor no matter who's interviewing him. 

Alexander Martin impressive, huh? lol

True, much better than Andy Rooney's interview but still not as good as Boutras Ghali's interview though. The guy was secretary General of UN but still a chill person to interview! Respect!

That was hilarious, what must have been running through Chomsky's mind. Something like 'this generation is doomed'.

Nothing's special about this generation. In fact, each seems to get a little worse.

Really sad to see this is the most viewed chomsky video on youtube :(

Hopefully it's a gateway to reason.

Before I knew who Mr. Chomsky was this interview was hilarious after I came to know about him, I was shocked that this kind of interview actually took place.

They will pitch it to him as a youth group type media from the UK looking to influence the kids - alot of wealthy people do charity stuff. I honestly reckon Ali got disempowered in this interview - prob the only one, & it's doesn't make me laugh like the other ones.

justletmesigninokthx and how did he get disempowered?

Big respect for chomsky for bro fisting



89 > 1

has chomsky ever lost a debate?

"when the Global Footprint Network plotted the HDI against ecological footprints per capita, only one country, Cuba, was deemed to have a genuinely sustainable economy. It is worth noting that Cuba has achieved this feat without access to the greenest technology." "The commando raids were combined with a total US trade and credit embargo, which continues to this day, and which genuinely hurt the Cuban economy and chipped away at the society’s standard of living. So unyielding has the embargo been that when Cuba was hard hit by a hurricane in October 1963, and Casa Cuba, a New York social club, raised a large quantity of clothing for relief, the United States refused to grant it an export license on the grounds that such shipment was “contrary to the national interest”. "Moreover, pressure was brought to bear upon other countries to conform to the embargo, and goods destined for Cuba were sabotaged: machinery damaged, chemicals added to lubricating fluids to cause rapid wear on diesel engines, a manufacturer in West Germany paid to produce ball-bearings off-center, another to do the same with balanced wheel gears – “You’re talking about big money,” said a CIA officer involved in the sabotage efforts, “when you ask a manufacturer to go along with you on that kind of project because he has to reset his whole mold. And he is probably going to worry about the effect on future business. You might have to pay him several hundred thousand dollars or more.”