Project Camelot Interviews Leo Zagami - Part 1 of 3

Project Camelot

Published on Mar 30, 2008


Leo Zagami: Illuminati Whistleblower Part 1 of 3 Oslo, Norway, February 2008 Leo Lyon Zagami, ex-member of the Comitato Esecutivo Massonico - the Masonic Executive Committee - of Monte Carlo, was, until recently, a high level member of the Italian Illuminati. He is a 33rd degree Freemason, and a senior member of the infamous P2 Lodge. He was the 'Prince': prepared to take over after the older Illuminati 'King', Licio Gelli. He was born of a Scottish-Sicilian Illuminati aristocratic bloodline, and so has been involved in the Illuminati Order since childhood. Disgusted with satanic black magic rituals, and with the true intentions of those who regard themselves as the elite controllers of the planet, he has now made the commitment to tell the real story of those who seek to rule us all without our consent. Quick, intelligent, likeable, passionate, and with a huge amount of information at his fingertips about the inside workings of the Powers that Be, Leo welcomed us into his house in Oslo, Norway, where he had been living in what might be called exile. In our two and a half hour interview we were barely able to scratch the surface of everything he knows, and what we present is a summary for those unfamiliar with the labyrinthine details of one of the most important stories of our time. Be warned: some of the material is shocking. Leo seems to have paid a price for talking to us on camera. Days after our interview, his wife Fatma Süslü, of Turkish descent but an aspiring Norwegian politician, left him - accusing us at Project Camelot, in the process, of being agents. Immediately after her departure he was temporarily imprisoned and his cellphone and computers were confiscated by the police. He intends to leave Norway for safer shores as soon as he can make the arrangements. Leo is a very brave man, and we wish him well. He is determined and resilient. The information he presents is extraordinary and detailed, and much more will be found on his own 

http://www.illuminaticonfessions.webf... website. 

We intend to keep in close touch with him, and will support him in whatever way we can. To contact Bill Ryan or Kerry Cassidy, please e-mail us at


Exclusive Interview With Leo Zagami, Ex-Illuminatus, on Greg Szymanski's Radio Show

Arctic Beacon -
(Posted here: Sunday, January 07, 2007)
See: http://inlnews.com/LeoZagami_RealIlluminati.html

 Project Camelot Interviews Leo Zagami - Part 2 of 3  

Project Camelot

Published on Mar 30, 2008


Leo Zagami: Illuminati Whistleblower Part 1 of 3 Oslo, Norway, February 2008 Leo Lyon Zagami, ex-member of the Comitato Esecutivo Massonico - the Masonic Executive Committee - of Monte Carlo, was, until recently, a high level member of the Italian Illuminati. He is a 33rd degree Freemason, and a senior member of the infamous P2 Lodge. He was the 'Prince': prepared to take over after the older Illuminati 'King', Licio Gelli. He was born of a Scottish-Sicilian Illuminati aristocratic bloodline, and so has been involved in the Illuminati Order since childhood. Disgusted with satanic black magic rituals, and with the true intentions of those who regard themselves as the elite controllers of the planet, he has now made the commitment to tell the real story of those who seek to rule us all without our consent. Quick, intelligent, likeable, passionate, and with a huge amount of information at his fingertips about the inside workings of the Powers that Be, Leo welcomed us into his house in Oslo, Norway, where he had been living in what might be called exile. In our two and a half hour interview we were barely able to scratch the surface of everything he knows, and what we present is a summary for those unfamiliar with the labyrinthine details of one of the most important stories of our time. Be warned: some of the material is shocking. Leo seems to have paid a price for talking to us on camera. Days after our interview, his wife Fatma Süslü, of Turkish descent but an aspiring Norwegian politician, left him - accusing us at Project Camelot, in the process, of being agents. Immediately after her departure he was temporarily imprisoned and his cellphone and computers were confiscated by the police. He intends to leave Norway for safer shores as soon as he can make the arrangements. Leo is a very brave man, and we wish him well. He is determined and resilient. The information he presents is extraordinary and detailed, and much more will be found on his own 

http://www.illuminaticonfessions.webf... website. 

We intend to keep in close touch with him, and will support him in whatever way we can. To contact Bill Ryan or Kerry Cassidy, please e-mail us at


Evidence, by its very nature, can be controverted.

Assanation  fo JFK The State of the Evidence, The Evidence of the State  by Edward Jay Epstein

Evidence, by its very nature, can be controverted. If it could not be, it would not be evidence but an act of faith. Any document can be a forgery, any witness can give false testimony, and any object can be either fabricated or misidentified. Nevertheless, some evidence is better than other evidence. And when the best evidence is examined, tested and placed in the proper context, it provides the best way we have to establish the facts.

In the case of the assassination of President Kennedy, the central facts have been investigated and re-investigated for nearly three decades.

 The evidence-testers have included the FBI, the Treasury Department, the Warren Commission, the Rockefeller Commission, the House Select Committee on Assassination, the Department of Justice, independent coroners and forensic experts, and assassination researchers. Consider, for example, the much disputed autopsy findings of President Kennedy. Although the autopsy examination itself was badly handled by the Navy, and insufficiently probed by the Warren Commission, many of the problems were resolved the re-examination of the X-rays and photographs of the President's body by the panel of nine independent pathologists (including one Warren Commission critic) appointed by the House Select Committee.

 These findings, not those in the Warren Commission (or my criticisms of the original process in Inquest) constitute the best evidence.Since as imperfect as the process has been, it has resulted in filling in much of the reality of what happened on November 22nd, 1963. I believe that the seven following questions now can be answered-- or at least narrowed down to finite possibilities.1. Where did the bullets come from that hit President Kennedy and Governor Connally?The best available evidence on the nature of the discernible wounds inflicted on Kennedy is, first, the photographs and X-Rays of the President taken during the autopsy at Bethesda Naval Hospital and, second, the fibers of the President's clothing.Although the photographs and X-Rays were not examined by the Warren Commission or its staff, leading to considerable doubt as to the validity of the Commission's conclusions, they were subsequently examined ,first, by a panel of three pathologists and a radiologist appointed by Attorney General Ramsey Clark in 1981, and then more thoroughly in 1976 by the nine man panel appointed by the House Select Committee. The members of this latter panel had between them experience in performing over 100,000 autopsies.

 The House Select Committee, moreover, established the authenticity of these photographs by having forensic dentists compare them with Kennedy's pre-mortem dental records and medical X-rays.All these pathologists agreed, without any dissent, that all the detectable wounds in the photographs and X-rays of President Kennedy had been caused by bullets fired from behind and above him, confirming the conclusions of the doctors who had performed the autopsy itself as well as those of the FBI and the Warren Commission.

They also agreed unanimously from a reconstruction of the medical evidence that Governor Connally's multiple wounds had been caused by a bullet fired from the same direction. The path of the first bullet to hit the President was further established by the President's shirt and jacket fibers. The FBI analysis, as well as the re-analysis, showed that they were pushed inward, not outward, by the projectile which could only have happened if the President was shot from behind.The path of the bullet that hit Governor Connally was also confirmed by Governor Connally's testimony that he was certain he was hit from behind.The panel also unanimously concluded from the X-Rays that the fatal bullet had entered the rear of the President's head near the cowlick area and exited from the right front. None of the nine pathologist, including Warren Commission critic Dr. Cyril Wecht, were able to find any medical evidence that this massive wound was caused by a bullet fired from in front or side of the President's car. To be sure, a frame-by-frame analysis of the film of the assassination made by Abraham Zapruder shows President Kennedy's head at the time of impact moving backwards, not forward as might be expected. But this is not the evidence it seems to be because, depending on the neurological reactions to such a wound, the head can snap in any direction after being shot.

Wound ballistic experts demonstrated this counterintuitive point to the House Select Committee through a filmed experiment that clearly showed that, when hit with a rifle bullet from the rear, the head could move either backward or forward. So there is not necessarily a relationship between the direction that the head moves and the direction from which the bullet strikes the head.By tracing the trajectory of the bullets from the path of the wounds, an analyst from the National Aeronautic and Space Administration was able to plot all three shots to their source the upper floors of the southeast face of the Texas Book Depository.

 This was the same building that five witnesses --Howard Brennan, Amos Lee Euins, Carolyn Walther, Arnold Rowland and Barbara Rowland-- claimed to have seen a rifle protruding from a South-eastern window at about the time of the assassination (Brennan told police he actually saw the rifle being fired and reloaded before the suspect was apprehended). While it is possible that numerous other shots may have been fired from other locations and directions and missed their target, we know from the best evidence, the autopsy photographs, that the shots that caused all the discernible wounds came from the a high window on the south eastern side of the Texas Book Depository.2. Did the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle found by police on the sixth floor of the Texas Depository fire these shots?The best evidence for identifying the assassination weapon is the two bullet fragments found in the President's car and the nearly whole bullet found in a stretcher in Parkland Hospital in Dallas.

In 1964, FBI experts ballistically matched this bullet and fragments to the rifle barrel of the Mannlicher-Carcano by microscopically comparing of the markings in the barrel with those found on the bullet and fragments. A firearms panel of independent experts appointed by the House Select Committee re-examined this evidence in 1977 and re-confirmed that the bullet and fragments had come from that Mannlicher Carcano rifle.In addition, the House Select Committee employed a very advanced form of neutron activation analysis to match the recovered bullet and fragments to the ammunition used in the Mannlicher Carcano. In this technique, traces from the ballistic evidence are bombarded by neutrons in a nuclear reactor so that the precise composition of elements-- antimony, silver, and copper-- can be measured by their emissions on a gamma-ray spectrometer to an accuracy of one-billionth of a gram. The composition of traces from the bullet and fragments were thus compared to that of the unfired bullet found in the chamber of the Mannlicher-Carcano and found to exactly match. This analysis convincingly showed that all the ballistic material that was recovered, and could be tested, came from two bullets, and both bullets identically matched in their composition the ammunition for the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle.Although questions can be raised about the general accuracy of the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle found in the depository, there can be no doubt that the particular weapon can be fired with deadly accuracy at a target 100 yards away-- the distance from the depository to the President's car. After the assassination three different FBI agents fired this exact rifle and scored bull's-eyes two out of three times.

Although the suspicion has been raised that the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle was "framed" as the murder weapon by a conspirator who planted the nearly-intact bullet on a stretcher in Parkland Hospital, it lacks any reasonable persuasiveness because i) the conspirator would have no certainty that he could recover from the hospital, car, autopsy and crime scene the "real" bullets that presumably would not match the Mannlicher-Carcano; ii) the fragments found in the car and Governor Connally's wrist match the Mannlicher-Carcano ammunition; iii) it would be pointless to frame the Mannlicher-Carcano, which the conspirators would have had to have in their possession anyway to leave at the murder site, since it was a weapon perfectly capable of hitting its target. So why not use it?We thus know that the Mannlicher Carcano found in the depository fired at least two of the shots at the President's motorcade.3. How many snipers fired at the President's motorcade?The best evidence of the sequence of events remains the ten-second long film taken by Zapruder.

 It fixes the earliest time Kennedy could have been first hit in the back, the latest time Connally was wounded, and the exact moment the President was shot in the head. From an analysis of this film, the Warren Commission staff determined that the interval between the time Kennedy and Connally were first shot was not long enough for a single rifleman to have fired two shots: therefore either both men were hit by the same bullet, or there had to be two riflemen.

This conclusion was confirmed by the more sophisticated photographic analysis of the House Select Committee's photographic evidence panel and of independent researchers.Despite the crucial implications of this photographic evidence, the issue of whether Kennedy and Connally were hit by the same or separate bullets has not been satisfactorily resolved. The FBI concluded it was separate shots, the Warren Commission begged the question as "not relevant" and the House Select Committee, which went most thoroughly into this evidence, was unable to reach a definitive conclusion because members of its 9-doctor panel irreconcilably disagreed. Eight doctors believed it was possible, though not necessarily probable. that the bullet recovered had caused both Kennedy's back wound and Connally's, multiple wounds; one doctor, however, Cyril Wecht concluded from the photographic and medical evidence that it was absolutely impossible for those wounds to have been caused by a single bullet. Since Wecht marshals considerable evidence to support his view (as will be recalled from Epilogue I), we are left with two possible scenarios.A.

 The Single Bullet ScenarioOne rifleman fired three bullets from the Mannlicher Carcano in the depository. The first bullet missed the motorcade entirely and incidentally wounded a bystander, James Teague. The second bullet hit Kennedy and Connally and was recovered from Connally's stretcher. About three seconds later, the rifleman fired a third bullet which killed Kennedy, abandoned his rifle, and fled the depository.B. The Separate Shot ScenarioOne rifleman fired the first shot that hit Kennedy in the back from an unidentified rifle. The bullet exited the car and was not recovered. He then fired a second shot that went astray and nicked bystander Teague. About one second after the first rifleman fired, a second rifleman, using the Mannlicher Carcano, hit Connally; and, with his second shot, hit Kennedy in the head. While the first rifleman left the depository with his rifle and shell casings, the second rifleman left his behind.Both scenarios are consistent with the testimony of eyewitnesses-- one of whom saw a second person near the sniper's windows-- and the fingerprints found on the boxes arranged at the site.

So we can conclude that either one or two riflemen participated in the assassination and that the one with the Mannlicher Carcano killed Kennedy.4. Whose Mannlicher-Carcano was it?The best evidence that identifies the ownership of the murder weapon is the handwriting of the person who ordered the rifle under the name "A. Hidell" from a mail order house in Chicago in March 1963 and rented the post office box in Dallas to which it was shipped.It was Lee Harvey Oswald.FBI and Treasury Department experts determined in 1964 that Lee Harvey Oswald had signed the name "A. Hidell" on both the purchase order for the rifle and the post box application. A half dozen other documents found in his possession, that Oswald used the alias "Hidell".

The House Select Committee panel of questioned document experts, after re-examining the signatures, unequivocally agreed. So Oswald had ordered the murder weapon-- and it had been shipped to his post office box from Chicago on March 20,1963.PossessionMarina Oswald confirmed that Oswald had received the rifle in late March, and four other witnesses--George De Mohrenschildt, Jeanne De Mohrenschildt, Alexander Taylor and Gary Taylor-- saw that Oswald had a rifle in either late March or Early April.The best evidence of Oswald's actual possession of the Mannlicher- Carcano, however, is the much disputed photographs of Oswald holding the rifle in his hand that Marina Oswald said she took on Sunday, March 31, 1963 in the backyard of their house in Dallas. Oswald claimed after his arrest that the photograph had been faked by superimposing his head on the rifleman's body but this theory is contradicted by three pieces of evidence established by the House Select Committee. First, De Mohrenschildt produced in 1976 an inscribed copy of the backyard photograph which Oswald had given him in April 1963.

The Committee's questioned document panel authenticated the signature-- which meant that Oswald had signed (and dated) the photograph he later claimed was faked. Second, by examining the negative with enhanced analytic techniques, the Committee' panel of photographic experts found a unique random pattern of wear on the rifle in the photograph which corresponded exactly to one on the Mannlicher-Carcano Oswald had purchased. Since the experts agreed this could not be faked, the rifle in the photograph had to be Oswald's. Third, by microscopically examining the scratch marks that Oswald's Imperial Reflex camera distributed on all negatives pulled through it, which are the equivalent of camera fingerprints, the panel established unequivocally that the backyard photographs could only have been taken by Oswald's camera, just as Marina had testified. Moreover, using digital processing analysis and stereo optic viewing techniques that did not exist in 1963, the panel concluded there was no signs of having been faked. Even two experts who had previously disputed the authenticity of the photographs (using copies, rather than the original) now agreed that the photograph was genuine. In light of this evidence, there can be no serious doubt that Oswald possessed the murder weapon at the end of March 1963.

UseMarina Oswald testified to the Warren Commission that when Oswald left their house on April 10,1963, he left her dramatic instructions in Russian about what she should if he were arrested, killed or had to go into hiding, and when he returned late that evening, he explained to her that he had just attempted to kill General Edwin Walker with his rifle. Her testimony is corroborated by three elements of evidence.First, the Russian handwriting in the note has been unequivocally identified as that of Oswald by the questioned documents experts of both the Warren Commission and the House Select Committee.

The note, which contains details that date it, confirms that Oswald expected to be killed, arrested or a fugitive the week of April 10th 1963.Second, photographs of Walker's house taken from the position were the sniper fired at Walker were found among Oswald's possessions after the Kennedy assassination. Photographic experts established these photographs were taken with Oswald's imperial reflex camera. By referring to construction work in the background, the FBI was able to determine that the photographs were taken on March 9th or 10th (which was just about the date Oswald ordered the Mannlicher Carcano). Such photographs show that Oswald had reconnoitered Walker's house.Third, the previously-discussed Neutron Activation Analysis done in 1977 exactly matched the metallic elements found in the bullet that was recovered in Walker's home to the batch of Mannlicher-Carcano ammunition used in Oswald's rifle in the assassination of Kennedy.So we know the murder weapon was purchased, delivered and shown off in an inscribed photograph, and used in a prior attempted assassination by Oswald. 5. Was Oswald at the sniper's window on the sixth floor of the depository where the murder weapon was found.The best evidence here is three palm prints (which are as uniquely identifiable as fingerprints) found on the boxes stacked in front of the window to support the rifle and the nearby paper sack which was long enough to accommodate the Mannlicher Carcano.

 FBI experts matched them to Oswald hands. ( A fourth palm print, found on one box, belonged to an unidentified individual). The House Select Committee's fingerprint panel unanimously confirmed this evidence. Since the "freshness" of palm prints is of limited duration, it was further determined that Oswald had handled those boxes and paper sack either the day of the assassination or the preceding day. Moreover, two witnesses testified he carried the paper sack into the depository that morning. So we know Oswald arranged the boxes used by the sniper and handled the paper sack within 24 hours of the assassination and, if the witnesses are correct, brought the sack to the sniper's window the morning of the assassination.6. Was Oswald framed?Whereas there is no doubt that Oswald's rifle was used to shoot President Kennedy, the possibility exists it was used by another party to frame Oswald. If Oswald was totally innocent, his activities after the assassination would reflect his lack of knowledge and involvement in the event. Instead, the evidence is persuasive that he fled the building after the assassination, changed his clothing, armed himself, fatally shot a policeman resisted arrest by attempting to shoot another policeman, and, after his arrest, lied repeatedly to his interrogators about owning the rifle, appearing in the backyard photograph with the rifle, and using the alias "Hidell" (which he purchased both the rifle and pistol).The best evidence that he shot the policeman, J.D. Tippit, is that the cartridge cases found at the murder scene matched the firing pin of the revolver taken out of Oswald's hand when he was arrested.

The FBI determined no all other weapon could have ejected these cartridges-- and these conclusions were reaffirmed by the Select Committee's firearms panel. Oswald admission that he had decided only on the spur of the moment to fetch this weapon effectively rules out the possibility he was framed since no one but Oswald could have known he would be carrying it.In addition, five witnesses identified Oswald from the police line up as either the person who shot Tippit or the person who fled from the scene with a gun in hand. The House Select Committee produced an additional witness who testified he saw Oswald stand over the downed policeman and fire a bullet into his head.His post-arrest actions, especially his mendacity in consistently denying ownership of the rifle to representatives of the FBI, Secret Service, Post Office, and district attorney, further indicate consciousness of guilt about owning the rifle. This would not be consistent with the behavior of a framed and innocent man -- who believed his rifle was still wrapped in a blanket in a friend's garage.While none of this evidence is unimpeachable-- no evidence is-- and none of it proves that Oswald was the only person involved in the shooting of Kennedy, Tippit or General Walker, it convinces me that he was involved in the assassination.

The Conspiracy QuestionOne question, perhaps the only one that still matters, cannot be answered by the state's evidence: was Oswald part of a conspiracy? As we have seen, the re-investigations of the assassination have left unresolved the issue of whether or two shooters were involved but, even if they had definitively established, as the Warren Commission attempted to do, that a lone gunman had fired all the shots on November 22nd 1963, it would not logically diminish the possibility that the assassination resulted from a conspiracy.Conspiracies do not necessarily require more than one rifleman to accomplish their purpose. In many cases, such as the highly-sophisticated Rightist conspiracy in France to assassinate President Charles De Gaulle, a single "Jackal" rifleman was employed. One accurate rifleman might be preferable to a conspiracy when it is expected that the intended victim could be protected by his bodyguard immediately after the first shot is fired, because each additional snipers would increase the chances of detection, both before and after the act, but not necessarily increase the probability of success.

 Moreover, if multiple gunmen are captured (or killed), it would be difficult to divert the investigation away from the conspiracy, whereas a lone gunman, especially if killed himself, can be dismissed as a lone lunatic.The larger issue then is: was Oswald, whether firing alone or in tandem, acting at the behest of others.Oswald was not, to be sure, the sort of well-adjusted individual with whom most people would want to associate. He was wantonly self-destructive (e.g. his suicide attempt in Moscow); militantly hostile towards symbols of authority (e.g. the threat he made to blow up the FBI headquarters in Dallas); contemptuous of legal restraints (e.g. his plan to hijack an airliner to get to Cuba) and homicidal (e.g. his brutal murder of Tippit).

As early as 1960, he expressed a cold-blooded willingness to commit political murder in a letter he presciently wrote his brother from Moscow: "What I say now I do not say lightly or unknowingly ... I would kill any American who put a uniform on in defense of the American Government, Any American". The one position that such unrestrained aggression would not exclude a person for employment would be a political assassin.In this context, the bullet Oswald coolly fired at General Walker was, whether he meant it to be or not, an advertisement of his willingness to kill or be killed for a political cause. Less than a week before he went out to assassinate Walker he distributed an inscribed photograph of himself to De Mohrenschildt (and perhaps others). It showed him dressed in black, armed to kill with a rifle and telescopic sight, and holding in his hand the radical newspaper, The Militant.

When he went to Mexico to offer himself to the Cubans, he brought with him the tell-tale photographs of Walker's house to establish his bona fides as a revolutionary. Was his have gun, will kill message picked up of any antennae that summer? Just as De Mohrenschildt and Marina learned of his assassination attempt, so may have others in pro-Castro, anti-Castro and other fringe groups he was active with in the summer of 1963 (not to mention the various intelligence and police agencies monitoring his movements).There couldn't be that many potential assassins hanging around the militant peripheries of the Cold War with Oswald's perverse virtues: a convenient defector background, military training, complete disregard for human life, including his own, and possession of a rifle he was more than ready to use. Here was as assassin awaiting a mission. Did anyone pick him up as a shooter-- or, lacking a sponsor but finding an opportunity, did he act alone?


Noam Chomsky full length interview: Who rules the world now?

Cathy Newman's full interview with Philosopher Noam Chomsky. From Trump and Clinton,

to climate change, Brexit and TPP, America's foremost intellectuals presents his views on who rules the world today. 

Channel 4 News

Published on May 14, 2016

Category News & Politics


I find Mr. Chomsky to be the most intelligent and informed politician to have ever listened to at length. He is very calm and thoughtful in his statements.

Category News & Politics

  9 months ago

I find Mr. Chomsky to be the most intelligent and informed politician to have ever listened to at length. He is very calm and thoughtful in his statements.

The Coming Fall of the House of Windsor
Slide Show

Made Available Through The New Federalist newspaper, 1994.


[Slide 14: Australia WWF]

A look at the map of Australia makes the point very clear. Between indigenous reserves (i.e., human zoos) and other set-aside lands, the WWF has managed to practically cut the continent in half, almost cutting off the eastern and western halves of the country and insuring a semi-permanent state of underdevelopment.

A review of the history of WWF, which we do not have time to go through here, would show that the post-World War II so-called environmental movement, was nothing but a revival of the Eugenics Movement of the late nineteenth and early 20th century. After the Nazi genocide, the term ``eugenics'' was discredited, so the same British and allied European and North American ``elites'' who backed Hitler changed the name to ``environmentalism'' and went right back into the genocide business. To illustrate the point: WWF founder Sir Julian Huxley was president of the Eugenics Society in 1961 when the WWF came into being.

Prince Philip, world spokesman for WWF and the chief officer of the Club of the Isles, put it succinctly at a March 11, 1987 address in London:

``The simple fact is that the human population of the world is consuming natural renewable resources faster than it can regenerate, and the process of exploitation is causing even further damage.... All this has been made possible by the Industrial Revolution and the scientific explosion and it is spread around the world by the new economic religion of development.''

Prince Philip is lying. Lack of genuine economic development, willfully blocked by Philip and his fellow genocidalists at the WWF and in the Club of the Isles, is the only ``limit to growth.''

Destroy the political and financial power of the Club and nothing stands in the way of a new Renaissance.

Prince Harry Slams Decision To Make Him Walk Behind Princess Diana’s Coffin

‘No child should be asked to do that.’

 22/06/2017 10:08


Prince Harry has spoken about the traumatic experience of walking behind his mother’s coffin during her funeral when he was just 12. 

In an interview with Newsweek magazine, the 32-year-old criticised the decision to have him there and said no child “should be asked to do that under any circumstances.”

In 1997, the youngster joined his father, the Prince of Wales, his grandfather, the Duke of Edinburgh, 15-year-old brother, the Duke of Cambridge, and uncle, Earl Spencer, in a funeral procession through the streets of London for Diana, Princess of Wales.

The Duke of Edinburgh, Prince William, Earl Spencer, Prince Harry and the Prince of Wales follow the coffin of Diana, Princess of Wales in September 1997

He said: “My mother had just died, and I had to walk a long way behind her coffin, surrounded by thousands of people watching me while millions more did on television.

“I don’t think any child should be asked to do that, under any circumstances. I don’t think it would happen today.”

The prince praised Diana for playing a huge part in showing him an ordinary life.

Prince Harry opened up about the loss of his mother at the age of just 12 

He added that he did his own shopping, saying: “People would be amazed by the ordinary life William and I live.”

The prince, who is dating American actress Meghan Markle, said if he was lucky enough to have children he was determined they should have a relatively normal life, adding: “Even if I was king, I would do my own shopping.”

Asked whether he worried that an ordinary Royal Family would take away The Firm’s mystery, Harry replied: “It’s a tricky balancing act. We don’t want to dilute the magic ... The British public and the whole world need institutions like it.”

Princes Harry and William with their mother Diana in Niagara Falls in 1991 

He also suggested no one in the Royal Family wants the throne.

He said: “We are not doing this for ourselves but for the greater good of the people.

“Is there any one of the Royal Family who wants to be king or queen? I don’t think so, but we will carry out our duties at the right time.”

Newsweek reported that Harry said several times that he aches to be something other than Prince Harry and that he is in a rush to make something of his life and make a difference.

“I feel there is just a smallish window when people are interested in me before (William’s children Prince George and Princess Charlotte) take over, and I’ve got to make the most of it,” he said in the interview at Kensington Palace.

Harry has also appeared in a short broadcast by Forces TV in which he opened up about how his time in Afghanistan was the trigger for him to get help dealing with his mother’s death.

Harry, who served on two front line tours with the Army, was filmed in conversation with Paralympic medal winner and former Invictus Games captain Dave Henson.

He said Afghanistan was the moment he realised he had to deal with his problems and that the Invictus Games he set up for wounded service personnel had been “a sort of cure’’.

Harry was recently praised by mental health charities for revealing he sought counselling as he confessed it was not until his late 20s that he processed his grief for Diana, who was killed in a car crash 20 years ago this year.

Noam Chomsky - A System Without Money 

Chomsky's Philosophy

Published on Oct 26, 2016

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UUOw...

Caption author (Portuguese (Brazil))n Gilberto Neto Category News & Politics

Hermon Yohannes7 months ago

Such a brilliant and comprehensive answer. God bless you Chomsky

Funny, that, when you idolize him so....

Hermon, This guy a humanist does NOT believe in God so he will refuse to be blessed by God. Brilliant?? give me a break, a marxist out to destroy any free will and let the sate control you. he hates capitalism he dislikes government, he is a very dangerous man who will enslave you even more ....... never mind his talks saying he is brilliant, do some serious evaluation of what he is saying.....A deceptive globalist loves agenda 21 of the UN... give me a break...........

I wish I were as smart as Chomsky :/

i disagree 100%. why do you think he isnt smart

Isn't tyranny in some form inevitable unless we evolve a more enlightened state of humanity? Right now, humans are vulnerable, physically and emotionally. Under duress, they're going to reach for a mother/father/god/protector. At that point they become " marks" for predators, who mask themselves as protectors. Perfect breeding ground for corporations. Still, going for a better system is worth pursuing. I just don't know what it's going to take to strengthen the human psyche so it's not so vulnerable to predators.

Of course tyranny isn't some natural part of being human .It seems like that to us as we fall deeper into this centuries old system but how do you behave? I'd bet it's pretty reasonable and altruistic .

perhaps the right kind of education.

i would very slighty disagree. i do think we can't dethrone tyrannies for sure without getting rid of monetary systems as well. Wage labour makes machines of people.

Current monetary system is based on scarcity. We need a new system of exchange based on modern levels of productivity. I think that's why the rich are getting richer so much faster than they have in the past - there is so much more wealth for them to steal because of increases in productivity.

The very idea of a mint is drenched in Statism because someone has to set it's value and rates of certain things. A society in which a principle of fair exchange exists in the minds of the people, where they can freely choose WHAT to exchange and personally the specific wealth of the exchange, would be truly free and functional.

imagine a planetary voluntary cooperative human society creating all its needs by sharing the earth's resources without money or barter where the resources have only use value ( Usufruct ) for our survival & well-being. Hence no money & no Tyranny of the few over the many.

Take a look at the Brehon laws of ancient Ireland

The only way of achieving Sustainability would be to transform the very idea and institution of money itself. -- Prof. Alf Hornborg (quoted in ADBUSTERs #95, may 2011) Corruption is not some by-product of monetary-ism, it is it's very foundation. -- ZEITGEIST: ADDENDUM (2008) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1332128

Patternicity Because no one will be able to have it except a tiny fraction of the population making two possible pathways for our contemporary society system: i) a feudal credit/ debt slavery sistem; ii) the crumble of the monetary system all together by a deflation crisis impossible to unsolved. Without Mass Society, meaning middle class society, our current system will breakdown in a perpetual deflationary crisis. So independently if its utopian or not we really have to start planning for a society with a scarcity of jobs and an aboundance of outputs despite serious constrains-monopolies- on land and essential resources.

how does that make money redundant though? how is banning money going to solve wealth inequality? just do wealth redistribution

I disagree with him. The current monetary system is what CREATES the tyranny!!! If there is no money.....then all are equal. No tyranny can exist when everything is available to everyone. Tyranny is born out of a lust for power and a monetary system is the means by which power is wielded. Those with the most money have the power.

those "through whatever means" are mostly money or related to the monetary system .just think about the implcation of money in the society, it's everywhere. not just paper money but everything related . take a look at the resource based economy presented by jacque fresco , he spend a life time on that and a different value system too, it doesn't work until you change the values too

The foundation of control is the same as it always has been but at a more expert and technologically advanced level. I think the most foundational control device is institutional schooling as it represses the natural development from dependent child to conscious and powerfully independent and able adult. To 'grow up' we need to learn to observe, think and act according to the base nature of things, not the artificial control mechanism imposed by the monopolised society. Unfortunately most people are so indoctrinated to society and so stifled in their ability to perceive and think for themselves that the collapse of society due to the loss of the energy resources that prop it up, may be the major mechanism for the establishment of a new society based on truth, honesty and more natural living where the true nature of people is incorporated into society as opposed to structuring society to control the truth loving foundational core of people.

was actually interested in his views on this. thx! edit: Nvm, the video is not actually about the topic presented in the title, cause it turns out he doesn't have an opinion. Still very nice though.

Resource Based Economy for a better future!


he just talked about problems with money, not society without it. i personally couldn't conceive a world without money (if by money he means currency in general; don't know what else he could mean that would warrant a question). so long as trade exists, value will exist, and so long as value exists, some kind of physical embodiment of quantified value will exist.

+Austrin Stephens most strains of anarchism are opposed to markets? oh really now? where did you read that? Bakunin? oh wait, of course you didn't read it there, because even anarcho socialists and libertarian communists are not opposed to markets, you're just pulling that out of your ass

Libertarian communists/anarcho communists are most definitely against markets and money. I'm quite sure of that, so I can say with confidence you're pulling that out of your ass. I can also corroborate this with numerous sources, if it's really necessary. Libertarian socialism on the other hand is a non-specific, broad category and includes many different flavors of anti-state socialism, some of which use markets; I mentioned mutualism earlier, but there are hardly any mutualists these days. "Most anarchists, however, reject market-oriented visions, with some even suggesting that markets themselves are part and parcel of capitalist society. Jarach, for example, points out that there has been a 'nearly total absence of Proudhon's economic ideas among anarchists for the last 150 years.'" Accumulation of Freedom, Writings on Anarchist Economics "The other forms of social anarchism do not share the mutualists support for markets, even non-capitalist ones. Instead they think that freedom is best served by communalising production and sharing information and products freely between co-operatives. In other words, the other forms of social anarchism are based upon common (or social) ownership by federations of producers' associations and communes rather than mutualism's system of individual co-operatives." Anarchist FAQ, section A.3.2. I could go on forever citing different sources. See wiki's page on anarcho communism (it says it explicitly there) or read Berkman's What is Communist Anarchism if you want to learn more.

Money and competition fucked up our species.

Alex Bryant yes I'm sure they love working in sweatshops while real wages decline

Peter Langdon millions of them lived in subsistence farming poverty before the 'sweatshops' came along.

Right on Brother Chomsky Continue to Educate the Masses of People.

Thank you ! This video is just what I needed to know in a debate on a youtube channel of à French candidate for Presidency jlm2017.fr .

I don't think money as a system of value and exchange is the problem. The problem is, who owns the means of production? It's the 1% and not the 99%. Everyone should have some ownership and a stake in their workplace, as well as a voice in management. Notice I didn't say everyone would be exactly equal, because then there'd be no incentive to achieve. But people should not be wage slaves.

Daniel Bradford Yugoslavia under Tito tried that - it was called self-managment, didn't work

You're referring to market socialism; it doesn't work. The whole idea is contradictory as it tries to mesh ideologies that promote both competition and cooperation. Yugoslavia's economy proved to be less efficient than the USSR's by most measures.

0:25 "... we can think about a very different social order... Getting rid of #money is one part of it, which I don't think is the crucial part..." (Noam Chomsky)  ... not the crucial part? As long as we believe in rituals of buying & selling, we enable & solidify structures of #tyranny & #corruption. And on the other hand, we could ask why anyone would feel the motivation to ask for money, if we had somehow successfully overcome and transcended a system of social relationships based on rivalry for economic power, on corruption, manipulation and egotistic delimitation. All the power necessary to establish and uphold corrupt, unnecessary or tyrannical power structures hinges on our belief in money and rituals of buying and selling. If we long to free ourselves from tyranny, we should begin by dissolving the relevance of money and economic power.I think that the most crucial and promising way of #liberation and social emancipation is to establish social horizons where money becomes irrelevant.We have to move on, beyond this madness by building up social networks based on solidarity and social responsibility beyond rituals of economic negotiation of claims, beyond short sighted delimitation and rivalry. Yes, I think it's crucial indeed to overcome money, because we enable manipulative social structures by our belief in rituals of economic negotiation and justification of claims. Money and tyranny is an interwoven system. (It always has been.) We won't be able to get rid of corruption and tyranny, as long as we hold on to the belief system of economic value and economic power.

Incompatible with our modern world. Would Apple give out phones in exchange for chickens.

"Government is partially influenced by the public, while GE is not." Another chomskyite lapsus. The government is not accountable to the public in any way, even in so-called democratic countries. How do you punish a politician who breaks his promise? Meanwhile GE will go bankrupt tomorrow if everyone simply boycotts it, and cannot send a policeman to your door to collect "Taxes".

Don't reelect him, that's how.

"if everyone simply boycotts GE" Lmao, yeah that's feasible. Also, do we elect GE's decison-makers? Do we elect government officials? This is where "public partial influence" lies. Once you start talking about economic influence, that lies with people who have direct power over the economy. In many cases, the public is subservient to the economic powers. I'm sure the average American can afford to fully boycott the multinational GE, moreover I'm sure they can bring it to its knees in a day ;o Not like they'll just turn off your power until you give in. And after that success let's boycott Goldman Sachs, bankrupt it by Thursday

My hero!!

Money and exchange is the method by which any Democratic system of the kind he may envision/imagine gets corrupted, as it's the measure of influence/power by which to consolidate interests and impose tyranny. The technical question is how to create a society without money. Not sure how he overlooks this. The problem with Chomsky generally tends to be with the fact that he gets too fixated on tyranny to the point that he overlooks what creates those incentives in a given system structure in the first place, failing to really arrive at the root cause.

"Again, you're right, but I'm saying those things are a natural manifestation of any systems theory and principles you can have in market economies and exchange (when we're talking about such a massive scale, where globalization isn't now a sensible or possible thing to really reverse)." What "things are a natural manifestation"? "What you propose or point out as problems can only be haphazardly be patched only to then be circumvented and eroded over time anyway, given core drivers and incentives in a market system.  That's nevermind the fact that we're nowhere near or close to being able to address these issues.  Even the populism sparked by Bernie Sanders only began scratching the surface." What “problems [that] can only be haphazardly … patched only to then be circumvented and eroded over time anyway” specifically are you referring to? “Ironically (or contrary to intuitive reasoning), to the extent that something is more or less likely, radical change is actually more possible (nevermind necessary in my view) than trying to cut a single limb off and build it anew with a DNA structure, if you will, that's different from that of whatever vital organs.” It sounds like I'm reading an elaborate piece of some Victorian literature. Really, you sound like a cheap imitation of Peter Joseph with your hyper-rational babble and complex sentences. I mean this is so obviously just a bunch of fluff to hide the fact you don't know anything at all. And instead of clarifying yourself - I mean what are you even saying? -you're going to predictably obsess over me calling you out on this, probably hurl a ton of "that's a fallacy!"'s at me. "I'm saying it's meaningless in how they would apply to me in their entirety or how any sustainable working system can be based around, as it would all still largely be centered in politics and money rather than science and how it can be applied to management of resources directly, without arbitrary human policy making." TZM itself is a political movement, so I don't understand what you mean. Anything concerning how people should organize themselves into a society is political. Since when does TZM or TVP have the "official support" of the scientific community as if it's above politics and is only "speaking the truth"? And what makes you think all Libertarian Socialists are uniformly opposed to embracing the best science has to offer? “I'm not sure why you're further talking to me as if confused by libertarian principles.  I've literally been engaging in this argument for weeks now with certain people, making this very distinction myself.  I find those very important as this confusion creates a lot of further ignorance and baseless rhetoric.  My argument was the inevitability of congregating interests and powers in a money-based system/economy which would go in that direction.”  What does this even mean? Who's confused? What argument? I mean please get someone else to proofread what you've been typing and ask them if it makes any sense at all.  “The balance YOU'RE talking about is utopian.  I totally agree that what you and Chomsky are proposing would work if sustainable, but the reason it's impossible is because there would be a bias/tilt/skew in incentives which would more and more favor the things which you recognize create unbalance and disorder (to actually put it lightly).”  What balance? Quote me and elaborate on what you mean, because I don’t know what you’re referring to…  Chomsky didn’t "propose" anything in this video and nor did I; he only said that hierarchical and authoritarian workplace relations should be of more concern and that money is more of a technical question to be sorted out later. “In terms of the transitional strategy, no, there are many ways of influencing that direction through the current system assuming discussion reaches the mainstream and people are aware  where they can actually fight for it. “ "No" what? “There are somewhat actually obvious steps to take to reach this "utopia", the point of which has no relation the lens you're looking at it through.” “Somewhat” and “actually” are two mutually exclusive adverbs; they can’t be applied to the same adjective at the same time. Either something is “somewhat” or ”actually,” but not both... So for example: you're actually not making any sense, as opposed to somewhat making sense. What on earth does that mean? It sounds like you’re quoting some passage from Antigone. I mean please speak in more simple terms if you want to be understood.  "The relevant "class analysis" which you speak of is certainly there, but again, just not through the lens of the current system.  That's why you deem it "utopian".  Another irony to therefore point out is that by the standard from which you're arguing in terms of immediate transitional steps which don't clash with "elite interests", anything from the bottom-left quadrant of the political spectrum would be impossible/utopian.  TZM has at least been somewhat successful in appealing to the common person (which may not be a good thing if mismanaged without a clear direction of how and where to move), unlike the typical libertarian/anarcho-socialists/communists akin to Chomsky who seem to have only come across as people who live in a political wasteland." I mean are you purposely trying to make everything so obscure so that I can't respond to anything? I don't even know where to begin unpacking all of this gibberish. Please rephrase all of this. TZM doesn't have a class analysis; it only regards capitalism as ineffieicnt... If TZM had a class analysis, we'd be hearing more of "ruling/capitalist class" and "working class." I was paraphrasing from TZM Defined their three transitional strategies, all equally ridiculous.  “Another irony to therefore point out is that by the standard from which you're arguing in terms of immediate transitional steps which don't clash with "elite interests", anything from the bottom-left quadrant of the political spectrum would be impossible/utopian.”  There actually are steps people can take to improve their lives and stop the destruction of the planet. Of course there would be a clash of interests; never has the state or capitalist done anything on behalf of the public or the workers unless there was pressure being applied. Workers can improve their working conditions and wages by organizing and demanding those things. The DAPL and similar pipeline projects can be stopped through what people are doing now: organizing and going to the project sites to peacefully oppose it. You can even organize people to apply pressure to pass legistlation like the Employee Free Choice Act. So what has TZM (or TVP) done except moan on the internet and have annual "zeitgeist" gatherings? It seems to have disdain for any sort of political activities, which definitely won't help them transition into their envisioned technological utopia. What's impossible and ridiculous are TZM's official transitional strategies which I've already discussed. You've still yet to show how TZM or TVP are not political movements. “Obviously, TZM doesn't come without its fair share of stigma (some rightfully so), but it's honestly the only sensible way I see forward.”  That's only because you haven't read up on any actual political or economic theories and instead just lazily based your whole outlook on a handful of documentaries. Need I really point out how foolish it is to think that Peter Joseph developed the “only feasible system.” A worldwide change in the workers’ relation to the means of production will never happen under the flag of Peter Joseph’s “NLRBE.” There’s a reason why neither Joseph’s or Fresco’s ideas have any intellectual or academic presence or respect; they're just lame utopian repackagings of a communist society, yet they refuse to use the word communist to describe themselves.

“You propose too much management of too many parts by humans making political decisions for it to work, nevermind the inherent skew in root incentives in any capitalist system, even if ideally organized." “Nevermind” would be the title of a Nirvana album; “never mind” would be the appropriate expression here. Again, none of what you’re saying is intelligible to me. What “management”? What “too many parts”? What “humans making political decisions” (as opposed to non-humans making political decisions)? What is “it” in “for it to work”? “It goes a great deal further than anarcho-capitalism in the rawest of senses, but it still doesn't tackle the core issues which I argue a NLRBE does, at least as argued by TZM and Peter Joseph.” What goes a great deal further than “anarcho”-capitalism? “I would agree with your analysis if we were talking about Technocracy.  Despite its surface level appearance (which I do think should be better linked to its more in-depth detailing and analysis), TZM does actually go deeper.  It is you who have formulated the view of what's proposed just based on a couple of associated documentaries which don't reflect the full scope of what the ideas stand for.” My analysis of what? Despite what? What “surface level appearance”? I mean eliminate unnecessary words for heaven sake; just say “appearance.” TZM goes deeper in what? No, actually I’ve read through TZM Defined, and still come to the conclusion that it’s utopian technocratic nonsense. “If that's the approach you want to take and the verbiage you want to use, then I'm sorry I haven't indoctrinated myself with "real" political views which align themselves "more realistically" with Marx." Please quote me instead of saying stuff out of thin air. Where have I even mentioned Marx? How is TZM or TVP not political despite wanting to dismantle the state and replace capitalism with a kind of communist society based on free access to the products of labor? “I don't completely trivialize the ideas behind the brought up political philosophies, as I hope doesn't need to be repeated any more times, but I do argue that they are in fact what isn't workable.” What isn’t workable? What wasn’t workable about the territories of the Spanish Revolution? What wasn’t workable about the Free Territory of Ukraine? What isn’t workable about present-day Rojava and their Libertarian Socialist experiment? What is the major flaw of Libertarian Socialist thought? “I would appreciate you also don't therefore trivialize where I stand based on established preconceptions and actually engage whatever arguments and make points if you further have them to make.  I'd also appreciate you don't assume you hold a higher ground.” Where are my preconceptions? I only paraphrased from TZM Defined their three transitional strategies and explained why they were flawed. I also explained what I meant in my usage of the word "utopia," not meaning perfect or flawless but rather having no means to achieve an envisioned society and making assumptions about what people want in a future society. How have I assumed I hold higher ground???

For sure Zeitgeist! All life is priceless.

Education Is a System of Indoctrination of the Young - Noam Chomsky 

The Film Archives

Published on Jun 1, 2012

Chomsky has been known to vigorously defend and debate his views and opinions, in philosophy, linguistics, and politics. More Chomsky: https://www.amazon.com/gp/search?ie=U...

He has had notable debates with Jean Piaget, Michel Foucault, William F. Buckley, Jr., Christopher Hitchens, George Lakoff, Richard Perle, Hilary Putnam, Willard Quine, and Alan Dershowitz, to name a few. In response to his speaking style being criticized as boring, Chomsky said that "I'm a boring speaker and I like it that way.... I doubt that people are attracted to whatever the persona is.... People are interested in the issues, and they're interested in the issues because they are important." "We don't want to be swayed by superficial eloquence, by emotion and so on."

In early 1969, he delivered the John Locke Lectures at Oxford University; in January 1970, the Bertrand Russell Memorial Lecture at University of Cambridge; in 1972, the Nehru Memorial Lecture in New Delhi; in 1977, the Huizinga Lecture in Leiden; in 1988 the Massey Lectures at the University of Toronto, titled "Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies"; in 1997, The Davie Memorial Lecture on Academic Freedom in Cape Town, and many others.

He is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the National Academy of Sciences, and the American Philosophical Society. In addition, he is a member of other professional and learned societies in the United States and abroad, and is a recipient of the Distinguished Scientific Contribution Award of the American Psychological Association, the Kyoto Prize in Basic Sciences, the Helmholtz Medal, the Dorothy Eldridge Peacemaker Award, the 1999 Benjamin Franklin Medal in Computer and Cognitive Science, and others. He is twice winner of The Orwell Award, granted by The National Council of Teachers of English for "Distinguished Contributions to Honesty and Clarity in Public Language" (in 1987 and 1989).

He is a member of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts in Department of Social Sciences.

In 2005, Chomsky received an honorary fellowship from the Literary and Historical Society. In 2007, Chomsky received The Uppsala University (Sweden) Honorary Doctor's degree in commemoration of Carolus Linnaeus. In February 2008, he received the President's Medal from the Literary and Debating Society of the National University of Ireland, Galway. Since 2009 he is an honorary member of IAPTI.

In 2010, Chomsky received the Erich Fromm Prize in Stuttgart, Germany. In April 2010, Chomsky became the third scholar to receive the University of Wisconsin's A.E. Havens Center's Award for Lifetime Contribution to Critical Scholarship.

Chomsky has an Erdős number of four.

Chomsky was voted the leading living public intellectual in The 2005 Global Intellectuals Poll conducted by the British magazine Prospect. He reacted, saying "I don't pay a lot of attention to polls". In a list compiled by the magazine New Statesman in 2006, he was voted seventh in the list of "Heroes of our time".

Actor Viggo Mortensen with avant-garde guitarist Buckethead dedicated their 2006 album, called Pandemoniumfromamerica, to Chomsky.

On January 22, 2010, a special honorary concert for Chomsky was given at Kresge Auditorium at MIT. The concert, attended by Chomsky and dozens of his family and friends, featured music composed by Edward Manukyan and speeches by Chomsky's colleagues, including David Pesetsky of MIT and Gennaro Chierchia, head of the linguistics department at Harvard University.

In June 2011, Chomsky was awarded the Sydney Peace Prize, which cited his "unfailing courage, critical analysis of power and promotion of human rights".

In 2011, Chomsky was inducted into IEEE Intelligent Systems' AI's Hall of Fame for the "significant contributions to the field of AI and intelligent systems".


Category Education

David Mitnick1 year ago

Wish I discovered this clip when I was a teenager. I probably would have felt less alone.

i didn't hear it until 32. better late than never. REFORM

I was a disobedient student . Most of what was taught in school didn't make sense to me . I knew i was being turned into a robot and I didn't want that but most others just went along with it and I was made to feel that there was something wrong with me .

I love knowledge, but hated education, now I know why.

Lucas Schwendler Vieira I was brought up in a rather strict atmosphere of learning and applying what I had learnt. I must admit at that time I was fed up with all the rules and regulations and sanctions combined with schooling. But seen from today I am really happy to have gone through all this because it enriched my personality and provided me with an enormous amount of knowledge and abilities. My parents also helped me doing so. "Politicians and systems and bosses come and go, but noone will ever take away what you have got in your head." That's what my father banged into my head all the time. And he was perfectly right. I kept it in mind all the time until I had finished university. The art of schooling for a student is not to be 'creative' - as they call it - but to pick out the knowledge you need for your further life, no matter how unpleasant this may sometime appear. In other words: You have to pick your own order/structure out of the chaos they offer you. In my opinion school should not be regarded as is a copy or a miniature of real life but an institution to gain as much knowledge as possible. This prevents you from being forced into some indoctrinated conformism. Real life comes later on, and those who have gained enough knowledge will be able to cope with it. Discipline is not conformism but a necessary tool for gaining knowledge, I believe. Of course the curriculum also contains a certain deal of manipulative or even behavioural and political issues, but the greater part of it is the knowledge that should be gained. To make it short: Someone with a great deal of knowledge cannot be easily made a slave. (Sorry, English is not my mother tongue, but I hope to have been able to make myself understood.)

I believe that ever person has the potential to see past their indoctrination if they recognize it and then actively seek other ways to look at or respond to a situation. An example, I was in Psychology courses, and it really came down to memorizing the DSM- diagnostic systems manual, ie what box do we put people into. The new DSM can put just about everyone into some sort of classification. If you cant do math, its a disorder too. Then there is the new Teenage rebellious disorder, which is ridiculous. Teens are suppose to be questioning and finding themselves, this is how humanity evolves. But now its being apathologized because it really is about stopping people from thinking and having independence, because if they do they might put a stop to all the garbage going on right now. George Orwell, 1984 could see the writing on the wall, its all about control. By listening to people like Noam C we can see it for what it really is. Get off the consumer band wagon, emancipate yourself from the bank, reach out to the human being next to you and have faith.

Public education is human farming.

I just bored my way out of public schools... To any teenager reading this comment ; Seek knowledge.

Mike Christiaan What's your plan if you leave school?

Mike Christiaan don't do it. I dropped out, got a GED, started my own business. everything is possible but the small amount of time it takes to get that piece of paper will save you the time it will take later to get it. just don't let the education get in the way of learning. take all the extra time you have to create something new. follow your dreams. the paper only helps open doors down the road.

Listening to this makes me feel a lot better about what I did when I was at school. When I was in my teens I did my school work but found it so uninspiring. I drew inspiration from my own private study as I was able to draw my own conclusions and think in a different way from most of my peers. This sometimes got me into problems with my teachers and fellow students who often accused me of being arrogant. Now looking back I realised that they didn't like me sometimes doing things my own way, take steps that most of them weren't willing to take and therefore forming my own identity... The best education is self education.

121jazzy omg i'm 15 and I feel the same way.

Evilmonkey 452 years ago

We don't need no education... We don't need no brain control... HEY! HEY! TEACHER! leave them kids alone!

+Super Hans Nope, you're the type of young, immature punk I'd have a great time disciplining with my fist on your face.

+Vinay Seth watch out everybody we got a tough guy in here.

Man where the hell was this when I was leaving the college? No wonder I wasn't that motivated to finish with a degree...I got bored and disinterested

yep that's the education system for you.

+Aaron Marshall Nothing wrong with that

Academia tells students to "question everything" as directed by their critical theory but the minute you start questioning thise academic institutions and professors they immediately attack and sanction you. These institutions keep raising tuition, collude with book publishers forcing students to pay hundreds and thousands of dollars for paper books when they could easily make the needed materiel available online for free but don't, is absurd. When gas gets too high or a needed prescription drug is priced too high the executives of those companies are brought before congressional hearings being forced to explain themselves but yet this is never done for our academic institutions, no one ever questions the shady bullshit they engage in to make a buck. Our academic institutions are broken, the entire system needs to be defunded and replaced with new institutions run by new people. Purge the old, bring in the new.

Tin Man the majority is in the system, the aware are the minority. lesson; seek greener pastures


Psychological studies from the 1960's showed that the more educated a person was [with college degree], the more likely they were to non-critically accept obvious propaganda falsehoods that were printed in the newspaper, [and later retracted or proven to be false].  The less educated a person was, the more likely they were to doubt the information and question the source.   This seems counter intuitive. I forget the reference, but this was from an "Information theory" course I took in the 1980's at University of Illinois, Urbana.

While there are plenty of interesting topics here, I'm having trouble seeing any writing, let alone data, on your topic of education and close-mindedness. I'm not even clear that Wooddy is backing you. First, I would have to read the full context of what he's saying. But even given what I'm seeing in the link you provided, doesn't an inverse relationship mean that as one goes up (education) the other goes down (susceptibility to propagandistic influence) and vice versa? It seems to me likely that education can have two effects, depending on it's nature, and system-wide may exhibit both qualities simultaneously: 1) Spoon-feeding interpretations in the form of propaganda, while discouraging critical, skeptical analysis of the interpretation. Much like we see in many churches where the purpose is pure information dumping without, or in opposition to, critical exercises (church being one of many sources of education as per Callahan's book); 2) Imparting knowledge with a broad understanding that knowledge is tentative and requires critical effort, which means providing evidence for particular views, but also allowing students to critically consider those views, or at the very least understand that critical consideration is part of the knowledge-building process. For what it's worth my experience of public schools has been overwhelmingly the second. Whereas informal education sources, such as Boy Scouts, Church, and community meet ups, have been overwhelmingly the first. In my mind, looking at the segment of Wooddy's work at it's face, he seems to be referring to the second dynamic: Education creates a critical mental framework, in which all new information is understood to be suspect until skeptically considered using critical skills practiced in the education process. An uneducated person, unpracticed in weighing hugely disparate points of view, might therefore be more susceptible to belief without skeptical inquiry. I'm unclear that this is the inverse relationship he's referring to, but it seems more than plausible given that page I did read. I think Callahan's book is really interesting, but I'm not sure what this has to do with the topic. He's really looking at the structure of the school day, class sizes, class loads, the adversarial relationship between labor and administration, the top-down structure of school bureaucracy, and how this fits with business models. So...it's more about how schools are structured like businesses than it is about schools producing people who are more susceptible to propaganda efforts. The one study that links leadership to truncated mirroring is, while fascinating, still a tangent (to be generous. I would say an entirely unrelated topic). Still, an interesting study.

Don't let schools interfere with your child's education. Sending your kids to school is child abuse.

I can see both sides to this. In thinking about your comment, it seems like homeschooling could be either better or worse than alternatives. Both my ex-husband and I worked full time, so this limited our options. My kids went to some excellent public schools. We were lucky to find them, I think. We also both exposed them to a wide variety of educational things outside of school.

Look for results of unschooling

I didn't do it. I've always had "behavioral problems".

I'm starting to have ( behavior problems ) too for not doing work

TheFirst NossoBoy You need to work to live. School is pointless though.

Indeed, as Bertrand Russell also said, "education is mostly propaganda."

Propaganda is the propagation of memes.

Chomsky is dead on when he talks about elite university students being the most obedient! I have known this since I was about 10 or 11. I was always a free thinker at heart- and a C/D student. Lol. One semester I told myself I was going to make the AB honor role because I saw how much A and AB students were celebrated at my school. Well I succeed at getting all As and Bs. It was harder but had nothing to do with how smart I was. During those years in grade school I realized how much of conformists A and AB students are. From there on I was never impressed by A and AB students. I'm impressed by free thinkers, and there are a lot of them in much less prestigious universities.

Reading this thread is amusing. dri eey, I'm sorry you don't sound very sharp based on your writing. Both your language skills and thinking process are akin to a high schoolers. Bishplis on the other hand, totally sees this and is fucking with you. It's juvenile to troll you like that but I'm sure he/she has already decided there was no point in engaging with you, since dumb people can't recognize that they're dumb. I'm not saying you are dumb, but you absolutely sound very young (i'm guessing 17-25) and your public brain-fart was evidence of that. To elaborate on what bishplis didn't, University teaches you HOW to be a free thinker, and as Chomsky said -- unless it's something like History, then it is not about memorizing facts it's learning to think freely. You're conflating what he said about 'most people in University were likely conformists' to get to that level which is different from saying that the educations offered are conformist. After all Chomsky was a professor at MIT for decades. Uneducated people have a tendency to brush off university as something they're not really missing, as if its just memorization, or learning some 'liberal way of thinking'. This rejection of academia is rooted in ignorance and is revealing of why right wingers (typically uneducated) conflate science/facts/education with liberalism. Since facts have now conveniently become "fake news" to them. I suppose when the reality taught doesn't fit your narrative, then it's easier to just call the facts fake.

Reading this thread is like watching a Chomsky video. Something very intelligent is clearly stated (dri eyy). Then comments are made that have nothing to do with what was stated. But attacks are made against the original comments because it threatens other's views. Well attackers, there is good news and bad news. The good news is that the free thinkers are in the minority and your views will be safe and respected in most circles. The bad news is your life is a lie.

every time i go on a chomsky video and look at the comments i cringe

labi johnson No you haven't, don't worry about it. :)

It is because you are a certified retard, strong legit fact.

Do they really want innovators in the sciences, what about scientists like Nikola Tesla, Otis Carr or Ralph Ring who were too innovative ? Their inventions and technologies could change the world, eradicate poverty and free us from our addiction to oil. No I don't think the sciences are any different from other fields they want us dumbed down too.

solid observation

Let's see what public education is teaching today. They are teaching shit like 'Gender Fluidity', they want boys to be allowed to use the girls locker room if they 'feel' like a girl... they teach every last fucking thing is racist or sexist... yup. They teach that we need more 'diversity', which is code word for 'less whites'. The education system is indoctrination alright.

Tristan Cooper holy shit top fuckin kek. I'm gonna copy this.

Yah, and they don't teach us any real skills that would promote more autonomy. They won't teach us how to grow our own food, organize community outside the structure of the government and the corporation, or how to be an active participant in a democracy. Boys dressing in girls clothes doesn't really threaten the system much, because it just means that more textiles made in sweatshops will be sold anyway.

Challenge the status quo and push for change. One percent of the population control a highly disproportionate percentage of the wealth among Western nations and they won't give up their "entitlements" without a fight when the educational system suits them just fine. Enough is enough ! Stop the tax giveaways to the big corporations who continuously line the pockets of their executive boards over and over again and who eviscerate environmental regulations that took decades of research and political action to put in place.

My comment is for "karlbushthell"

Free thinking people will always out-step the zombie public. Free your mind free your body. Turn off the TV and challenge your mind with radio & non-conformist media outlets to educate yourself so you can raise your family to give them the best chance to thrive in the challenging world to come.

This is still true, 24-25 years later.

When I was a teacher, I tried to teach as little as possible. I made them be self learners. The standardized scores soared. When I turned the responsible of their education to the students, they challenged themselves and accepted the responsibility. As it is now, the teachers and administrators accept the responsibility so the students can blame failure on them. Fortunately, I was also the principal, but unfortunately, they put me out of business. I educated on the reservations in South Dakota and they love failure so they can ask for more money.

Merlyn Schutterle you lost my respect with 3 little words "standardized test scores." Fuck Common Core!

Obviously you don't know what  standardized tests test. They test things like, "Does 2x2=4." But I do know when someone has to say "fuck" on an open forum, they are obviously low class.

Noam Chomsky - Wage Slavery

Chomsky's Philosophy


Published on Oct 26, 2016

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UUOw...

Caption author (Portuguese (Brazil)) Gilberto Neto Category News & Politics

robinheil1 year ago (edited)

"Renting yourself", even in exchange for currency, is inhuman because while you're on the clock, you're under the control of another, and you don't get to decide on your conditions.

hogpen2 months ago

There are stories of former slaves becoming slavers themselves. That a slave has the option to become an enslaver makes the instution free and a-ok?

lavenderson2 months ago (edited)

hogpen Yes, some slaves were freed and in turn become slave owners themselves. But how did they initially become free? Did they one day tell their slave master "fuck this shit I'm out", like an employee can say to an employer at any time? Lol of course not, the slave would be hunted down across states if they tried that. Slaves could only become slave owners after they were given freedom, and their freedom was entirely the choice of their owner. This goes back to what I said earlier: there is zero relation between the slave/owner and employee/employer relationships because one is a purely voluntary and the other is purely by the threat of physical violence.

Lee Johnson1 year ago

Wage Slavery is the way of Wal Mart, McDonald's, Burger King, Macy and all Department store Corporations, Grocery Store Corporations, all Fast Food Corporations, and anyone else who can get away with paying Wage Slave Wages.

mike allen3 months ago

if you dont believe in money , please send me the money you have .. i have a PayPal account ��

Ethan Mizzi3 months ago

Socialism shouldn't be tried, it WILL happen over the natural evolution of socio-economic systems. And how would a state prevent itself from being bought out by absurdly rich people? THERE ARE NO SOCIALIST COUNTRIES BECAUSE AS I SAID IT HASN'T BEEN ACHIEVED; well it was achieved on a small scale in Revolutionary Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War but it didn't work because of Franco's Fascists and the Nazis. It is idealistic to think that a system based upon inequality and exploitation is somehow fair because of some free market and its 'invisible guiding hand'.

This slice of paradise This sacred throne of Kings1 year ago


Tom Lahr7 months ago

In a democracy the gov't does not have control (i.e., that is totalitarianism), the people have control of their own lives, in all areas, especially in the economic sense, in which the corporation would have no part..i.e., "those who work in the mills should own them". Profit sharing would be a common practice in the business world if this were a democracy.

Squid Ward5 months ago

The problem with democracies though is that they often ban stupid shit and the best doesnt always go about. Plus corruption would take over with people buying votes. I agree to less government but democracies are stupid.

Rhys Thomas1 year ago

A slave can't leave his master but an employee can leave his employer. The employee might find it less convenient to be unemployed if he so chooses but that is a choice which he makes. A choice that a slave cannot make. It would be best then to support measures which would enable more job creation so as to give the employee more choice as where to go.

michael sweetlove1 month ago

Rhys Thomas You can leave one slave owner only to choose your next slave owner. the illusion of free choice free will. your owned either way. by having the illusion of free will you are less likely to resist.

Md Ashfaqul Islam3 weeks ago

Absence of coercion does not equal free choice. To have a free choice, options have to be present. Also absence of a ruler / master is a necessary condition for freedom. If the options for 'do this' are - death, damage to health or damage to liberty then there are no free choice left, thus the individual is not in a position of consent. Example - I am in a desert without water and my only chance for survival arises when another person shows up and offers me a bottle of water in exchange for 20 years of 'indentured servitude'. I am in a monopoly situation here where my only other option is death. I am not free to chose thus not in a position of consent. Insubordination is destructive to individual liberty. When a worker has no independent means to survive and his only options for survival is to accept insubordination in the form of 'job' to one or other employer, then he is not freely choosing. His options here are : 1. Death or bodily harm through starvation, 2. Subordination to one of the employers offering him job. A choice between death and subordination is not real choice. To understand more: https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/why-did-hayek-support-basic-income by Matt Zwolinski Also https://francoistremblay.wordpress.com/2017/03/12/libertarians-desperately-trying-to-justify-basic-compassion/ "Zwolinski quotes long lists of wrongdoings by businesses against their workers, and then proceeds to whitewash most of them by saying that they are “necessary cost-control measure[s],” whatever that’s supposed to mean (necessary for what?). But then he says: Are we really willing to say that each and every one of the outrages documented by Bertram et al. is the product of workers’ free choice, rather than (what they appear to be) something imposed on workers against their will by those who wield power over them? If libertarians are concerned to protect the freedom of all, and not just the freedom of most, we will want some mechanism that catches those who fall through the cracks left by imperfect market competition. We will want, too, some mechanism for protecting individuals whose economic vulnerability renders them vulnerable to domination outside the marketplace – the woman, for example, who stays with her abusive husband because she lacks the financial resources to support herself without him." This can be true with worker/boss relationship too. The worker, for example, who stays with her/his least abusive boss available in the market because she/he lacks the financial resources to support herself without them. Even if the boss is not abusive she is certainly being subordinated in the workplace because the workplace is owned by the boss, he is the ruler and his rules are imposed.

ExtraMana7 months ago

The execessives of neo-liberalism became awfully apparant when the middle class begins to disappear and the whole thing comes tumbling down.

voidsaverob5 months ago

Wtf does that have to do with liberalism

Squid Ward5 months ago

I'd only get that with neo-cons though...

Ben Rosen8 months ago

so why give control to the government?

Socialism Or Barbarism!7 months ago

Ben Rosen You Don't - give it to the workers themselves. Stop listening to Ron Paul and go read some Kropotkin, Luxemburg, or Stirner instead. Good day.

Squid Ward5 months ago

Tom Hastings1 year ago

Chomsky rules!!!  CHOMSKY RULES!!!   ;)

lavenderson2 months ago

Im still trying to wrap my mind around slavery and working for a wage being so similar as to call it wage slavery. Isn't slavery enforced with violence? Renting yourself out isn't the most empowering form of expression I can concede, but its nonetheless done voluntarily. Actual slavery involves your life being at risk if you don't submit, I can't see how working for a wage is anywhere near this oppressive to justify the label of wage slavery.

ApertureScience271 month ago

Okay there's clearly no point in carrying on here. I think people can read what we've written and judge for themselves.

Md Ashfaqul Islam3 weeks ago (edited)

+ lavenderson I think you are deliberately trying not to understand for your love of capitalism. Absence of coercion does not equal free choice. To have a free choice, options have to be present. Also absence of a ruler / master is a necessary condition for freedom. If the options for 'do this' are - death, damage to health or damage to liberty then there are no free choice left, thus the individual is not in a position of consent. Example - I am in a desert without water and my only chance for survival arises when another person shows up and offers me a bottle of water in exchange for 20 years of 'indentured servitude'. I am in a monopoly situation here where my only other option is death. I am not free to chose thus not in a position of consent. Insubordination is destructive to individual liberty. When a worker has no independent means to survive and his only options for survival is to accept insubordination in the form of 'job' to one or other employer, then he is not freely choosing. His options here are : 1. Death or bodily harm through starvation, 2. Subordination to one of the employers offering him job. A choice between death and subordination is not real choice. To understand more: https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/why-did-hayek-support-basic-income by Matt Zwolinski Also https://francoistremblay.wordpress.com/2017/03/12/libertarians-desperately-trying-to-justify-basic-compassion/ "Zwolinski quotes long lists of wrongdoings by businesses against their workers, and then proceeds to whitewash most of them by saying that they are “necessary cost-control measure[s],” whatever that’s supposed to mean (necessary for what?). But then he says: Are we really willing to say that each and every one of the outrages documented by Bertram et al. is the product of workers’ free choice, rather than (what they appear to be) something imposed on workers against their will by those who wield power over them? If libertarians are concerned to protect the freedom of all, and not just the freedom of most, we will want some mechanism that catches those who fall through the cracks left by imperfect market competition. We will want, too, some mechanism for protecting individuals whose economic vulnerability renders them vulnerable to domination outside the marketplace – the woman, for example, who stays with her abusive husband because she lacks the financial resources to support herself without him." This can be true with worker/boss relationship too. The worker, for example, who stays with her/his least abusive boss available in the market because she/he lacks the financial resources to support herself without them. Even if the boss is not abusive she is certainly being subordinated in the workplace because the workplace is owned by the boss, he is the ruler and his rules are imposed.

hk hjg3 months ago

wagecucks btfo. why work when you can just eat tendies?

Tom Minogue Hastings7 months ago

this rules

Ian Warburton1 week ago

So having a job is slavery, what is the alternative?

John Van Vliet4 weeks ago

I educated myself and made a choice to follow a professional career, I worked for salary, contract, freelance and self employed, I had the freedom to make the choice , to provide services as part of my profession and would provide those services for a price or my market value..... this is pure capitalism and the best system around......... I know what this marxist clown is talking about....and believe me this ideology stinks and is rotten in the core!!! It will enslave and control YOU... I made my life and made decisions to benefit me and family..... Yes now a day's we see lazy social parasites to lazy to work and educate themselves for those, the marxist ideology is good no work but let others take care of those parasites.. Chomsky a marxist and a dangerous man, talks to much and thinks to highly of himself, but he is not GOD he is a marxist, like Soros and they think themselves as little gods........

Read more

UltimateSauce2 weeks ago

he's not a marxist... Marxism is way more authoritarian than he'd like.

Paul Richard4 months ago

The sound was quite bad. I didn´t catch the author Chomsky cited as the influence of JS Mill. Can anyone help out?

Chomsky's Philosophy4 months ago

Wilhelm von Humboldt

Paul Richard4 months ago

Thank you.

Derrick Nevarez4 months ago


Ikallicrates1 year ago

Chomsky quotes a classical liberal who he says was a leading inspiration for John Stuart Mill, but I can't quite hear the name (it doesn't sound to me like Bentham). Can anyone tell me what it is?

Dylan Whitney1 year ago

+Ikallicrates He is talking about Humboldt, great man, good thoughts..

John Van Vliet4 weeks ago

Dylan, Jesus Christ, great person, perfect, excellent teacher influenced the whole world..... and still does....

zeleni sok1 year ago

from which lecture is this?

2014 "Noam Chomsky": Why you can not have a Capitalist Democracy! 



2014 Leigha Cohen Video Production http://www.leighacohenvideo.com/https://www.youtube.com/user/LeighaCohen

During the Q&A period after Noam Chomsky gave a lecture at 1199 SEIU Union Hall located in Dorchester, MA on September 30, 2014. “Capitalist Democracy and its Prospect’s” he spoke why you can not have a capitalist democracy. During the 18 minutes he speaks about one of the architects of modern Capitalism, Adam Smith, Laissez-faire Economics, people’s misinterpretations of Adam Smith specifically when it comes to what personal freedom actually is. He tears into what Modern Libertarianism has become in the US. He talks about the transitioning economy from being technology based to biology based. He finally discussed how people income impact political decisions and referred to the Orwellian term “Unpeople “to describe the largest percentage of people who are disenfranchised from political decisions and power and believes as compared to the occupy movement that the country is being rules in a Plutocracy ruled by the top 0.1% of wealth..

The lecture was sponsored by MA Jobs With Justice http://www.massjwj.net/ Massachusetts Jobs with Justice is a coalition of community, faith and labor groups in Massachusetts who work to protect and promote workers' rights, along with our sister coalition, Western Mass Jobs with Justice.

Unless otherwise indicated, all materials on in this video are copyrighted to Leigha Cohen Video, All rights reserved. No part of this video may be used for any purpose other than educational use and any monetary gain from this video is prohibited without prior permission from me. Therefore, reproduction, modification, storage in a retrieval system is prohibited. Standard linking of this video is allowed and encouraged.

Category News & Politics

DynamicUnreal1 year ago

After watching this I can only conclude that in our present time the only person capable of reversing the stranglehold the 0.1% have on economic policy is Bernie Sanders.

anon94707 I like dexter too��

At last a rational view of what today's so called 'libertarian' really is.  Shame on the sheep so easily led and enslaved.

anon94707 I like commes too��

Workplace Democracy = Real Freedom

None of you libertarians on here have made a case against what noam had said all you guys do is say freedom, freedom, freedom! As if the kind of freedom you invoke ever existed outside of living in the wilderness.When you wing nuts can show a functioning society then come back to us

James Ritchie I heard this shot before your billshit speech. let me translate, get a education and go to into debt and buy necessaties like shelter and car and food which you can't afford and go to into debt and work at a job that you have to make money to pay for the car and shelter and that's all your gonna do until 65 and pray you bought a house because anything that's not real estate will be devalued. that's the story of your life and throw in some kids and a wife and a basic retirement. Society isn't perfect it's best we have but regulations should be for working class not upper class. apparently you never seen Germany or France or England or CANADA

freedom to exploit

Marisa Dower Morgan there was a time in the US when the freedom to exploit was permitted, look at any time before FDR. Look at what the freedom to exploit is doing in other regions such as Africa, China, Russia, east Asia, and pockets of south America. Life is miserable in these areas to a great extent because people are exploited more often then catered. Catering to customers and employees is more expensive than exploiting them, so that is what is done. a little comparative analysis goes a long way, much farther than ideology

Corporations have essentially become monopolies, which are illegal under capitalism. The founding fathers were well aware of this possibility and corporations could not exist for more than 20 years in the early history of the US. In fact, the Tea Party was a direct action against the East India Trading Co., the largest corporation at the time. Essentially the Wal-Mart of the 1700's. Capitalism was formed to regulate mercantilism. It's not supposed to look like this. Should we abolish Wal-Mart and the like? Fuck yeah. But that has nothing to do with turning to communism. We need more of a purge of crony capitalism, a return to small local businesses, an environment designed for them to thrive. We need a minimum wage based on a percentile of company dollars for workers who don't own businesses, so they can thrive too. I don't buy this "End Capitalism" crap for one minute. But don't say that on Occupy's page, or they'll censor you like they censored me. Enjoy the fringe, "Progressives".

In the US the population  is generally so ignorant of the world, it cant be a democracy anyway.

America (and Britain) was pro-fascist right up until they had out grown their usefulness. https://archive.org/details/MichaelParentiRealHistoryTheRealCausesOfWorldWarTwo Fascism is capitalism in decline. It was the recession and inflation that breed fascism as the capitalists self defense mechanism against socialist revolution.


DynamicUnreal1 year ago

At around 11:00 he gives a background on why Japan waged war on the U.S. in WW2. The west, especially America would have you believe that the Japanese were just a bunch of power hungry evil imperialists when in fact there is much more to the story.

DynamicUnreal i guess that's the truth about the nazis then

anon94707 I kicked Nazis too��

A true democracy would have an economy based on worker cooperatives and voting for the laws you wish to abide by.

+Arman M As I've said before, the USSR and alike were State Capitalist. I agree with you in this. But saying that Lenin or Mao weren't Socialists because their countries didn't practice. By this logic, we can't be Socialists, because our countries aren't.

Did your mom have any children who weren't born with severe brain damage?

His take on Adam Smith deserves to be studied in depth. Specially by neo-liberals...

I hate how conservatives distort Adam Smith. Adam Smith was pretty progressive. It would do the conservatives some good to actually read what he wrote!

+Roland Deschain I'm screenshotting that to make fun of btw

Mankind can never establish a true democracy or stable society, simple because it is in the nature of mankind to cheat, to go for own interest, to play mindgames, seek power, money. For true justice, honesty, peace mankind needs to change itself first. It all starts with changing your mind, that is the true core of all the trouble. Google TruthContest read the Present, it explains the big picture of life in every facet. It is the key to change your mind ( overcome the badstates of the mind). The Truth is only for the real, are you ready?

+Sean Heavenmount >>Roland Deschain I'm not Roland, but with due respect Sean .... >>tyranny of 51% over 49% is fantastically better than tyranny of 1% over 99%. I think you should explain your calculus. It 'smells' likes this tyranny of 51% is only ~2x better than a strongman authoritarian dictatorship; it's 49.9% vs 99% getting screwed, 2x.. That's horrible vs 'horribler'. and "fantastic" appears nowhere. >>Why? Because that 51% will never be the SAME 51% for every single possible issue that legislation would seek to regulate. I mostly disagree. Most issues divide on static party lines.. In the USA for example, we have both the 'filter' of a representative democracy, and the evil of hyper-partisan electorate, and the limitations of choice in a two-party system. The voting booths are FILLED with ppl holding decades-long or life-long 'D' vs 'R' affiliations, and then the 'D' vs 'R' representatives often fail to actually represent their current voters and follow party ideology anyway. For independents, like me, whether the 'dictator de jour' uses a (D) or (R) suffix, it's all the same. This is a dictatorship, only tempered by the tattered remnant bits of republic remaining. Look at the facts. Gun control and abortion and the welfare state have been core partisan issues for half a century - and there is no sign these are about to see any shift in the closed-minded partisan voting electoral support. Any new legislative issue you can name usually has the same predictable partisan divide. No - the two-party, first-past-the-post voting schema we use prevents the sort of coalition creation that is seen in some other multi-party democracies (and those other democracies have other, somewhat different problems). >>That which provides for the greatest deal of people is the most fair, tyrannical or not. So "yeah for 51%" and "to hell with 49%" is your motto ? That utilitarian garbage has ZERO to do with "fairness" or more important "justice". 'Fair" is a personal subjective judgement about how others should live and be treated, and I do not hold with any concept that you/they/we get to decide for others.

nathan simons Actually there's been a thorough study done on such behaviour. In fact, only 3/10 people behave in such a totally selfish manner where they have to come out on top. 2/10 people behave in what seems like a fairly selfish manner because they simply don't trust others to hold up their end of things. Another 2/10 will behave rather altruistically, because they expect things to work out for the best. 2 more out of 10 will behave in an entirely altruistic manner because they trust others to do the same - to cooperate so everyone benefits maximally. If youre paying attention, you'll see that that adds up to 9 out of 10... the last person has no discernible strategy.

current democracy is plutocracy the game of the rich for mass idiocy who play the game of democracy

Avi Hecht nigga what?

Totally agree with this. libertarianism is anarchism for the rich and authoritarian phonies

In your beloved anarchy/whatever buzz word, you would be the first to go. Barring that forget about leaving your house every again. I'll take it an kill you if you try to get back in.

wish i never had to listen to Noam talk about economics. makes him look silly and remarkably inconsistent.

+Alexander Riccio You beautiful bastard Alexander. Someone with a modicum of sanity posting a well structured argument in the comments section is a very rare thing.

+Graeme Jones democracy in america?i guess thats why endless wars are happening,because the masses want tit.pshh

What about the choice of the individual? It all comes down to choices. And the individual is free to make a choice about whats available. To the degree that free choices are available seems to be correlated to producers and tranformers of resources. If you do not like the choices available, perhaps you could be free to supply the demand? IF you do not like the corporation, start your own. If you do not like the product, produce a better product. Innovate.

+Steffen Zander Dear Lord.  You're too fun.  Thanks for sharing.

+Firstname Lastname So if you don't like a totalitarian institution, start your own! That would be fantastic if we were wild animals thousands of years ago getting everything for ourselves and nothing for anyone else.

Idiocy! Capitalism is the most democratic system. I'd like him to describe a better model than Person A trades money for goods and/or services from Person B. Both parties get to decide how much the goods or services are worth to them. It is freedom! He is an idiot chasing cheap applause and glory from other idiots. What he's saying makes no sense, it is just propaganda based on boring your listener into thinking that you're smart. Listing facts and history does not make someone smart. He has no logical connection between the things he says. He gives false premises and invalid conclusions. 

Anthony Marin1 month ago

I love how free market capitalists always talk about about trading off the products of other people's labor as their own.

The only way for capitalist to make profit is by cheating or exploitation. there is no way, honesty can make them rich. and as a employee, we are so stupid enough to accept it, because we want to get by day by day. how pathetic our world is. It is not Knowledge that we chase, but it is Money and GOD. we are so screwed. the world need to be reset.

+Roland Deschain someone against capitalist does not always mean socialist. In Fact, the only true capitalist people is 3rd world country, other than that is socialist, they can get free food and money. a ton of socialist program.

In "communism" (which never existed, it was only a project), we had the dictatorship in the hands of a government. In capitalism, we have hundreds and hundreds of dictatorships and they are the private companies; they do whatever they please as long as they pay taxes to the IRS, no matter what the %&$# they do to their employees. Does somebody know a country with democracy other than the circus they call elections?  By the way, does somebody believe elections exist? If so, Zeus exists too and I am Napoleon....En el "comunismo" (el cual nunca existió, fue sólo un proyecto), teníamos la dictadura en manos de un gobierno.En el capitalismo, tenemos cientos y cientos de dictaduras y ellas son las compañías privadas; ellas hacen lo que les da la gana con sus empleados siempre que paguen impuestos a Hacienda, no importa que "#$$%%% hacen con los empleados. ¿Alguien conoce algún país con democracia, otra que no sea ese circo que ellos llaman elecciones? Por cierto, ¿Alguien cree que las elecciones existen? De ser así, Zeus existe y yo soy Napoleón.

+Peter Alhen Technically, we've never lived in capitalism either.

Tell that to a few Hundred Million People.

Easy. Because the Left fascists will game the system and loot the economies of capitalist democracies. Only other authoritarian Left fascist countries are willing to fight back with sufficient enthusiasm, in part because they're in on the socialist joke.

"Left fascists"?! Arent you puting together somewhat contradictory terms? If no, than there has to be also someone who is right wing anarchist.

Left fascism is a redundant term. http://www.la-articles.org.uk/fascism.htm

The Coming Fall of the House of Windsor
Slide Show

Made Available Through The New Federalist newspaper, 1994.


Clearly, it is within our reach to accomplish the Great Economic Development Projects that are the only thing that can save humanity from falling into a New Dark Age. There are no limits to the material, financial, or human resources that can be harnessed in the interest of mankind. There is no reason on earth for the majority of humanity to live at or below the poverty level, no reason for pestilence, war, and famine to stalk the planet. Why, then, are these Great Projects not already a reality?

The answer is very straightforward. A financially and politically powerful apparatus, known among its own members as the Club of the Isles, is adamantly philosophically opposed to the spread of scientific and technological progress, particularly progress that accelerates the growth of the modern nation-state system that was founded over 500 years ago as the crowning accomplishment of the Golden Renaissance in Italy.

You will not read about the Club of the Isles in any textbook or popular magazine. It is unincorporated and it has no membership lists. Yet, as an informal association of predominantly European-based royal households and princely families, the Club of the Isles commands an estimated $10 trillion in assets. It lords over such corporate giants as Royal Dutch Shell, Imperial Chemical Industries, Lloyds of London, Unilever, Lonrho, Rio Tinto Zinc, and Anglo American DeBeers. It dominates the world supply of petroleum, gold, diamonds, and many other vital raw materials; and deploys these assets not merely in the pursuit of wealth, but as resources at the disposal of its geopolitical agenda.

Its goal: to reduce the human population from its current level of over 5 billion people to below 1 billion people within the next two to three generations; to literally ``cull the human herd'' in the interest of retaining their own global power and the feudal system upon which that power is based.

[Slide 1: Prince Philip and Queen Elizabeth]

Think for a moment about the level of destruction that must be wrought if the population of the globe is to be reduced by 80 percent over the span of just two to three generations.

Now, listen to the words of the Club's chief operations officer, in a published interview with the West German Deutsche Press Agentur in August 1988: ``In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation.''

The same speaker put the identical thoughts down on paper in his foreword to the 1986 book If I Were An Animal. The foreword was titled ``People as Animals.''

``I just wonder what it would be like to be reincarnated in an animal whose species had been so reduced in numbers that it was in danger of extinction. What would be its feelings toward the human species whose population explosion had denied it somewhere to exist? ... I must confess that I am tempted to ask for reincarnation as a particularly deadly virus.''

The not-so-gentle man quoted above is Prince Philip Mountbatten, Duke of Edinburgh, royal consort to Queen Elizabeth II of England, and the international president of the Worldwide Fund for Nature, founded in 1961 as the World Wildlife Fund.

Prince Philip was not elected to his position as the de facto chief of operations for the Club. It is a position he assumed as the Royal Consort to Queen Elizabeth II, the reigning monarch of the House of Windsor. Queen Elizabeth II is herself no mere figurehead. She is the de facto CEO of the Club.

For well over 100 years, dating back to the heyday of Queen Victoria, the British Crown has been designated as the primus inter pares--the first among equals--of the extended European Black Nobility.

England's 19th century Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli showed a sophisticated grasp of European history when he dubbed this association--of which he was himself a loyal servant--the ``Venetian Party.'' It was in the lagoons of Venice that the modern form of oligarchic power was devised and nurtured, and spread to other parts of Europe, most notably into the Netherlands and the British Isles.

The Club of the Isles exists in the form of an extended family, largely inbred. Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip are second cousins. This intermarriage is typical of Europe's royal households.

Who is Prince Philip?

Prince Philip was the grandson of the King of Greece. But his family was not born in Greece. They were originally Danish and German.

In the middle of the nineteenth century, the British, who were already the dominant imperial power in Europe, arbitrarily chose the Danish Royal Family to take over the Greek throne, once Greece was split out of the Ottoman Empire.

Philip's father, Prince Andrew, was tried and convicted of treason and desertion in battle in the Greek-Ottoman War in 1921, and was sentenced to death by firing squad. His life was spared when a British arms merchant, under orders from the King of England, paid off the Greek government to allow his escape, and a British warship brought him and his family to safety.

With that background, it's hardly surprising that during the 1930s, Prince Philip's sisters all married prominent Nazis. To bury the scandal, Philip renounced his Greek citizenship and the Greek Orthodox Church, and arrangements were quietly made to grant him British citizenship and Anglican Church membership. His arranged marriage to second cousin Elizabeth, like his British credentials, were secured by his uncle, Lord Louis Mountbatten.

In light of this family background, it's easy to understand why the Windsors have been appropriately dubbed the world's largest and most powerful dysfunctional family. The tales of infidelity involving Prince Charles, Prince Andrew, Princess Margaret, etc. are now too numerous to mention.

But beneath the soap-opera lust lurks a deadly serious game of genocide, on a scale that would make Adolf Hitler blush with envy; and a political battle which shall determine whether mankind descends into a New Dark Age or emerges from the 500-year cycle of history now coming to a close, into a new Renaissance.

The first case study we will consider is that of Rwanda.

Beginning in April of this year, the editors and staff of the Executive Intelligence Review magazine launched an investigation into the genocide in Rwanda. On April 6, 1994, the Presidents of Rwanda and Burundi were assassinated in a surface-to-air missile attack against the airplane that was carrying them home from a summit meeting. Within hours of the double assassination, so-called rebel forces launched an invasion of Rwanda from neighboring Uganda. Within six months, Rwanda had been virtually wiped off the map.

Prior to the April cataclysm, Rwanda had enjoyed the lowest infant mortality rates and the longest average life expectancy of any country in Africa. Today, 80 percent of the country's 7.2 million people are either dead or living in refugee camps.

When we set out to uncover who was behind the genocide in Rwanda, we had no preconceived notions about what we would unearth. Some weeks into the investigation, we received crucial leads from European researchers and from African diplomats: Look at the role of the game preserves and national parks. Once we picked up this trail, the pieces all fell into place, and all roads led back to London, to the Club of the Isles, and its Worldwide Fund for Nature.

The Worldwide Fund for Nature--WWF--renowned the world over as a charitable organization established to protect endangered species, is provably responsible for the slaughter of animals and human beings across Africa and on other continents around the globe on an unprecedented scale. The 1994 Rwanda genocide is but the latest instance of the WWF in action.

How did it work? Look at the map.

[Slide 2: Rwanda map]

Since 1990, the WWF has been managing a ``gorilla protection program'' in Gorilla Park (1) in Uganda right on the Rwanda-Zaire border, in the adjacent Volcans Park (2) on the Rwandan side of the border, and in Zaire's Virunga Park (4). Along with the Akagera Park (3) in Rwanda along the Kenya and Uganda border, all these parks served as training bases, staging areas, and arms depots for the invading ``rebels''--who were in reality all soldiers and officers in the Ugandan Army of British puppet Yoweri Museveni. Museveni is run by Britain's Overseas Development Minister Lady Lynda Chalker.

So the Rwandan genocide had nothing to do with tribal or civil warfare. It was a British-orchestrated assassination and invasion program. And the parks administered by WWF played a pivotal role in the slaughter. From the same parks, the same WWF apparatus is involved in the planned destabilization and genocide against the rest of East Africa, beginning with Kenya and Sudan.

Under the guise of protecting endangered species, such as the elephant, the rhinoceros and the tiger, WWF ``park rangers'' carry out assassinations and other attacks against so-called ``poachers'' who in many instances turn out to be local patriotic political leaders or farmers who refuse to abandon their land and their food production to the WWF's land confiscation programs.

Look at a map of Africa.

[Slide 3: Map of Africa Protected Areas]

The shaded sections indicate those areas in sub-Saharan Africa which have been set aside as national parks, game reserves, and ecological reserves. Nearly 2 million square kilometers, or 8.2 percent of the entire sub-Saharan land mass, have been turned over to the WWF or its surrogates. To give an idea of the size of some of these so-called protected areas: Look at Kruger National Park, located on the border of South Africa and Mozambique.

[Slide 4: Southern Africa]

Kruger Park is located at number 8 on the map of Southern Africa. It is larger than the state of Massachusetts. It served as a base for both the RENAMO and FRELIMO forces in Mozambique's 20-year bloody civil war. Similarly, the even larger West Zambezi Game Management Area, located at number 1, housed both the UNITA and MPLA forces in Angola's 17-year civil war. Both typical WWF operations.

All across Africa, WWF mercenary armies carry out a brutal population war. Park rangers armed with helicopter gun ships, infantry weapons, and light missiles function as death squads. Between 1987 and November 1988, under a WWF-bankrolled program called Operation Stronghold, assassination squads under the direction of Zimbabwe's Chief Game Ranger Glen Tatham carried out cold-blooded murders of hundreds of so-called poachers, half of whom were unarmed and lured into ambushes. A number were leaders of the African National Congress' military wing. When Tatham and his men were brought up on 70 murder charges, the Zimbabwean parliament rushed through a bill, the Protection of the Wildlife Indemnity Act, which gave the park rangers immunity from prosecution for any actions they took ``in the line of duty.'' It was a license to kill.

During the same period, inside South Africa, WWF was running Operation Lock, ostensibly designed to save the black rhino. WWF Netherlands president, Prince Bernhard, father of Queen Beatrix, and John Hanks, WWF's Africa director and one of the continent's most outspoken Malthusians, financed a team of ``retired'' British Special Air Services commandos to infiltrate and sabotage so-called poaching rings.

We have learned from sources inside South Africa that Operation Lock was at the center of what came to be known in the early 1990s as the ``third force,'' an outside paramilitary force instigating black-on-black violence between the ANC and the Inkatha Freedom Party by carrying out targeted acts of violence, like the June 18, 1992 Boipatong massacre. The goal: to trigger a bloody civil war and prevent the end of the apartheid system and the reintegration of South Africa into the world community.

Today, the same plan for systematic genocide is being directed by the Club of the Isles and the WWF apparatus against all of Eastern Africa.

[Slide 5: East Africa WWF Map]

Using the same Ugandan-based parks and WWF ``ranger'' apparatus, the British Crown is waging a war against the other countries of the Horn of Africa, particularly Kenya and Sudan. Club of the Isles figure Tiny Rowland, until recently the chairman of the Lonrho Corporation (``London-Rhodesia''), has boasted on Kenyan radio that he is a longtime member of the South Sudan Liberation Army of John Garang, which has been waging a war against the government in Khartoum. The WWF-Club genocidalists know that the Sudan is potentially the breadbasket for all of Africa, and at all costs they want the Sudan to be a battlefield, not a grain field.

Anyone who thinks that the British imperial policy of running gang-countergang warfare went out with Prime Minister Harold McMillan's 1960 ``Winds of Change'' speech announcing Britain's decolonization of Africa needs to read EIR's October 28, 1994 60-page special report, ``The Coming Fall of the House of Windsor.''

[Slide 6: Cover of EIR Windsor Report]

And anyone who thinks that the British program of mass genocide, under the guise of protecting endangered species, is something restricted to Black Africa, needs to consider the following information also featured in the EIR documentary.

One of the biggest myths perpetrated by the British Crown and the Club of the Isles is the completely false notion that the British Monarchy-- Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip--are merely powerless figureheads. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Just look at a map of the British Commonwealth today:

[Slide 7: British Commonwealth Map]

There are 50 countries that are currently members of the British Commonwealth, which is defacto headed by the Windsors. Of those 50 countries, 16 are still to this day British Crown colonies, where the only sovereign is Queen Elizabeth! Among the 50 Commonwealth states you find a string of Caribbean islands that are notorious as the major drug money laundering havens and financial centers for the vast underground economy.

What's more, this global map of British imperial outreach is strikingly similar to the map of the World Wildlife Fund's international operations:

[Slide 8: WWF Outreach]

So, don't be fooled by Club of the Isles propaganda. The British Empire is alive and well, complemented by the global covert empire of the WWF. This brings us to the next critical point.

[Slide 9: South America Protected Areas]

While the genocide carried out against the population of sub-Saharan Africa is perhaps the single greatest instance of mass murder in human history, the WWF has not limited itself to one continent. Remember that Prince Philip and the Club of the Isles intend to reduce the world population by 80 percent over the course of the next several generations. In South America, the body count is smaller, but here, the WWF has pioneered a program referred to in its own literature as ``anthropological reserves.'' These are literally human zoos, where primitive tribes, like the Yanomami Indians of the Brazilian Amazon region (1), are kept in a state of enforced backwardness. In Brazil alone, there are currently 250 anthropological reserves. Over 10 percent of the total land mass of Brazil has been already set aside for such human zoos, holding a population of under 300,000, or less than two-tenths of a percent of the total population.

In Peru, evidence is piling up that the murderous Shining Path narco-terrorist group has been financed and armed by WWF. At minimum, Shining Path has served as the WWF's enforcers in areas like the Upper Huallaga River Valley, the world's premier cocaine-producing region and an area dense with ecologically protected areas (4). In the Apurimac Reserved Zone (5), the Peruvian Army recently discovered mass graves and concentration camps run by Shining Path. The victims of the Shining Path brutality: the Ashaninka Indians. As far back as the mid-1960s, WWF had targeted this area of Peru as an ideal site for a future protected area. The obstacle was the Ashaninka, who had farmed and hunted the area for centuries, and were apparently open to modernization and integration into Peruvian society. Shining Path moved into the area in the 1980s, after 1.6 million hectares had been set aside as the Apurimac Reserved Zone and began the systematic murder and enslavement of the Ashaninka. All done under the watchful eye of Prince Philip's WWF.

Mexico and Central America are equally under the gun of the genocidalists of the WWF-Club of the Isles.

[Slide 10: Central America]

No. 1 on the map of Central America and Mexico shows the state of Chiapas in southern Mexico, the scene of a year-long guerrilla insurgency by the EZLN, the Zapatista Army for National Liberation. The insert is a blowup of the Chiapas region. All four of the WWF-linked protected areas have been identified by local farmers as staging areas and training grounds for the Zapatistas. A, B, and C denote the Launas de Montebello National Park, the Montes Azules Biosphere Reserve, and the Agua Azul Cascades National Park respectively. Each of these areas are EZLN strongholds, especially Montes Azules right on the border with Guatemala.

Rigoberta Menchu, a leading Guatemalan terrorist and leader of the narco-terrorist URGN gang (who received the 1992 Nobel Peace Prize!), recently led a cross-border march in support of the EZLN guerrillas, and when she led 1,000 ``refugees'' back into Guatemala from Chiapas, supplies were airlifted in to the demonstrators by a Royal Air Force C-130 transport plane from Belize. You can see Belize on the map at No. 2. It's a British Commonwealth country that has been the base of operations for British commandos for decades. Now the whole operation is being run under the auspices of the WWF.

Looking back at the map of Chiapas, (D) denotes El Ocote Ecological Reserve, which is not a known EZLN staging area, but is a favorite clandestine site for the growing of large quantities of marijuana.

So in Mexico and Central America, the southern neighbors of the United States, we have all of the ingredients that we saw in such WWF-targeted areas as Rwanda, South Africa, and Peru. It's a ticking time bomb. And it gets worse.

Not only is Ibero-America a target of WWF genocide. North America is as well.

[Slide 11: North America Protected Areas]

Almost the entire Western third of the United States is either a protected area or an area under the Bureau of Land Management slated to be set aside in the near future. Half of Alaska is already a vast protected zone.

Canada is perhaps the most advanced case of WWF's so-called ``endangered peoples'' insurgency (Prince Philip draws no distinction between human beings and lower forms of animal life). The lined area in the very north of Canada at number 3 is the Nunavut nation, established on June 10, 1993 by Queen Elizabeth II, as a tribal homeland for the Inouit Natives. Through the WWF, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples and the WWF-spawned Survival International, Inouit natives were literally herded back into this no man's land over a period of a decade in order to justify this vast set aside ``nation,'' which will obtain its independence as a Royal Crown state in 1999.

[Slide 12: California Desert]

Under the California Desert Protection Act, passed by the 103rd Congress in October 1994, 8 million acres of land were set aside. Prior to the passage of that act, 12 million acres of land in California had already been set aside. Under existing or pending legislation, 80 percent of the state of California will be off limits by the end of the decade.

Not only is the WWF out to transform the western states of the U.S.A. into a vast nature and game preserve off limits to any kind of economic development: As part of a longstanding British monarchy commitment to overthrow our Federal Constitution, the WWF is working toward the ``Balkanization'' of North America, the bustup of the U.S.A., Canada, and Mexico into what one leading ecologist has labeled the ``Nine Nations of North America.''

[Slide 13: Nine Nations]

On several occasions over the past 200 years, the British have attempted to break apart the United States. The most well-known case was the Civil War--the British were the guiding hand behind the Southern secessionist insurrection. Notice on the ``Nine Nations'' map that one of the ``new'' nations proposed to be carved out of the United States, No. 7, is to be called ``Dixie.''

The British have not forgotten Australia, either. Prince Philip was the personal founder of the Australian branch of the WWF, and he continues to devote a great deal of his personal attention to the continent.

[Slide 14: Australia WWF]

A look at the map of Australia makes the point very clear. Between indigenous reserves (i.e., human zoos) and other set-aside lands, the WWF has managed to practically cut the continent in half, almost cutting off the eastern and western halves of the country and insuring a semi-permanent state of underdevelopment.

A review of the history of WWF, which we do not have time to go through here, would show that the post-World War II so-called environmental movement, was nothing but a revival of the Eugenics Movement of the late nineteenth and early 20th century. After the Nazi genocide, the term ``eugenics'' was discredited, so the same British and allied European and North American ``elites'' who backed Hitler changed the name to ``environmentalism'' and went right back into the genocide business. To illustrate the point: WWF founder Sir Julian Huxley was president of the Eugenics Society in 1961 when the WWF came into being.

Prince Philip, world spokesman for WWF and the chief officer of the Club of the Isles, put it succinctly at a March 11, 1987 address in London:

``The simple fact is that the human population of the world is consuming natural renewable resources faster than it can regenerate, and the process of exploitation is causing even further damage.... All this has been made possible by the Industrial Revolution and the scientific explosion and it is spread around the world by the new economic religion of development.''

Prince Philip is lying. Lack of genuine economic development, willfully blocked by Philip and his fellow genocidalists at the WWF and in the Club of the Isles, is the only ``limit to growth.'' Destroy the political and financial power of the Club and nothing stands in the way of a new Renaissance.

Noam Chomsky - The Alternative to Capitalism

Chomsky's Philosophy

Published on Feb 5, 2015

Noam Chomsky on the alternative to capitalism: democracy from below.

Caption author (Portuguese (Brazil)) Gilberto Neto Category Nonprofits & Activism

Alberturkey542 years ago

Why is this man not president?

Twolliebollie1 week ago (edited)

+Jordon Hill left-wing anarchism = libertarian socialism

SS1 year ago

True Capitalism is about as utopian of an idea as Communism- in that actually establishing a pure capitalist society is a fucking pipe dream

zalamander82 years ago

Prof. Richard Wolff and other socialists agree with Chomsky about worker self directed enterprises replacing actually existing capitalism.

Agaperion Rex1 week ago

I made it clear previously in the thread that I'm not against worker-owned enterprises so you don't need to sell me on those.

xenoblad6 days ago

+MaghoxFr which country is that out of curiosity?

Moonlit History1 year ago

So, in other words, socialism.

Jeremiah Wilson9 months ago

underlying flaw in capitalism....infinite growth system (it demands it - profit motivated) in a finite resource reality. Whether resources are cheaper labor (whose going to buy your product or service when labor costs is an inevitable race to the bottom) or material resources that are the opposite of infinite.

xs10tl11 month ago

You can make the Argument that Healthcare, Insurance, Banking and Education are industries

MaghoxFr1 month ago

xs10tl1 Banking? Banking is not a right and it's an industry that should dissapear naturally when the blockchain technology makes them obsolete. But that aint happening under their guard.

grandslam199810 months ago

I was a wage slave for 36 years . Through saving and not getting into dept I am now a freeman. I do not have to rent myself out to anyone. My life is now my own and I feel content. Many of my friends could do the same but for some reason they go on working.

Dylan Whitney9 months ago

communism is the answer.. communism is workers own the means of production they work in

Nathan Sharp1 week ago

Communism isn't really a terrible idea. Its really the internal contradictions of Marxist theory that sabotaged the very basic premise of workers owning their own places of employment. The idea that violent, military action is the only road to achieving a cooperative economic model is a stupid idea. All it does is put the people directing the guns in charge of everything. It doesn't actually make anything more democratic. We can organize cooperative enterprises right now without the need to wave guns around. Those that direct violent revolution in the name of economic equality, justice, and the promise of collectivization, are no better than the capitalistic authorities who start wars for profit and resource acquisition in the name of surprisingly similar ideals (freedom, war on terror, justice, democracy, peace, etc).

Cat 521 year ago

What he says right here people need to understand this: "First of all we should bear in mind that we don’t have a capitalist system. No capitalist system has ever survived; they would self-destruct in 5 minutes. So what we have is a kind of State Capitalist system, with the state playing a substantial role in American history, a very substantial role in production, research, and development, um, lots of other types like bailouts, lots of other devices to keep the private sector viable." The problem is we have to move back to giving people control of the workplace and give them their rights back. What he says about "wage labor" being slavery is true. Again, he makes the point that wage labor is nothing more than renting yourself out. But then you as a worker have given up control of your rights as a worker and have given up any say or control of the management of production and you lose ownership of production. I know this is very very hard for Americans and most of the Westerners to understand but as he points out this was something America did and it was successful up until wealthy elites began pushing propaganda to make people think this was a bad thing. Then you have the propaganda that somehow if you aren't educated you don't deserve better wages. This is hogwash, but the American public has been brainwashed to believe this. If you work any job you should be paid not according to your education level but according to your work load and production. If you work hard labor you shouldn't be paid less you should actually be paid more.

KentAllard4 days ago

Von Huxley he's talking about anarchism

Cat 524 days ago

+KentAllard well, no, he is an anarcho-syndcalist, a little different from anarchism

Ariannah de Avalon1 year ago

This is why we need to elect a Democratic Socialist in this country. Vote Bernie Sanders for President 2016!!

Saeed Baig1 year ago

+Agaperion Rex Whilst I see what you're saying about coercion, don't u think it's necessary (at least sometimes) to have regulations in place? For example, should bars be allowed to serve alcohol to pregnant women? And wouldn't it be wise to regulate food and medicine standards?

gespilk2 years ago

The freedom of the consumer in a free market economy is only measured by the level of disposable income the consumer can afford to lose, gamble, spend, burn, etc. without any impact on his lifestyle! That means the minimum wage for the individuals must be such that all people can live "normally" with 1/3 of their income, save 1/3 for emergencies and long term safety, use the last 1/3 to explore new opportunities, products and other high risk enterprises (aka the last 1/3 is the  "freedom money" in a free market economy). That is what defines a free consumer, otherwise it is waged-labour-slavery as Chomsky says. [Side note: What does it mean to "live normally"? It is the value of all the things an individual must have and do in order to be considered a adequate member of the society (for example, shoes, jacket, have a place of residence, have water and electricity in his place of residence,.etc., etc. , etc., use deodorant, have a mobile phone, etc.) In other words, normal is the total value of all the goods and services people purchase the most at a given point in time across given region/country. Those purchases are necessary/essential therefore NOT counted towards the freedom of the consumer in a free market economy. Freedom for a consumer is when the consumer purchases out of curiosity or entrepreneurship, not because of need.]

Read more

Reply 13  

View all 22 replies 


gespilk1 year ago

+J Oliver A property that does not generate income is not an investment. (it is expenditure). A house you live in, costs therefore it is expenditure. A house you rent to others can be an investment if it generates surplus.

Angry Factory Worker3 weeks ago (edited)

"free market" is never free as long as governments regulate or interfere in the economy in anyway. Just look at any "free market" capitalist country and you'll find THOUSANDS of ways the government interferes. "Free market" is a myth

Ron McNeely2 years ago

The problem with Chomsky is that, like many academic scholars, he thinks in idealistic absolutes instead of concrete realities. Nineteenth century utopian socialism never got off the ground because it was impractical and unworkable. Worker ownership of manufacturing is limited to small undertakings. In a technically advanced industrial society great amounts of capital must be amassed in order to undertake any significant economic endeavor. Those contributing their wealth through investment in such enterprises quite naturally expect to get it back. Those who wish to share ownership must also share the burdens of investment and risk.

wade w2 months ago (edited)

Great amounts of capital are required under capitalism. In anarchist Spain, the libertarian communists managed without money. Of course, they were ultimately threatened by state power, which went back to imposing money on everyone. But it's certainly possible to live and organize without money.

Angry Factory Worker3 weeks ago

Chomsky is not a utopian socialist. He is anarcho-syndicalist/anarcho-communist. Anarcho-communism was always successful in creating worker societies until an enemy regime defeated them in battles and conquered them. The problem isn't economic collapse, but failed military strategy


If I work in a mill, and save a portion of my income in order to later build my own mill, by what right should the workers I hire own it?     If you want to own a mill, save your own damn capital! So the only way for the workers to own my mill would be to steal it forcibly (pretty much the intent of most socialists) or they could incrementally take ownership by saving a portion of their own income, and buying stock in the company.  The latter would require that the owner wants to make the company public, and is a way by which all workers can join the capitalists.     BTW if you have a pension, or a 401k invested in stocks, etc. you are part capitalist.  If you save anything at all and invest it, you are a capitalist!

Angry Factory Worker3 weeks ago

"Rights" are created by men and are physically protected by men. Had the British defeated the Americans in the Revolutionary war, there would never be any "right to free speech". "Rights" are given or removed through the barrel of a gun

KentAllard4 days ago

To build a mill would require millions something you could not save from your wages

THESocialJusticeWarrior1 year ago

democracy and capitalism are not apples to apples. You cant replace an economic system with a political system :P

Eek a Mouse2 months ago

debating an ancap is pointless my friend .It's nothing more than an internet cult of edgelords . Facts and logic mean nothing .

Angry Factory Worker3 weeks ago

Google "workplace democracy".

Andy Smith-Akins1 year ago

Anarchist society! Yes that means peace and prosperity.

Angry Factory Worker3 weeks ago

"Messy Capitalism with the State setting some rules and providing a net for the non-performers seems to work." except its failing. Thats why populist politicians like Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump are popular while the centrists like Hillary and Ted serial killer Cruz are hated

Carlos Fdz5 hours ago

How does an anarcho syndicalist society will prevent that people or groups (unions) become affluent (rich) and become a state-like structure to influence other people or groups (unions)? How will that be prevented? If that occurs there will not be peace.

H. Tofaili8 months ago

the sound is not clear, please type down what he is saying.

StratOCE5 months ago

Had no trouble at all hearing what he said. The sound quality's below average for sure, but I would suggest that your speakers/headphones are too low quality also.

H. Sch.1 year ago (edited)

Capitalism is a 'luxury' we cannot afford anymore. If there is a severe crisis, like war, economic collapse, or natural devastation, we have since always given away capitalism to replace it with some form of planned economy, like for example food rationing. If we want to survive by any means what is ahead of us, it is time to turn to central planning again. Anarchism? The system itself could work perfectly, if it weren't for the fact that we are facing the biggest natural crisis in human history or that a crowd of anarchist communes would be surrounded by highly militarised capitalist/fascist systems which would crush the unorganised communes one by one. The alternative I would suggest would be Stalinist socialism, i.e. centralised economy featuring a redistribution of wealth by scientifically conceived five-year plans, and that is because of several reasons: 1) Enormous flexibility. On 22.6.1941 Hitler invaded Stalinist Soviet Union using the most powerful military machine to date. Within only weeks the Soviets were able to shift all of the country's industry behind the Ural mountains, within two years their military production output exceeded the Germans in numbers and quality, within 4 years the Red Army captured Berlin and finished the war. In 1947 the Soviet civil industry surpassed its prewar output. 2) Self-Sufficiency_ Surrounded by capitalist enemies, the DPRK has been strictly isolated from the rest of the world, their goods and their technology since 1991. By their mere Stalinist-based economy they have not only managed to survive, but to introduce their own computers, OS, smartphones, intranet, and robotics. Any other system would have fallen like rennaisance capitalist Florence, revolutionary France, and republican Spain. 3) Growth. Every poor country to ever have introduced Stalinist economics has become a force to be reckoned with. The Soviet Union evolved from a backwards wasteland to the first space-travelling superpower within a mere 30 years from 1927 to 1957. The famine of 1933 was the last one to ever hit the Soviet Union, and the famines of the 1960's were the last ones in China. The USSR became world leader in science, education, culture budget, and military under Stalin, a man whom the Russians voted the third-greatest Russian of all time in 2012, despite him being Georgian. 4) Sustainability. Stalinist economy has no inherently destructive contradictions, in fact it can be instantly transformed into full communism, once covering the globe. Because the five-year plans are determined by scientific decisions rather than neoliberal dogma or corrupt lobbyists, it can adapt to any situation in which human life is possible.

Haspdfposadf Hpsadonifaidf1 year ago

In the end good education is the requirement. The dominant majority has to be reflective and aware of each others needs. But only a minority is intellectually capable and people have different interests and opinions. There is always uncombinable contradiction between personal and social needs.

David Peacock1 year ago

thanks for posting the links to other videos are annoying. :)

Chomsky's Philosophy1 year ago

+David Peacock Just turn them off then :)

Evolved Ape6 months ago

This is so weak.

C J Titan5 months ago


atwaterpub5 months ago

"Capitalism is a self cannibalizing social order." - Mr. Atwater

Angry Factory Worker3 weeks ago

Capitalism always creates poverty, inequality, and corruption. Capitalism always turns into socialism and even into communism; either democratically or violently.

GrayF0x5 months ago

What i don't hear is thoughtful and wholesome alternatives.

Noam Chomsky - Why Does the U.S. Support Israel?


Chomsky's Philosophy

Glen MacPhersonBreathtaking clarity. His command of the facts is legendary. For those new to Chomsky, you might stop at after every couple of sentences and say to yourself, "Wait, that's not what I heard or was taught", and then when you get the official documents and check, you see that he is correct. Then comes that disturbing moment when you get a glimpse of how distorted, and sometimes outright false, the dominant narrative can be. And then comes a very difficult choice: when you test the waters by speaking up on these types of issues, you open yourself up to torrents of abuse, hysteria, and labeling. But when sufficient numbers of people keep asking the right questions, protesting, and refusing to back down, things can change. This has happened before many times, and it will happen again.

Angus Mac

Related to the influence of colonial history, Americans in particular see Israelis as more "white" than Palestinians. Not so white that they want them to marry their daughters, but white enough to support from a distance. They view the lives of white people as being more valuable than the lives of brown people. So the fact that the death toll among Palestinians is at least 500 times higher doesn't bother them.


Denny Law

What a brilliant mind....and a class human being as well.

Blade R

Because Congress is filled with Sabbath Goys who take marching orders from Tel Aviv. I like Chomsky and I've read many of his works but I think he's off on this one. His argument is that Israel is client state of the American Empire, Israel is America's 'cop on the beat' and Israel does our bidding. But History shows that the opposite is the case. The argument put forth by Jeff Blankfort along Mearshimer and Walt is far more convincing......that America is ISRAEL's bitch rather than the other way around. There is no 'Pro America' Lobby in Tel Aviv that bribes, bullies, blackmails, cajoles, and intimidates Israeli politicians as you would expect to be the case if Chomsky's 'servant of the empire' position were correct. There IS, however, an ISRAEL LOBBY in Washington DC that bribes, bullies, blackmails, cajoles, and intimidates American politicians to the point that they are ready to knife a fellow American in the back(just ask Chuck Hagel) the minute that they get the Green light from the boss over in Tel Aviv.

Joseph Reynolds

I think any money that US spends on Israel military destabilizes the region and raises tension, both of which can be utilized by corporate/colonial invaders from the US and Israel. The US probably doesn't care HOW they use the resources, and Israel doesn't care much munitions and money they can get as both of their wants are met. Israel serves as an adversarial staging area for corporate interests in US and UK and reaps the rewards



I was a Zionist until I looked at the Law of God concerning the oppression of the Palestinian people. As God said to Moses, "you shall not vex nor oppress the stranger among you for you were strangers in Egypt."  I am no longer a  Zionist. It certainly  is not love for the (Zionist) Jewish people to endorse their crimes. And to their credit religious Judaism has always opposed Zionism


 The U.S. doesn't just support Israel.... it lies down in its own blood and piss and gets ass-raped gimp style by Israel. AIPAC packs its dick so far up our corrupt elected officials asses that I can see a big circumcised lobbyist dick poking out of every candidates mouth every time they spew their pro-Israel bullshit on camera. Sick, I know right? Now just imagine what George Washington would say lol

Chris Smith

Protestant Apocalyptic thinking has been the dominant force in American political life for the entirety of the country's history. There is no mystery as why the United States WASP elites support/have supported Israel so vehemently. It is a deeply ingrained part of the American mythos, especially after World War II.

Gerry Mannion

mcwolfus2 explain this then 15.3 million jews 1933 also recognise this i am not saying there was not camps but if the Germans killed 6million how come in 1948 there were 15.7 million and that’s official Jewish records??????? just asking - peace man

rik cartman

judea declared war on germany in 1933..people are now saying 1and a half million jews died at auschwitz thats a big difference from 4million which was the accepted thought, what happened to those people? a jewish holocaust had been mentioned numerous times prior to ww2 as had the number 6 million..i also wonder if the fact hitler created 6 million jobs has anything to do with it

Fredrik Montelius

Harry Truman was a devoted Christian as Chomsky says, but he opposed Jewish Zionism. "Not even Jesus could please the Jews, so how could I"? he said.

Avi Hecht

The US was build on conquer conquest and murder of native Americans all in the name of greed and plutocracy wars gained New mexico Texas fought Spain mexico Canada in the name of what?

Avi Hecht

The occupation and rape of North America started by fleeing Europe from religion persecution famine aristocracy. It came as a trickle over the year ending in a flood at the turn of the previous century...

Donny brook

Chomsky admits in the first minute that Britain was behind the creation of Israel via the Balfour agreement. You'll do well to remember that Briton was losing the war with Germany before the US got involved. The Balfour agreement was Britain's' promise to the Jews that they would get their homeland in exchange for the US entering and winning the war for Britain. It was the Jews who ran the press and the white house who were able to convince the president to go to war on Britain's behalf. You have the Jews to thank.

A 6000 Year History Of The Jew World Order


Published on Nov 21, 2015

Frank San Felippo 

martin lawrence pretty interesting

Tahir Rana 

We live on a flat plane no spinning jew globe! Europe was deliberately flooded with Muslim fundamentalist in order for the Jew world order to take effect.

JFK & ADOLF HITLER, the only 2 real and most honest leaders of all time!

DEATH TO ZIONISM for a free world!

Doug Morgan 

love him and what he says

Noam Chomsky - The Crimes of U.S. Presidents

Chomsky's Philosophy

Published on Oct 7, 2014

Chomsky goes through some of the crimes of the post-war presidents. From 2003.

Category Education

anarchitect10 months ago

noam is truth, ya noam saying,

Pooping Buffalo5 months ago


Wally Backman4 months ago

will you be my friend?

Adam Campbell1 year ago

and you wonder why america is hated so much lol thats some harsh stuff right there

Thomas Paine1 month ago

Yes, when they survey the world's people, the USA is rated the number 1 terrorist in the world, by far. Unfortunate.  We once had the Marshall Plan, and were far kinder to the world, I hope.

Miki Seius1 year ago

Oh i wonder why "free" education is a big nono in the US. So the psychopaths can keep doing this decade after decade without anyone having a clue of what people like Chomsky are talking about. Better just point fingers and call him names. After all that is how children deal with scary truths.

GSoundtrack3 months ago

Everyone, especially the citizens and students of the United States should watch the Oliver Stones documentary series of 12 episodes "Untold History of the United States" (2012).

Horny Fruit Flies2 months ago

And then you get all those righties and alt-righties screaming about "liberal professors" and "liberal universities" with "liberal propaganda". These people are hopeless. But what could you expect from those who avoid educational institutions like fire.

K3ITH Price5 months ago

“One of the delightful things about Americans is that they have absolutely no historical memory.”

Mr wonderful4 months ago

GOOGLE Google ....relax chump... he's just explaining what most Americans do not know...that our presidents are criminals!!

S.S. A2 months ago

See 1984

Marc Goudreau10 months ago

I think the problem with Chomskys' recrimination of US presidents, and I'm certain he understands this, is that their criminal behavior are not acts done autonomously or independently but have a broad institutional genesis and motivational impetus that far outweigh the force of will of any president to counter once elected to office. Foreign aggression is an ethos in the American political mindset and can only be countered by broad, sweeping demand for change from the American people themselves. Keeping the American people uneducated and in a continual cycle of fear and consumption guarantees the Presidents' bat boy status on team USA.

Ed Kelly1 month ago (edited)

Brian Carroll A lie IS a lie whether you believe it or not. There's no excuse for ignorance.

The Mowing Man UK2 weeks ago

Marc Goudreau I like this take on it, but the president stands for an agenda, and if the agenda is invasion for state interest then he's as guilty as they come.

Ernest A. Pérez L.1 year ago

For those who think that JFK was some sort of heroic personality aside of his whore mongering take a listen to what Professor Chomsky has to say on the matter. I don't have anything against JFK, but I also know that he wasn't anything close to what most thought about him.

Mike Gardner4 months ago

BlurryBigfoot I'm sorry this is weeks after you posted and possibly someone gave you the history but prior to Kennedy it had not thought of to stop family from being hired. After that administration, laws passed making it illegal to practice nepotism. That is why Trump would be scrutinized. Sort of like saying why can't President Bush, Obama, whomever, have more than two terms, Franklin Roosevelt had four! Well, an amendment was passed limiting to two terms. Same idea. Hope this helps and hope I didn't annoy you.

The Truthful Channel10 months ago (edited)

Everyone should see this video.

GSoundtrack3 months ago

Actually, everyone, especially the citizens of the United States should watch the Oliver Stones documentary series of 12 episodes "Untold History of the United States" (2012).

Von Huxley3 months ago

No. Everyone needs to leave the computer and go for a walk.

Stephen Nielsen1 year ago

This interview was a while back, but even now at 87, Chomsky has a memory like a steel trap.

Xv6vN947 months ago

Stephen Nielsen I wish that he was immortal because he is one of the rare people who always talk about the bitter truth

Reply 25   

Ayman B.3 weeks ago

His writings, videos, and audios will persist for our common enrichment, but I will probably cry when we lose him.

Qurba Joog5 months ago

And this garbage country is the loudest when lip service "human rights, democracy, foreign aid" and photo opportunities come around.

Anthony Rock1 month ago

Qurba Joog I'm running for POTUS in 2020. you should take a second to subscribe to my channel and check out what I have to say. Let's cut the military budget in half and invest in people and not death and destruction and imperialism!

Peter Zajac3 weeks ago

Yoadel You are correct, and a war on a ideology can last forever.

mcflayv5 months ago

Presidents are War Criminals. In other news, dog bites man...

David Powell4 months ago

Willing to be responsible for war crimes is part of the job description. It's been so from Washington to Obama.

willy vlyminck2 months ago

mcflayv They serve the military industry, banks and all greedy people involved, the presidents are just their puppets, while their campaigns are financed by them.

creeper469 months ago

How do you retain such knowledge???? When this man passes on, we will have lost a tremendous mind.......

Anonym Bodensare2 months ago

Indeed, amazing.

Infinite Knight2 months ago

creeper46 He's such an inspiration. I hope I can be half the man as chomsky

Hi I'm Paul4 months ago (edited)

It is time to clean up our political system, especially elections. Google truth contest and read the insights page on the political system insight to see how we can fix our political system, as well as "The Present" to see the truth about life and death in 3 pages.

Clint Howard4 months ago

The Truth Contest is a giant pile of puked on diarrhea. I've only read part of the Present, but couldn't finish because it was just too stupid.

Ed Kelly1 month ago

Clint Howard Absolutely. ...and people need to concentrate on Facts...Not what THEY interpret or think the answer is, but what all evidence shows us to be true.

Patrick van meter1 year ago

Can there be any fucking doubt why so much of the world hates us?

carecanada10 months ago

Didn't citizens vote for people like Bush? Twice. Didn't many citizens volunteer to go to wars of adventurism? I am not blaming them but they have a lot to answer for.

Ricardo Martinez5 months ago

carecanada Voting is a scam. The only reason assholes like this get elected is through private investors.

And we are still over throwing governments today

Libertaire1 year ago

We need to overthrow this one!

Dara Marc Sasmaz1 year ago

"we" is relative in the US context I think :D

Doxastic7 months ago

Trump will probably commit more crimes than all theses guys combined.

MISTY17704 months ago

+aussiemedia1959 "My bet is that he will be impeached within two years. Probably for divulging classified info." LOL! I bet you've made a lot of bad choices in your life.  Enjoy the police state of Australia, I've been there, it sucks.  Here's my bet.  Australia will be a chinese colony in 20 years.

Ed Kelly1 month ago

MISTY1770 Don't be stupid... I did write a half a page correcting all the bullshit in your post but deleted it... Watch the clip again and learn something from it.

Sweet Noga5 months ago

What about OBAMA?����

Peter Allen4 months ago

gisforgary plus he said Obama was worse than Bush and Tony Blair.

Marcos Ruiz4 months ago

+Sweet noga just wait for trump's crimes and negligence! he will have to make a 4 hour video just to get started!

cardigan30005 months ago

This videos comments section is notable for the lack of ad hominem attacks - the tiresome legions of people calling him chumpsky and chimpsky seem to be almost entirely absent - its almost like the CIA have written off this video as a lost cause.

YouCanCallMeReTro4 months ago

Lost causes are the only ones worth fighting for

cardigan3000   I think the fact he isn't directly attacking the terrorist Israeli regime here, like he does in some of his videos, has a lot to do with it.  There are quite a few professional Zionist trolls out there with a lot of free time on their hands.

and USA says why Iran and most of the world hates us. btw Iran hates the USA government. i sincerely hope people of USA wake up and take back their country from the evil war monger government.


Jamie Malokas4 months ago

Josh Lavian   What if Russia took out the USA president, and set up their puppet to run the USA for the next 25 years.  And then there was finally a revolution and the puppet was removed from power.  You would come on here and rant and rave about how Russia had nothing to do with the current situation in the US.  That makes as much sense as your position on Iran.  Stupid, dumb, ignorant, moronic, sadly misinformed, they all fit when describing your position on Iran and your arguing that the USA isn't directly responsible.  I can understand your outrage over what the current Iranian leaders have done to some,  anyone would be.  Do you show the same outrage when the USA government does similar and worse things?  Like killing over 1 million Iraqis who never did anything to the USA.  Or when USA drones kill innocent people around the world including Americans.  It's amazing someone could be so brainwashed to continually argue against historical facts that are considered common knowledge.  Like your position on Iran.  I guess it is true what they say 'there are none so blind as those who refuse to see'.


Jung Bolosse4 months ago (edited)

Josh you are only believing what comes out of your imagination, and you project yourself. You should re-watch the video because i'm sure you skipped it.Are you for or against death penalty ? why don't you answer ? Strange.


Disgruntled Postal Worker1 year ago

The U.S government is evil.


ClandestineOstrich10 months ago

People tend to blame Presidents, but really they only serve for 4 or 8 year terms. For the most part they don't come up with ideas themselves. They just work with the bureaucracy, approve or disprove government initiatives (occasionally guiding the process to various degrees) and rely on the people around them to get information, which usually follows a long chain before it goes from the source to the President. An example of how government actually works is the story Gen. Hugh Shelton told. Rumsfeld asked him to come up with a plan for something (I can't remember what). Shelton got to work on it and eventually amassed a document. Rumsfeld read and said he didn't like it, and that Shelton should come up with a new plan. Shelton went back to his office, thought about it, and realized his plan was actually pretty good. So he changed the plan's official name to "The Rumsfeld Plan" or something like that. Rumsfeld saw the title, read it and enthusiastically agreed with it, even though nothing but the title was changed.


EB, the Composer & GFA1 month ago

People get the governments they deserve


David Mahoney1 year ago

Just goes to prove the all US Presidents are puppets of the War Machine that runs the US Economy via Arms sales globally and acting as Agents Provocateurs to sell more arms in Wars they instigate.


Chris Hachet11 months ago

+David Mahoney Indeed!


David Mahoney11 months ago

Thanks for the response and have a great life.


Noam Chomsky on Edward Snowden 

Chomsky's Philosophy

Published on Dec 29, 2014

Chomsky on Ed Snowden, U.S. foreign policy and the NSA.

Category News & Politics

Heisenberg-SchrodingerEmc22 years ago

The greatest all-around intellectual of the 20th century? Chomsky may very well be. What a mind...As usual, completely right


Edward Snowden should get a Nobel prize not Obama.

+Lee Duncan No one can "make" anyone hate anyone. Hate is a choice, and not a very good one. Wishing for anyone to nuke anyone is not a mark of intelligence.

No, don't give Snowden what the likes of Obama seem to have deserved. Just in case you didn't get it, it's already clear that Nobel is not enough for a guy like Snowden.

Im actually surprised Noam Chomsky has not been assassinated by the CIA

He doesn't often advocate change directly.. he just speaks the truth and gives the implications.

USA and Israel are the biggest terrorists and threat to world peace

Peter M Semantics son. That's what you're playing. However, I'll give you benefit of doubt. What is war ?

Hahahahahahaha! What was vietnam then? iraq? panama? Afghanistan? and many others............

The British would have (or did) consider George Washington a terrorist in 1776. Who a terrorist is largely is based upon ones point of view, not a person actions.

Can I just say George Washington was no more a terrorist than any other Brit at the time. It;s just a point of propaganda.

Not to downplay the death tolls. Not at all. Absolutely atrocious and mainly to please the elite running all the wars to reduce population.

chomsky, as always, totally right.

noam aint afraid to say it. American government is a global terrorist organization.

yeah, better head on out the back!

Yes, Noam is correct. It's kind of funny that when someone tells the simple truth, it sounds awkward listening to it even for me, and I don't even watch TV. I wonder if it's always been like this in the states? I grew up in the states, but I really don't know since I'm not a history buff. I know that since I've been paying attention, some 30 years, it's been one long propaganda campaign. It really grows tiring, though, and when people don't see right past it, you wonder how they managed to pull the trick off. Aren't you born with a basic sense of what is right? I was. And is it necessary to lie constantly via big media to run a nation? Really? I don't believe it. So tiring. Outside of that, the states are great, though. There were a lot of opportunities here back in the 80s. Stuff kind of went downhill fast over the last 30 though for most people in the middle since people are brainwashed to basically vote against their own self-interest.

Well, it was like that when the Hearst media empire encouraged the U.S. to invade Cuba in the Spanish-American War 1898. And long before that in the Western world, people needed to be convinced that their kings were good. Maybe it is necessary for the media to constantly lie.

And you guys just had the most chaotic election ever. Where 44% of the population didn't vote, and someone that didn't got most of the votes from the few that did won. I'm not picking sides, the whole thing was kinda crazy lol.

More and more psychotic behaviour from the US. And how the world is sick of it

+Winifred Currie I said the US is the country the majority of the world despise. I suggest cgp grey channel for you to understand how US ellections works. Each state has a number of representatives spots that will go the side that win. Say, a state win with a margin of 50.1% to 49.9%, then all the representatives will go to the side with 50.1%, and they are the ones that actually vote. If a candidate get's 80% of the votes on a state the result is the same as if he had got 60% 55%, because of the representatives. So even if Hillary (I'm not supporting her) had more votes on total, she lost on states with more representatives, so lost the ellection. I'm not protecting her, 44%(source:vlogbrothers) of the americans didn't vote this ellection, even if Hillary had won, all of this would still be a joke. Also, did the media tell the dollar lost 850 points the day Trump was announced winner? It was more than the attack on 09/11, 650 points.

Noam Chomsky on Michael Moore

Chomsky's Philosophy


Published on Sep 24, 2015

Category Nonprofits & Activism

Tiger Eye1 year ago (edited)

Why can't people ask questions without trying to sound clever? All he had to say is: what do you think of Michael Moore and his work?

Horny Fruit Flies2 months ago

The only people who try their hardest to sound clever are the ones posting comments under this thread.

khatack1 month ago

Because people are stupid and they're desperately trying to hide that fact.

Richie Harte1 year ago

the cameraman, what the fuck are you doing?

sweetboo10221 year ago

trying to make me sick

MesmerGW21 year ago

the peraon asking the question sounds like a pretentious buttface

deadsparrow281 month ago

Just because he's British doesn't necessarily mean he's a pretentious buttface.

internet champ1 year ago

I own a car, but I also live in it. Do I qualify for social mobility?

mark d2 months ago

internet champ ,you are a 3 day. millionaire, for 3 days of the month, u are a millionaire, u can eat, live in a motel room, ECT, then for the remaining 27 days , u are homeless, living on the street, until the 1st of the next month!

luca cerri7 months ago

I love America because you got chomsky tryin to tell people exactly what's goin on and then they vote for trump.

Steven Mitchell3 weeks ago

Yes, in fact, I would love to hear how you would pitch that misinformation about Noam Chomsky's pro war policies. The problem with Trump was that he was a buffoon and inexperienced at government and governing. Governing a family-owned company isn't the same as governing a large nation. While Hilary had a lot of ethical issues, her level of corruption, would beget her political career, while Trump's pursuit of corrupt activities will benefit his personal corporate career. In either case, America was going to lose - one was just a faster slide than the other. But unless you live in the American outback, Donald Trump was never the anti-establishment candidate. He has always been considered someone emotionally unstable and intellectually-challenged, since the early 1980s by his own hometown. New York City has watched Donald Trump for almost 40 years, which is why they voted against him by 4 to 1.

Steven Mitchell3 weeks ago

Hilary Clinton's Goldman Sachs speeches should be enough of an indication of that one.

Chris Tharp1 year ago

"I think he's had a very significant effect." Noam gives Moore the nod. He must. They're two ends of the same current. Chomsky works the academic, Moore the populist. But they're both saying essentially the same thing, which is why it's good to see Chomsky give a modicum of respect to Moore, since we all know the good professor tends to be rather niggardly with his praise.

Ni Clouds1 year ago

I think the usage of 'populist' in the U.S is out of hand. This interviewer shouldn't have said it. You shouldn't have written it. It's just another shitty, ambiguous, vague, duplicitous and dubious word that's clearly been foisted upon yo nation.

Charlie Stanton5 months ago

Oh stop going on about building 7. Do better research.

pencilpauli1 year ago

My father was a blue collar worker in the UK motor industry. Bought a house and a car. So he's not working class? It was the norm for car workers in the 60s and 70s You have to wonder at the people making statements like that.

BaskomserMesut1 month ago

first world "workers" are parasites, this shouldnt be a surprise to anyone at all. the house and the car he bought was built on the backs of imperialist spoils.

246810a1 year ago

2:30 is he just remembering to lock his car

Non Compliant1 month ago

XD you can even hear the horn in the background!

Kojii Naz1 year ago

If you own a car, you're middle class? That's a new one.

Reply 43  

Adam Savickas1 year ago

That is like asking Mozart what he thinks of lady gaga.

Ben Jamin2 months ago

Mozart > 'Chumpsky' Gaga > 'Moore-on'

Michael Dziengel11 months ago

Today the poor have hot water and soap. The great advancement of the past 500 years.

Steven Mitchell3 weeks ago

They get health insurance, not health care. The two are not the same thing.

EveryDayIsAGoodDay3 weeks ago

Matt Bacon >access to all the info no its locked behind pay walls and hidden from view, things like FOI Act'ing DoD reports on operations in Afghanistan are outside the purview of most normies >products from all over the world they can't get clean water from the water tables in their own counties but they can use blue light emitting gadgets that track everything they do and function mostly as conduits for their cash (spending is driven by mac book and iphone users, not by people in malls and storefronts) >healthcare you've never tried going to the hospital in a shitty county or area, its awful and you hardly receive better care than you would from a local doctor in 1950. You'd be better served by having a doctor visit your home or a local medicine woman/man. Not joking. Penicillin and being able to set bones and remove shrapnel are the greatest acheivements of hospitals. Outside of that and the introduction of santitation we've added exactly 10 years to the average life span and more of those people are dying sick as fuck now from cancer (a huge number of elderly die painful, prolonged expensive deaths).

Steve Paul7 months ago (edited)

When people talk with Chomsky they feel the need to step it up and next thing they know they've just said "overly populous".

Regressive Report4 months ago

I checked your statement for its veracity. You're wrong!

Judge Dredd1 year ago (edited)

Respect to that camera operator for not letting being born with half a brain and no limbs get in the way of his life's ambition.

QBRikan771 year ago

So wrong LOL

Cuck on Standby6 months ago


paghal116 months ago

Stunning camerawork !

Paul Stanway4 months ago

I think the camera operator was struggling to stay awake.

pjamesbda1 year ago

The irony is that we censor using a different methodology in the US. We force everything into a cloud of relativism, where anything is open to an opposing view - - and then we get down in the weeds with all the possibilities. The nature of truth - whatever or where ever it may be - is simplicity.

politics80001 year ago

If i certain of something is that reality is not simple, is the most complex thing ever

Dara Rohan1 year ago

Moore is just a liberal, not a socialist.

Xpenguin17revived1 year ago

+Paul David KING USSR was state-capitalist and so was the USA. The entire world transitioned from feudalism to small-business enterprise in the late 19th- early 20th century and many have gone thru the same changes without the workers rights rhetoric.

Enrique Godinez1 year ago

Call the things for what they are. No we shouldn't avoid to use the word socialism that's why all conservatives have a brainwashed view on it.

Ibroadcastmyself178 months ago

guy was filming with his feet give him a break

Omar Khan3 weeks ago

You're comment killed me xD

Duane Reilly7 months ago

goddamn noam drones on doesnt he

Bum Scraggly4 months ago

He's old, geezers tend to do that

Omar Khan3 weeks ago

I don't consider it droning, I consider it enlightening that he gives relevant information regarding a topic historically and not just how it is today, but that's just me.

James Jacocks4 months ago

Noam Chomsky is a rare public figure who considers language to be the prime bearer of ideas, and as a linguist, tries to express himself accurately. For those who have a problem with that, stop for a moment and consider what harm is done by the bombastic merchants of anger who speak to the emotions via words crafted to raise discussion to unreasoning pitch. Is language a punching bag?

Ricardeaux4 months ago

James Jacocks WORD!

Noam Chomsky on Karl Marx 

Chomsky's Philosophy

Published on Jun 22, 2016

Sources: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVflA... & https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1zpM...

Category News & Politics

Crouchy23232311 months ago

Is it just a coincidence that someone called Marx wrote about Marxism? What a strange world.

+RoachKai bilbao was a pretty good city, slept near the beach in a car park in a tent, but cordoba was the best city

And what were the odds of Lou Garig getting Lou Garig's disease?

Marx's later works were an attempt to make the study of society more scientific. He tried to understand capitalism and predict it's natural course (revolutionary overthrow, and the creation of socialism) rather than make subjective moral attacks against it.

Ethan Davidson I think you mean Kropotkin

Oops. You are right.

Marx explains how capitalisme works, how money works, how profit works etc. ....he is not some kind of a philosophical goofball with "ideas" about "society"

Like most lefties, Marx was a financial idiot, in his case because he never had a job and relied on ass kissing lackies and/or his parents for everything. Had he managed a factory, maybe he would have

YouthInEyesAsian1 month ago

His theory of value was completely fucking wrong.

The reason why the people have to learn more about basics, "political spectrum" and "economic scale". See it vertically not only one dimensionally. Many anarho-capitalists are what they are, only because of lack of knowledge. Taught to dislike Socialism, Marxism, etc. Not having on mind vertical "scale" and fact that "leftist ideology" is not equal to "socialist ideology". Missing the basics! Had to edit so ancap below can google it easier

I guess we are engaging in ignorance, again. And I'll repeat it, again. We are back to my original comment

Only Question is - what is yet to be buried there?

I like Chomsky, but he is not describing Marx fairly when he says Marx believed people are only molded by their environment. With Marx, it is not simply a matter of idealism versus materialism, nature versus nurture, i.e., whether ideas shape us, or our material circumstances do. Marx said it is a synthesis of both rather than one or the other. It is called Dialectical Materialism. With the further theory of Historical Materialism he proposed that material and economic circumstances drive history, but by no means are the only factors. Necessity is the Mother of Invention. Our needs are a driver of our ideas and this has had a large bearing upon history. Modes Of Production in relation to Historical Materialism is another aspect of human actively where he draws from examples in history. Slavery, Feudalism, and Capitalism. We progressed from one to the next. When a Mode of Production and the social system that accompanies it no longer suits the conditions of the civilization, people were forced to develop new systems. It is not Historical Determinism to suggest that this may happen to Capitalism too, especially considering it blunders from crisis to crisis, can be so destructive and does not meet the needs of so many people. So what comes after capitalism? Is it 'the end of history'? They proposed Communism as not only a way to address the inequalities of wealth under capitalism, but also to end the concentration of wealth and power that is typical and practically inherent to Capitalism. If productive enterprise is owned collectively by a society, then the wealth and power that if affords is wielded by society, rather than being monopolized by private individuals who can then use that wealth and power to shape society in their own often narrow interests.

I've always felt that communism sounds like exactly what humanity would do best under, but it has never worked out that way in the real world, not yet at least. After the length the western world has gone to in order to eliminate it, i also don't think it will come back for awhile.

So let me get this straight.. Marx & Engels wrote about the environmental catastrophe in the 19th century- which Chomsky thinks is unbelievable & so important, & Chomsky thinks Marx's analysis of economic & social systems are extremely important & revealing. And then Chomsky criticizes: But Marx didn't say human nature is just a historical product. That's a very simple minded way of reading. & Marx didn't say people are just 'malleable'? as Chomsky asserts. Chomsky is making no sense here- or deliberately misinterpreting Marx's work. I'm starting to learn that Anarchists have a history of generally fucking movements up. Look up Bakunin.

karl marx acceptable en culture mes en réalisations je ne croyais pas .vraiment son philosophies bien mécanismes est aussi plain des risque sociales

Marxism is proven to not work.

You can view his comments through google plus. Go to google.com and try looking at them from there.

Τ ότι το βίντεο έχει ελληνικούς υπότιτλους όμως!

The opening pages of The Communist Manifesto predict globalisation (albeit quixotically). Chomsky touches on this here, yet I've never seen him really articulate it overtly. Does he disregard the point, or have I missed it completely?

(Too many ideas, but the problem there is no change!!)...Karl Marx

Does anybody have the link to the full interview w/ Chomsky in front of the chalkboard?

DISCUSSION ON DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM Democratic socialism means: worker-owned enterprises plus a welfare State – both run democratically. “I would like to know what will happen if that group of workers produce more profits than another group workers because they had worked harder and had better products than their counterparts?” This problem you are purporting is a problem Rosa Luxemburg predicted about hundred years ago. The main idea is that, if you replace all capitalist enterprises, you will still have worker owned (socialist/worker co-ops) enterprises competing with one another. This is true; however, this system is still more desirable than having a despot controlling everything, production and distribution of profits. So even if it is not perfect, it is still a superior system than a private dictatorship (a.k.a. capitalist enterprise). “Would their profits be forced to be distributed to that other group of workers to make up the deficits?” The members of the society will decide this democratically. They will elect officials to do this if it is a representative democracy or they will vote on ballots if it is a direct democracy or a combination of both (like in Switzerland). I support a welfare State (similar to the Scandinavian Model) because it doesn’t allow the members of its society to hit rock bottom. I would include Universal Basic Income (they are doing this in Utrecht, Netherlands, right now), a public childcare system, and other things that society may deem beneficial. “If so who decides to distribute this surplus of wealth and how?” If it is a small worker co-op, then a direct democracy will do. If it is a huge worker co-op with thousands of workers, then they will elect officials (similar to the government – there have to be time limits, division of power, and ways to removed them in case of wrong doing). We are already doing all of this, but only at the State level. We need to do this at the workplace. “And what about innovation and intellectual property is that to be distributed equally as well?” A suggestion I have heard on this issue is paying a lump sum amount similar to the Nobel price to the inventor. What you don’t want is someone abusing intellectual property. You have to think about the entire society. As long as the investor gets his/her just compensation, then we are cool. After, for the production of that innovation, you need workers, and the workers ought to be paid justly for the surplus value they produced with their labor, and this can only be achieved if they make decisions democratically. “Is there any room for personal growth or individual wealth or do we all just work for the sole purpose to support the masses whether or not they work or contribute?” You can work for yourself, but a system of taxation will be in place in order to support people who are disabled, the elderly, the sick, pregnant, and more. Supporting the “lazy” is a myth. Experiment after experiment proves that if you give help to the poor, they will get an education, become entrepreneurs, and get out of poverty. This proves that most people don’t want to be lazy, they want to succeed; so if you give them the opportunity, they will take it. “What kind of a society do you think that would produce? Not a fair or equal one I would predict.” This would not produce a completely fair and equal society, but a MORE fair and equal one. What would you rather have, democracy or totalitarianism? If you think that democracy is better than totalitarianism at the State level, why not at the workplace? What we have right now is a system in which the have-nots have to lend themselves for slave wages. The difference between this and slavery, is that you can “freely” chose your slave master. This is a grotesque system. I think we will evolve out of it eventually with more social awareness, and in the future, just like no one is defending slavery anymore, no one will defend capitalism. No reasonable person can defend private dictators like Trump and the Koch brothers.

"...to break the chain and cull the living flower." Still a pretty good idea.

Wow!! Bite sized Chomsky vids, what a gift!!

Capitalism reverse Communism

The "Jewish" Conspiracy is British Imperialism

March 29, 2017

- See more at: https://www.henrymakow.com/000447.html#sthash.JH6D8XUg.dpuf