Episode 285 – Meet Noam Chomsky, Academic Gatekeeper

by | Oct 27, 2013 | Episodes, Podcasts | 10 comments

Is Noam Chomsky an anarcho-syndicalist or proponent of the Federal Reserve? A fearless political crusader or defender of the Warren Commission JFK orthodoxy? A tireless campaigner for justice or someone who doesn’t care who did 9/11? Join us this week on The Corbett Report as we examine some of the subjects that Chomsky would prefer you didn’t think about.


For those with limited bandwidth, CLICK HERE to download a smaller, lower file size version of this episode.

For those interested in audio quality, CLICK HERE for the highest-quality version of this episode (WARNING: very large download).


Steven Pinker on Noam Chomsky
Time Reference: 02:54


Chomsky: Obama Worse Than Bush
Time Reference: 03:13


‘Drone strikes a terror-generating machine’
Time Reference: 10:02


Noam Chomsky to RT: Bush torturer, Obama just kills
Time Reference: 10:48


Chomsky On Obama’s Election Campaign
Time Reference: 11:05


Chomsky on US Foreign Policy
Time Reference: 11:33


Manufacturing Consent – Noam Chomsky and the Media
Time Reference: 14:54


Noam Chomsky Loves the Federal Reserve
Time Reference: 19:13


Noam Chomsky and the JFK Assassination
Time Reference: 26:43


Deep Politics and the Death of JFK
Time Reference: 35:24


JFK and the Unspeakable
Time Reference: 35:48


Noam Chomsky discusses 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists
Time Reference: 38:25


Chomsky on 9/11: “Who cares?”
Time Reference: 42:52


Truth in the Academy?
Time Reference: 47:28


Time Reference: 47:37


After Multiple Denials, CIA Admits to Snooping on Noam Chomsky
Time Reference: 54:34


Rethinking Noam Chomsky
Time Reference: 55:48


Reggae Noam Chomsky Classical Old Skool Hip Hop Groove – Oh YES
Time Reference: 35:48


  1. Hey don’t forget that time that Noam decided he would accept fascism to save the world from global warming:

    “Well, if wait for an ecological disaster, it’ll be too late–in fact, we might not even have such a long wait.

    Look, it’s certainly true that as the threats mount, it may energize people–but you don’t wait for that to happen: first you have to prepare the ground. For example, suppose it was discovered tomorrow that the greenhouse effects has been way underestimated, and that the catastrophic effects are actually going to set in 10 years from now, and not 100 years from now or something. Well, given the state of the popular movements we have today, we’d probably have a fascist takeover–with everybody agreeing to it, because that would be the only method for survival that anyone could think of. I’d even agree to it, because there’s just no other alternatives right now.

    *emphasis mine.

    Excerpt from ‘Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky’, pg. 388
    (c) 2002 by Noam Chomsky, Peter Rounds Mitchell, and John Schoeffel

    • Yea, probably good for posterity to add that little “that’s actually their problem” tidbit. I should add the link… on one of the recent comments pages…

    • I find it incredible he’d go so close to talking about false flag attacks and yet he said nothing. What, no obvious examples from recent history sprang to mind?

  2. I’m a bit behind, as I have never heard of the gatekeeper concept. But if Chomsky is one, I would say he has blown his wad of capital with what I just saw. How could any thinking person take him serious anymore.
    It sure is confusing though after listening to all of his discussion on propaganda, which in my mind is the key to seeing the matrix. Show people the key, and then speak jibberish? Who cares??? Total head scratcher.
    Thank you James.

  3. Regarding the part regarding central banks. Chomsky clearly stated that he was arguing from the point of view of the current situation, from a practical point of view. Your remarks make no sense in that context, especially not with regards to “Chomsky’s anarchy”.

    Second point: Chomsky and 9/11. I have three theories for that:

    a) he is old, tired, retired, growing lazy, not willing to look deeper at it, that’s why he is arguing using superficial arguments.

    b) He really believes that from a *practical* point of view (compare first paragraph) it doesn’t matter. He limits his view to all the wars the US is fighting. The US is exploiting the attack, that’s his important point. He simply does not care about the details of the attack.

    c) I think there are two types of exceptionalists: those unabashed ones, who kill and murder in the name of some higher ideal, and who think that this makes every wrong right. People like Lawrence Wilkerson likely think that Cheney is one such type. Then there are exceptionalists like Chomsky. They don’t like murdering in the name of some abstract ideal, but they still think their country is exceptional. Soros seems to be of this type, too – I’m not so sure about his bloody intentions as some other are (if you got concrete evidence, please point them out), he seemed to have provoked some unrest, but I’m not convinced that he actually wanted massacres – otherwise I doubt he would have been as open about his meddlings. BUT – and that is a very important point in my opinion – THEY ALL SUFFER FROM THEIR OWN PROPAGANDA. The difference between Michael Parenti and Noam Chomsky is that Parenti questions the exceptionalism, whereas Chomsky is still defending US exceptionalism with the freedom argument. If you listen to Michael Parenti when he talks about his experience with the Sovjet system, I’m pretty convinced that the true reason why the UdSSR “fell” and why noone saw it coming and why it was totally bloodless is PROPAGANDA. The Sovjet elites believed western propaganda. Western propaganda is SO pervasive that most people just cannot evade it. Everyone in the west has the ability to create propaganda. And it feeds on itself. I even believe that Kissinger believed a lot of the McCarthy era propaganda, and then based his own propaganda on top of it. Sadly, I cannot confirm this with facts, but it seems reasonable to me. If there is some work out there about this, please point me to it.

    Just look at hollywood. Parenti has a nice talk about Hollywood on Youtube. Hollywood is always doing propaganda for the empire, arguments for the exceptionalism. Even where it criticizes people, it’s still framed as a few bad apples.

  4. Chomsky’s reluctance to engage with the facts of the JFK assassination, the truth about the Federal Reserve and 9/11 more than likely stems from his fear of the negative impact this could have on his career. He’s probably neither a “gatekeeper” nor a CIA agent, just somebody with a big name and prestige, with many ardent followers, who doesn’t want to compromise his position as the greatest guru and darling of the liberals, wokers and fake left.

  5. I was fooled by Chomsky years ago. I have gone back and looked at who was gaining influence, but knocked out of our field of attention, at that time. Michael Parenti, for one, comes to mind. We had this discussion last night, and not one person had heard of Parenti.

  6. What a stooge, blather mouth.

Submit a Comment


Become a Corbett Report member