The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 PodcastsKevin Barrett Archive
Andre Vltchek Dead—Murdered by NATO/Zionists?
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
Andre Vltchek and John Cobb, two of the most important voices of the 21st century
Andre Vltchek and John Cobb, two of the most important voices of the 21st century

We just lost one of the world’s greatest journalists…and one of my radio show’s most eloquent and informative regular guests.

Andre Vltchek, globetrotting scourge of the Western power elite, mysteriously dropped dead while riding in a chauffeured car between Samsun and Istanbul. ABC News reports:

Turkish authorities are investigating the death of an American author and journalist who died while traveling overnight from the Turkish Black Sea coastal city of Samsun to Istanbul, Turkey’s state-run news agency reported Tuesday.

Andre Vltchek, 57, and his wife were traveling inside a rented and chauffeured car and arrived in front of their Istanbul hotel at around 5:30 a.m. on Tuesday. His wife tried to wake him up to tell him they had arrived but could not do so, the Anadolu Agency reported.

According to Turkish media, police recorded the case as a “suspicious death.” That is actually quite an understatement. They should have just written “obvious assassination.”

Andre Vltchek’s purpose in life was to royally piss off the people who misrule the world. Based in Lebanon, he was a scourge of the Zionist genocide perpetrators. In places like Latin America, Indonesia, and Thailand, he documented the horrors of US imperial mass murder and destruction of culture, savaging complicit local elites. In “enemy countries” like Iran, Zimbabwe, Eritrea, and North Korea, he reported that contrary to MSM propaganda, the people and economies and built environment and natural environment of such places tended to compare favorably with Western occupied countries.

Above all, Andre Vltchek savaged the American imperialists who have murdered 60 million people in US and CIA interventions since World War II. Below is my VT introduction to Andre’s book (co-written with Noam Chomsky) On Western Terrorism.

Andre Vltchek, you will be grievously missed! May God grant you a high place in Paradise… and may He assist us in sending the scumbags you so fearlessly exposed, especially the ones who killed you, straight to Hellfire.

Chomsky/Vltchek “On Western Terrorism

Richard Falk’s review, introduced by Kevin Barrett

André Vltchek, who has recently been serving as unofficial globe-trotting correspondent for Truth Jihad Radio(see here, here, and here) is the co-author with Noam Chomsky of On Western Terrorism: From Hiroshima to Drone Warfare. I must take a brief break from my usual Chomsky-bashing to point out that On Western Terrorismis a very useful and unusually readable introduction to the authors’ respective worldviews. Chomsky and Vltchek are well-versed in the history of Western war crimes and crimes against humanity, and this small volume could serve as an excellent “gateway drug” for those who are less aware.

Much of the credit for the book’s success goes to Vltchek, who keeps up a lively conversation with Chomsky and spices the book with insights and anecdotes drawn from years of reporting from the the non-Western world.

Before we move on to the lengthy and glowing review by another of my regular radio guests, Richard Falk (see here, here, and here) I must point out that this book (like so much of Chomsky’s work) includes a “poison pill” of 9/11 denial. Here is the offending passage:

Chomsky: …”And you have major cults developing which just draw people away from the real issues, from serious activism. I mean, take the 9/11 Truth Movement – its major impact has been to draw off energy from trying to do anything about the problems that have arisen. It’s easier to sit at the internet and to work through some technical article you don’t understand about whether there are nanothermite traces found in the building WTC-7. It’s easier to do that than organizing protests against the Iraq war – a lot easier. This particular movement is a pretty striking phenomenon. It has quite a lot of outreach. I mean, I wouldn’t be surprised if maybe a third of the population thinks it’s sort of credible. So maybe a third of the population thinks we are governed by homicidal maniacs who want to murder us all. Well, ok, now go back to work, you can’t do anything about it so it’s out of my hands. I don’t think we can just attribute this to the existence of the internet. At least in the US, it’s part of a general decline of faith in institutions, almost any institutions. And that traces to factors much deeper and more pervasive than the internet.

As always, when the subject of 9/11 comes up, Chomsky starts spouting nonsense. In the above passage, he makes a specious comparison between the relative ease of informing oneself about issues the mainstream is lying about, versus the relative difficulty of organizing demonstrations against the evils one discovers once one is informed. Chomsky attempts to deceive his readers by comparing apples (informing yourself about 9/11, not Iraq) and oranges (organizing demonstrations about Iraq, not 9/11).

Having organized demonstrations demanding 9/11 truth, I can assure Chomsky that these are much harder to organize than are antiwar demonstrations, because the entire foundation-funded Zionist-infiltrated Chomsky-worshipping organized/controlled/gatekeeper “left” does everything in its considerable well-funded power to make sure your 9/11 truth demonstration comes to naught.

In fact, if Chomsky and the other left gatekeepers had exposed 9/11 early on, it would have been relatively easy to get tens of millions of Americans into the streets demanding Cheney’s head on a platter, a 95% slash in the Pentagon budget, the termination of the CIA, the end of the US empire, and the end of the Zionist occupation of Palestine. No opportunity for a war on Iraq would have even arisen. Millions of lives would have been saved. Chomsky’s ostensible objectives would have been achieved.

Chomsky – a man we always thought WANTED to end the empire – has another surprise for us: He bemoans “the general decline of faith in institutions, any institutions.” Wait a minute – is this the same Chomsky who has shown that Western media and academia are mendacious propagandists, “manufacturers of consent,” and that government and corporate institutions have perpetrated an invisible holocaust of 55 million people? Now he wants us to have faith in the very institutions whose credibility he has done so much to undermine?

Perhaps the climax of Chomsky’s extreme irrationality in this passage comes when he says that the pro-9/11-truth 1/3rd of the population “thinks we are governed by homicidal maniacs who want to murder us all.” What can this statement possibly mean? On Western Terrorismand the rest of Chomsky’s work is one extended proof that yes, OF COURSE we are ruled by homicidal maniacs. After all, they have murdered 55 to 60 million people around the world during the past half-century. So why are the pro-9/11-truth people crazy to believe exactly what Chomsky believes?

Maybe it’s not crazy to recognize that the masters of empire are homicidal maniacs, but it is crazy to think that they want to “murder us all.” But wait – what does this have to do with the 9/11 truth movement, which argues that the masters of empire, who routinely slaughter millions, sacrificed fewer than 3,000 lives on 9/11 in order to gain a massive strategic advantage?

Chomsky’s caricature of the truth movement’s position as “they want to murder us all” doesn’t make sense – except maybe as a Freudian slip revealing why the truth movement’s position is so much more powerful than that of the Chomsky-kool-aid-drinking foundation-funded left. For it is the very fact that the masters of empire are willing to murder Americans in such outrageous fashion that could cause Americans to rise up against them.

Chomsky grew very angry at me when I explained this to him in the email exchange I will soon be re-publishing. He pretended to be in utter denial of the fact that Americans would obviously react more angrily to the treasonous mass slaughter of their compatriots than to the killings of much larger numbers of foreigners. (Research has shown that mass opposition to the Vietnam war was almost entirely driven by reaction to US casualties, rather than the butchering of millions of Vietnamese.)

Apparently, Chomsky doesn’t want Americans to know that their leaders are perfectly happy to murder them en masse. If they knew that, after all, they might rise up and overthrow the empire. And then Chomsky, who leads a very comfortable and well-remunerated life as the official number one critic of empire, would be out of a job.

The Chomsky/Vltchek Worldview

by Richard Falk

Recently I read On Western Terrorism: from Hiroshima to Drone Warfare, published in 2013 by Pluto Press here in London, and consisting of a series of conversations between Chomsky and the Czech filmmaker, journalist, and author, Andre Vltchek, who is now a naturalized American citizen. Vltchek in an illuminating Preface describes his long and close friendship with Chomsky, and explains that these fascinating conversations took place over the course of two days, and was filmed with the intention of producing a documentary. The book is engaging throughout, with my only big complaint being about the misdirection of the title—there is virtually nothing said about either Hiroshima or drone warfare, but almost everything else politically imaginable!

Vltchek, previously unknown to me, consistently and calmly held his own during the conversations, speaking with comparable authority and knowledge about an extraordinary assortment of topics that embraced the entire global scene, something few of us would have the nerve to attempt, much less manage with such verve, insight, and empathy. After finishing the book my immediate reaction was that ‘Chomsky knows everything’ and ‘Vltchek has been everywhere and done everything.’ Omniscience and omnipresence are not often encountered, being primary attributes commonly attributed by theologians to a monotheistic god! Leaving aside this hyperbole, one is stunned throughout by the quality of the deep knowledge and compassion exhibited by these two public intellectuals, and even more by their deeply felt sympathy for all those being victimized as a result of the way in which the world is organized and Western hard power has been and is being deployed.

The book left me with a sense of how much that even those of us who try to be progressive and informed leave untouched, huge happenings taking place in domains beyond the borders of our consciousness. It suggests that almost all of us are ignoring massive injustices because they receive such scant attention from mainstream media and our access to alternative sources is too restricted. And, maybe also, are capacity for the intake of severe injustice is limited for most of us. The book is well worth reading just to grasp this gap between what we care about and what is actually worth caring about. Somehow, part of what is so amazing about this exposure to the range of concerns that preoccupy Chomsky and Vltchek is the degree to which their knowledge and ethical sensitivity seems so comprehensive without ever appearing to be superficial. How do they find the time, perseverance, and energy? Of course, it helps to be blessed with high intelligence, clarity of spirit, astonishing retentive gifts, and a seeming refusal to sleep, rest, and recreate (which was among the traits I found so intimidating long ago in Noam’s Vietnam writing, my first encounters with his political thought, having earlier been awed by his revolutionary linguistics approach).

While appearing to be on an equal footing throughout this dialogic text, Vltchek does acknowledge his reverential admiration for Chomsky, this extraordinary iconic American intellectual who has remained situated on the front lines of global critical debate for the past half century. In Vltchek’s words: “”The way I saw it, we were fighting for the same cause, for the right of self-determination and real freedom for all people around the world. And we were fighting against colonialism and fascism, in whichever form it came.” “For Noam, fighting injustice seemed to be as natural as breathing. For me, it became both a great honor and great adventure to work with him.” (ix) Vltchek believes that the lines of inspiration beneath a photo of the great English scholar/seer/activitst, Betrand Russell, which hangs ion the wall in Chomsky’s MIT office are also descriptive of what drives Chomsky to such heights: “”Three passions, simple but overwhelmingly strong have governed my life: the longing for love, the search for knowledge, and unbearable pity for the suffering of mankind.” (vi, xv).

Vltchek shares with Chomsky an outlook that interprets the world on the basis of a deep structure of moral and political indictment directed at Western imperialism. Vltchek expresses this shared understanding clearly: “After witnessing and analyzing numerous atrocious conflicts, invasions and wars on all continents, I became convinced that almost all of them were orchestrated or provoked by Western geopolitical and economic interests.” (ix). The extent and gravity of the accusations is expressed statistically by Vltchek: “Along with the 55 million or so people killed as the direct result of wars initiated by the West, pro-Western coups and other conflicts, hundreds of millions have died indirectly in absolute misery, and silently.” (1) Chomsky agrees, wondering about which is the worst crime that should be attributed to the West, positing the destruction of the 80-100 indigenous people living in the Western Hemisphere before the European settlers arrived, as one option. In reflecting upon this, he abruptly shifts direction by observing, “..we are moving toward what may in fact be the ultimate genocide—the destruction of the environment.”(2) Chomsky laments that despite the overwhelming evidence of this self-destructive momentum, the challenge continues to be largely ignored by the public and the government, even in the face of dire warnings from the scientific community. The capitalist obsession with profits and capital accumulation, combined with psycho-political control over the dissemination of knowledge in even the most democratic of societies, makes it almost impossible to ‘see’ these threatening dimensions of social, economic, and political reality.

In a sense these conversations are an extended intellectual journey through the cartography of victimization brought about by Western colonial and post-colonial undertakings. Vltchek says early on “Colonialism continues but it appears that it is much more difficult for local people to point the finger and say exactly what is happening and who their enemies are.” (6) Chomsky responds “Some of the worst atrocities in the world have been committed over the last few years in the Eastern Congo. Three to five million people have been killed.” Aside from the magnitude of such a catastrophe what is so startling is its relative invisibility. This process of horrifying violence and unawareness is deeply troubling to both Chomsky and Vltchek. Chomsky repeatedly, and tellingly, refers to such victims as ‘un-people,’ those in non-Western realms whose death and suffering barely register on Western consciousness unless there are self-interested geopolitical reasons in a particular context to take non-Western suffering seriously. Both of these authors also view such tragedies as outcomes of global corporate greed, the struggle for control of Africa’s abundant natural resources leading these private sector actors to fund factions and militias that are out front, doing the fighting and killing. The true culprits hide behind curtains of evasion to remain invisible to the public. The media is shockingly complicit by reporting only on what is in view, avoiding critical investigative journalism. Chomsky and Vltchek help us to realize that an array of powerful forces are using their wealth and influence to prevent us from seeing. We are allowed to see only as much as the gatekeepers of the public mind want us to see, and yet we are not relieved from using our capacities for sight. Reading Chomsky and Vltchek removes the scales from our eyes, at least temporarily, as they have managed to elude these gatekeepers, but at considerable risk, with a display of moral courage, civic responsibility, and extraordinary intellectual energy. I learn a lesson in civics from their vigilance: as citizens of constitutional democracies we retain the freedom, and hence possess a heavy responsibility to see for ourselves what is being done in our name, and not being content by becoming informed about distant victimizations, but learning to heed above all those that are proximate, and once we see what is nearby, we have a responsibility to act.

Without venturing onto the terrain of ‘Orientalism’ the conversations are sensitive to what Chomsky refers to as “intellectual and moral colonization” that reinforces patterns of “political and economic colonization.” In this regard, he goes on to observe that “The main achievement of hierarchy and oppression is to get the un-people to accept that it’s natural.”(17), that is, to induce passivity and resignation among the ranks of the victimized. The moral consciousness of the perpetrators is also deliberately neutralized. When Chomsky inquires as to whether Europeans have “any consciousness of colonial history” Vltchek responds: “No, grotesquely there is very little consciousness.” He adds that such ignorance is “shameful and revealing”: “Europeans make sure that they remain ignorant of their horrid crimes, about the genocides they committed and are still involved in. What do they know about what their governments and companies were and are doing in DR Congo?” (20)

But just as the devil resides in the details, so too do angels of perceptions many of whom inhabit the pages of this book, and a few can be briefly mentioned here. The conversations weave a fabric of awareness that shifts back and forth between lamenting inattention and denial to the exposure of occurrences and realities that are unfamiliar yet crucially revealing. Without extending this commentary too much further, let me note some of the areas of agreement between Chomsky and Vltchek that corrected or collided with my own understanding. First, the comparison between China and India in which China is praised almost without reservation and India is condemned almost without qualification, surprisingly close to the approach taken by that arch consevative V.S. Naipaul [See Naipaul’s India, A Wounded Civilization(1977)] Their essential argument is that India is exceptionally cruel in its cultural practices, and has done relatively little to alleviate poverty, while China has made extraordinary progress that is spread widely throughout the country. Both confirm, contrary to Western propaganda and consistent with what I also experienced during a visit a year ago, that young university students in China seem fearless, raising sensitive controversial issues in public venues. In effect, India gets too much credit in the West because it possesses the trappings of liberal democracy, while China’s achievements are downplayed because socialist values are mixed with predatory capitalist practices. My own love of India has blinded, or at least numbed me, to the worst of India, and has consistently thrilled me with its cultural vibrancy and rich heritage, which included Gandhi and his incredible mobilization of a militant nonviolent challenge to the then still mighty British Empire.

The two conversationalists agree that the most encouraging political moves in the world from a progressive perspective have been made in Latin America. There are political experiments, as in Bolivia and Venezuela, that express the energies of a socialist populism with original regional and national features, and there is an encouraging set of hemispheric moves to repudiate the main signs of a crippling past dependency on the United States. Chomsky and Vltchek point out that in Latin America, and Asia, the United States has supported vicious and repressive political forces so as to secure the wealth generating interests of corporate America, personified by what might be called ‘the United Fruit Syndrome,’ or more popularly, the perpetuation of ‘banana republics.’ A telling argument made in the book is that the military dictatorships in Latin America that the U.S. helped install and sustain in the 1970s and 1980s were far more oppressive and exploitative of their populations than were the Stalinist governments in control of East Europe during the Cold War decades.

There is agreement among the authors that the heroes of the liberal establishment should be recast as villains. Two such exemplary individuals are Winston Churchill, reviled here for his criminal outlook toward African colonial peoples, and George Kennan, who is portrayed as a leading architect of the American global domination project put into operational form during the period of American ascendancy soon after World War II. Part of this exercise of demonization by Chomsky and Vltchek is to illustrate the mind games of liberal hegemonic ideology that treat such political luminaries as paragons of moral virtue. It continues the tradition of critical perception of the ruling elites that Chomsky so brilliantly set forth in American Power and The New Mandarins back in 1969.

Chomsky and Vltchek both persuasively accord great significance to the almost forgotten Indonesian massacre of 1965 in which more than a million people were sacrificed in a massive bloodbath designed to clear the way for a neoliberal takeover of the wealth producing capacity of the country. The governments of the United States and Australia have much blood on their hands in encouraging this atrocity, and its aftermath that included genocidal incidents in East Timor. The authors are negative about Asia other than China, supposing that it has swallowed a huge dose of poisonous cool aid called ‘neoliberalism.’

Such illustrative discussion just scratches the surface of these exceptionally perceptive conversations. It would be misleading to suggest that these two progressive interpreters of the whole world were in complete agreement. Chomsky is somewhat more tentative about developments in Turkey or in writing the obituary of the Arab Spring than is Vltchek who seems less nuanced in some of his commentary. Chomsky welcomes improvements and positive trends, while Vltchek believes that only structural change can make a sufficient difference to bring real hope to oppressed peoples.

In a similar vein, Chomsky seems more convinced than in the past that keeping hope alive is almost a duty expressive of solidarity with those currently victimized. More than before Chomsky is articulate about his belief that without the belief that positive change is possible, there will be no challenge mounted against an intolerable status quo.

The book ends with Chomsky depicting two trajectories for the human future: either a continuation of ecological sleep leading to species suicide or an awakening to the ecological challenge, with accompanying improvements. (173) As Chomsky has aged, although far more gradually than is normal, he has somewhat mellowed, and seems less pessimistic and assured overall than when I first came to know him in the late 1960s. I would say that Chomsky’s maturity has endowed him wisdom that acts as a complement to his astonishing command over the specifics of the whole spectrum of political concerns. This substantive authoritativeness set him apart long ago as our foremost intellectual and most beloved commentator on the passing scene of world events, but now he has also become a ‘wise elder,’ and whose views of the world deserves the greatest respect from all of us.

(Republished from Truth Jihad by permission of author or representative)
Hide 66 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. anon[160] • Disclaimer says:

    Good riddance, couldn’t stand that commie bastard.

  2. jsinton says:

    Dr. Barrett likes to jump the gun on conspiracy theories, like last month and his epic rant on the Beirut port blast being a Zionist nuke attack. Any casual viewing of the video evidence clearly shows a huge fire in the warehouse next door was more than enough to ignite the ammonium nitrate that the idiot Lebanese kleptocracy had left for 7 years. Here he screams “assassination” without a shred of proof. Just a hunch. While I don’t discount his “assassination” conspiracy theory, and believe it happens a lot, a more sane observer might wait for a little more information, no? Kinda blows all credibility when you scream “assassins” when you know nothing other than the news blurb, yes?

  3. Although I, too, mourn Andre’s passing, it must be kept in mind that not too long ago Andre suffered a very terrible, life-threatening bout of nutritional depletion, requiring long hospitalization. Such episodes can and do cause permanent damage to various organ systems, and many times silently, as with Andre’s health debacle. He never saw it coming. Few do.

    I want to believe it was simply the incredible stress of such an extraordinary life that took Andre away from the world so prematurely. I strongly suspect so, given his history.

    If not, and if he was poisoned, let us hope the Turkish authorities quickly apprehend those responsible.

    Unlike with the Russian neo-lib traitor, Navalny, if Andre was poisoned, the EU leadership and Western MSM will be strangely silent, especially if any of the usual suspects turns out to be involved……

    • Agree: Alternate History
    • Replies: @JasonT
  4. Chris Moore says: • Website

    Apparently, Chomsky doesn’t want Americans to know that their leaders are perfectly happy to murder them en masse. If they knew that, after all, they might rise up and overthrow the empire. And then Chomsky, who leads a very comfortable and well-remunerated life as the official number one critic of empire, would be out of a job.

    What you write about Chomsky is true of nearly all liberal and Marxist Jews, who in reality work for the international Zionist rackets, an apparatus of Empire, playing the People. These Jews are the original confidance man, experts at hoodwinking left-wing rubes who think they’re “intellectuals,” and, as neocons, right-wing patriots.

    • Agree: Pheasant
    • Thanks: Alternate History
    • Replies: @Druid
    , @Loup-Bouc
  5. @anon

    This spiritual darkness is why America cannot last.

    And everyone in the world knows it.

    • Agree: Patagonia Man, Iris, Tor597
    • Replies: @anon
    , @GeneralRipper
  6. anon[160] • Disclaimer says:
    @Luther Blisst

    I’m not American, I just hate Bolshevists, and there’s no doubt Vltscheck was one.

  7. JasonT says:
    @Mustapha Mond

    The EU leadership and Western MSM will be silent on Vltchek’s death, not because it is strange but because her barely registers with them. However, I do agree with the rest of your assessment.

    While I liked Vltchek’s commentary, he was not widely known outside the alternative media and was never really a threat to the powers that be.

  8. Chomsky lost all credibility with his silence about 9-11. No “respected” intellectual can ignore the clear evidence, but that’s just what Chomsky has done. Barrett obviously knows this since he is so focused on 9-11 for the last 20 years. so I find it absurd that he is babbling on and on about Chomsky right now. Or at any time.

    Chomsky is a fraud. A man of his stature could have easily brought much needed attention to the 9-11 anomalies. He has had absolutely nothing to lose since he is so old he’s soon going to drop dead anyway. His stature on the left as a “towering” mind would have thrown the left into hysterics, and he would have added considerable weight to the claims of groups like AE911 and Richard Gage.

    But no. Chomsky has only been submissively silent or worse. Why Barrett would promote Chomsky beggars belief. Simply an astounding bit of idiocy.

    • Agree: Pheasant
    • Disagree: Robert Konrad
    • Replies: @Druid
    , @ariadna
    , @Robert Konrad
  9. @jsinton

    Of course it was a Zionist nuke (a bomb in a suitcase type deal)

    In the City of London’s banksters maniacal quest for Eretz Y’israel (from the R. Nile in Egypt to the R. Euphrates Syria-Iraq) see Genesis 15:18

    … that the zionist entity’s occupation over portions of southern Lebanon until 1984 and later with the South Lebanon Army, until the year 2000

    … that the explosion occurred the day before the UN Special Tribunal on Lebanon (STL) was scheduled to hand down its rulings on the 2005 Rafiri assassination – (btw, it doesnt take 15 years to establish who the assassins were – from yet another bomb blast)

    … that ex-Rothschild banker Macron was at the crime scene the day after the blast (and has made 3 inspections in total)

    … that the Deep State got Trump to claim it was an attack in order to discredit the claim

    … that the IMF refused to loan Lebanon $4billion unless the country made “reforms” to its political structure – holding the country to ransom during the COVID ‘plandemic’

    all of which expose that the attack was a Zionist-inspired operation – the ammonia nitrate being the cover.

    Don’t believe me???

    Why does the Israeli folk song Hava Nagila, sung at jew celebrations start playing after this bomb blast in this scene from the dystopian film ‘Brazil’ produced by zionist Arnon Milchan

    Its just a little joke that the Pharisaic jews love to play on us goyim – by rubbing our noses in it!

    Now we can all sit back and have a good laugh!

    • Replies: @Iris
    , @MarkU
  10. @JasonT

    You: “he … was never really a threat to the powers that be.”

    Don’t be so sure – the Truth is a powerful weapon!

    If the PTB are prepared to go to the trouble of giving him the run around, to wit:

    “Weeks ago a Dutch NGO fooled me, asking [me] to go to Aruba to expose NATO threats against Venezuela, robbing me, leaving me without promised financial backing, contacts. This now happens regularly. I am expected to sacrifice my life for the glory of others! Bastards!”

    … he must have been doing something right (from the POV of humanity – that’s you and me folks!)


  11. @anon

    80 – 85% of Bolsheviks were jew – they hated Christians and they hated Russians.


  12. anon[327] • Disclaimer says:

    I appreciated some of AV’s writings but
    he really hated Christians, Christianity.

    Only Jew and the ignorant have such deep hatred.

    Wrote to him, only once, few years back.
    Blocked me and called me a Nazi.

    Still, a shock and sad to hear of his death.

    Chomsky is a weasel shepherd
    who leads his sheep astray.

    Ever wonder how he is still around after
    so many revelations of US govt crimes?
    He gets creds from these writings.

    Like Soros, connected.

    • Agree: Pheasant
  13. Druid says:

    F’er. Beirut bombing was clearly zio. You are getting stale in that basement. Come up for air,mor r u zionatzis still under lockdown?

  14. Druid says:
    @Chris Moore

    These guys like Chomsky think they’re smart in all fields when they are educated in only one. He was a linguist and should have remained one. Anyone can read as well as him, so his opinions don’t matter more than others. He is just another junuplifted by his tribe’s reach!

    • Replies: @Robert Konrad
  15. Druid says:

    Chomsky is a member of the tribe. Don’t you get it! 2000 years of evidence!

    • Replies: @restless94110
  16. Glen says:

    I truly admired Andre’s work and have been inspired by it. This is the saddest news I have heard this year.

    • Agree: Robert Konrad
  17. @Druid

    What I don’t get is how a super truther Barrett is lauding Chomsky,, an addled senile Denier.

    • Replies: @Rev. Spooner
  18. Iris says:
    @Patagonia Man

    Of course it was a Zionist nuke (a bomb in a suitcase type deal)

    Probably a little bigger than that, to cater for the size of an Electromagnetic Flux Generator assembly capable of delivering the current required to trigger a thermonuclear fusion reaction. A crate in the order of 2 cubic meters probably would have done the job.

    Such crate would have been easy enough to introduce and hide in the large Warehouse 12.
    Incidentally, photo of such crate with unknown content and provenance had been shown on Lebanese TV MTV Lebanon. Watch the video:–cJO_XT-t21hlhiWzbIrdVivwjiGhdC4dwTs

    • Thanks: Pheasant, Patagonia Man
  19. @jsinton

    I just updated this article with Peter Koenig’s report that Andre’s health had deteriorated during the past month, and that his wife thinks he died a natural death.

    Even if that is the case, which we will probably never know for sure, I think any sane person’s first reaction to the report of Andre’s death is indeed the question I asked in the headline: “murdered by NATO/Zionists?” (I should have added the Saudis.)

    When a Russian journalist makes powerful enemies in the Kremlin and the Russian oligarchy and dies relatively young, the Western MSM automatically blames Putin. But when someone like Andre makes even more powerful enemies among the Western oligarchy and then suddenly dies in their 50s, we are not supposed to ask the obvious questions?!

    • Replies: @Exile
  20. Chomsky is right about the Truth movement. The truth about 9/11 isn’t a whodunit but millions and millions whodidnot.

    The Truth movement didn’t end the War on Terrifying toddlers did it?

  21. Also happened in Turkey? Could this be a mirror-imagine assassination?

  22. @JasonT

    He’s unknown to Europeans

  23. ariadna says:

    “Chomsky lost all credibility with his silence about 9-11.”
    AND with his laughable insistence on the claim that the Jewish lobby is less powerful than … AARP.

    • Agree: Robjil, restless94110
  24. Exile says: • Website
    @Kevin Barrett

    Kevin, I’m not always on the same page with you but I think you’re sincere and I very much appreciate and want to thank you for having the integrity to post this update and admit that you may have jumped the gun (but not necessarily did, yet to be shown).

    Too many writers & commentators are so ego and brand-invested that they won’t admit that they might be wrong. To my way of thinking this undermines their credibility rather than enhancing it.

    I’m on your page with this suspicious death – suspecting the worst has been proven a sound heuristic when dealing with the Israel/US/NATO bloc, even more so since 9/11. Still, it takes a man – and an honest man at that – to handle your business as you are in this. All credit to you and thanks again.

    • Agree: Iris
  25. Smith says:

    I have beef with him, particular his coverage in HK, which seems very dishonest and trouble-seeking, and his China dick-sucking.

    But otherwise, RIP.

  26. MarkU says:
    @Patagonia Man

    Of course it was a Zionist nuke (a bomb in a suitcase type deal)

    Oh no not that total garbage again. Clearly you are the kind of fool that thinks research is finding a website that tells you want you want to hear and, hey presto, now you are qualified to spout on the subject. Do you want to believe that the world is flat or that is only really 6,000 years old? Easy, just find an appropriate website, with the appropriate ‘sciency’ sounding jargon and bingo, your view is vindicated by ‘experts’ who will have links to other ‘experts’ backing them up.

    A nuclear explosion is NOT a gadget or a device, it is a fundamental physical process, it will have certain totally inescapable characteristics, regardless of how it is triggered. No advances in technology will ever change the fundamental characteristics of a physical process, it is literally impossible. An analogous example would be combustion (an exothermic chemical reaction)

    We have used combustion for thousands of years but the fundamental characteristics of combustion have not changed in all that time. We can trigger it in a variety of ways and we can use it for all manner of clever things but it will always have a set of fundamental characteristics that will never change. You will never read, for example, that a warehouse in your city burned down but nobody noticed because someone invented a new type of fire that produced the same heat as a normal fire but no light, so nobody noticed the flames.

    The most obvious and totally inescapable feature of a nuclear explosion is the heat, absolutely mind boggling temperatures are created, else there would be no explosion. We are talking about typical temperatures of 100,000,000 degrees centigrade. Along with those temperatures we have totally inescapable emissions of electromagnetic radiation and at those temperatures we are talking high energy ultraviolet radiation, reaching into the X-ray spectrum. The most powerful nukes ever created could emit gamma radiation, which make X-rays look mild in comparison.

    So now to Beirut.

    There was no evidence whatsoever of the sorts of temperatures inescapably associated with nuclear explosions.

    No glassification at the site of the explosion.

    The flash of light produced was orange suggesting the very moderate temperatures associated with chemical explosions. A nuclear explosion would produce a blue/white flash, indeed most of the flash would be invisible to the naked eye.

    No evidence of anyone with radiation sickness (NOTE. When people talk of ‘clean’ nukes, they are talking ‘clean’ in the sense of minimal long-lasting nuclear fallout, they most certainly do NOT mean the absence of a burst of extremely short wave radiation during the initial explosion) a big dose of high frequency electromagnetic radiation WILL cause radiation sickness. (NOTE. short wave and high frequency are the same thing)

    Lastly, a nuclear explosion WILL leave detectable tell-tale traces in the form of short-lived isotopes that do not occur normally on earth in any significant quantities. Let us just say that alone should deter even the Israelis from using nukes.

    Regrettably nothing is likely to deter scientifically illiterate pseudo-intellectuals from arguing the toss on the matter but such is life.

    If Kevin Barrett is reading this (and I really hope that he is) I say again please stay out of scientific subjects until you have taken council with someone who has an appropriate education in the sciences. Also, anyone who does not understand that there are absolute limits on what can be achieved by science and technology, does not understand science.

    • Replies: @Iris
  27. Iris says:

    The most obvious and totally inescapable feature of a nuclear explosion is the heat, absolutely mind boggling temperatures are created

    Evidence of such mind boggling temperatures was the white, immense ring of vaporised water rising around the explosion location:


    Along with those temperatures we have totally inescapable emissions of electromagnetic radiation and at those temperatures we are talking high energy ultraviolet radiation, reaching into the X-ray spectrum. The most powerful nukes ever created could emit gamma radiation, which make X-rays look mild in comparison.

    You are talking about fission nuclear reactions. A well-designed fusion nuclear reaction will release nothing of the sort, (almost) not even neutrons.

    The most likely candidates for aneutronic fusion reactions are (Deuterium, Helium) or (Deuterium, Lithium):

    2D + 3He → 4He (3,6 MeV) + p+ (14,7 MeV)
    2D + 6Li → 2 4He + 22,4 MeV

    The only by-product is harmless Helium, a constituant of ordinary ambiant air.

    No glassification at the site of the explosion.

    You don’t know about that. The quantity of glassified material is dependent on the yield of the detonation, and on what material was in its immediate vicinity. It has all sank into the sea now. How do you know there is no glassified concrete at the bottom of the water-filled, 43-meter deep crater with tons of debris inside it?

    No evidence of anyone with radiation sickness

    Lastly, a nuclear explosion WILL leave detectable tell-tale traces in the form of short-lived isotope

    No radiations or isotopes result from pure fusion reactions ( except for the tiny fraction of imperfect reactions that’ll release neutrons).

    Also, anyone who does not understand that there are absolute limits on what can be achieved by science and technology, does not understand science.

    Pure, “clean” undetectable thermonuclear weapons, with no radiaoctive fallout, have been under development since 2006. There is a difference between something that does not exist, and something us, the dumb public, are not told about.

    Last year, the nation’s top nuclear weapons managers packed a high-security auditorium at Los Alamos, elbow-to-elbow, and donned 3-D glasses to watch a classified simulation of the new hydrogen bomb.

    • Thanks: Patagonia Man
    • Replies: @MarkU
    , @glib
  28. MarkU says:

    You are talking about fission nuclear reactions. A well-designed fusion nuclear reaction will release nothing of the sort, (almost) not even neutrons.


    No radiations or isotopes result from pure fusion reactions


    Pure, “clean” undetectable thermonuclear weapons, with no radiaoctive fallout, have been under development since 2006.

    I actually said…

    When people talk of ‘clean’ nukes, they are talking ‘clean’ in the sense of minimal long-lasting nuclear fallout, they most certainly do NOT mean the absence of a burst of extremely short wave radiation during the initial explosion)

    So strawman garbage

    Sorry but you are talking total shit, you don’t have a clue.

    • Replies: @Iris
  29. glib says:

    Thank you Iris. I also want to point out that the commenter you replied to describes an explosion in the open. An explosion under some material will have sufficient dust and in this case water vapor to attenuate (block) any of the hard photons he describes. Ammonium nitrate also has sufficient neutron stopping power to moderate and absorb all extra neutrons in the immediate area.

    • Replies: @MarkU
  30. MarkU says:

    I am not going to waste any more time talking to the scientifically illiterate because it is too painful to read the garbage they spout, anyone who is interested in the subject could start with this…

    After that, go off to a proper science site if you are still interested.

    It really is getting ridiculous these days, everyone is a climatologist, nuclear physicist, virologist whatever. I am sick of pompous pseudo-intellectuals holding forth on science subjects when most of them couldn’t pass a basic general science exam intended for 16 year olds. I am sick of seeing cut and paste snippets posted by people who really don’t know enough to understand the basics of the articles they are nicked from or the context in which they are presented.

    And what is it about? We already know there was 2,700 tons of explosives at the site, isn’t that enough for you? Why invent that ridiculous theory about a nuke?

    • Replies: @glib
  31. Iris says:

    Five “sentences”, out of which four contained insults. I don’t have time to waste so this will be my last reply to you.

    Any idiot can verify by themselves, browsing on the Internet, that past the threshold of 500 million degree °Kelvin , aneutronic “clean” fusion reactions that release neither neutrons nor radioactivity become possible.

    In 2006, the Los Alamos Sandia Laboratories managed to accidentally provoke a fusion reaction at 3 billion °Kelvin (3,000 million degrees), a temperature that enables the fusion of Lithium/Hydrogen (requires 0.5 billion degree K) or Bore/Hydrogen (requires 1 billion degree K). The by-product would be only harmless Helium nuclei He4.

    Unbeknownst to the public, and to you clearly, “clean” nuclear thermonuclear weapons with no radioactive fallout, just a seismic signature, have been developed for the last 14 years thanks to a major breakthrough allowing aneutronic fusion. Try to read more and insult less. Good day.

    • Replies: @MarkU
  32. glib says:

    I navigated to the site you indicated, and it only described explosions in the open. Tragically, it described also only fission-based explosions. It did not even bother to discuss explosions under layers of strong neutron moderators and absorbers. It did not describe attenuation of all that radiation in materials other than air. What are you, a bachelor in engineering? Or a Popular Mechaincs subscriber?

    • Replies: @MarkU
  33. MarkU says:

    OK, one more try.

    All hot objects emit electromagnetic radiation.

    The higher the temperature the shorter the wavelength/higher the frequency of the peak of the radiation emitted. On the graph in the link provided you will see this principle illustrated. At the bottom you will see a couple of examples. This is something we all know, something that is red hot is cooler than something that is white hot. To the left of the graph, left of the blue part of the visible spectrum is ultra violet, to the left of that is X-rays and at the far left would be gamma rays. I hope you are with me so far. Our two examples were a red star at 3,400 degrees and a blue star at 10, 000 degrees, notice that we have shifted the peak of the radiation curve quite a long way to the left. Now imagine how far to the left the radiation curve is going to be when the temperature is (say) 100, 000,000 degrees. Yes a very very long way to the left.

    At 100, 000,000 degrees centigrade the radiation emitted is going to include a very significant quantity of X-rays and masses of very nasty ultraviolet. It is completely irrelevant how those temperatures are attained, fission explosion, fusion explosion or even a huge input of energy from a laser beam. The fact is that, whatever it is, at those temperatures X-rays are emitted. Have you got that? Anything at all at a temperature of 100, 000, 000 degrees centigrade is going to emit X-rays.

    Anyone not convinced? then just type in electromagnetic spectrum and temperature and you will find the same thing stated on every site you go to.

    Essentially, the emission of hard radiation is an inescapable feature of anything at those temperatures. Fusion explosions are NOT clean in that regard, they cannot be and never will be.

    • Replies: @Iris
  34. MarkU says:

    You are wrong, what you fail to understand is that the article is talking about nuclear explosions in general. It doesn’t matter at all whether it is a fission explosion (an A-bomb) or a fusion explosion (an H-bomb) OK? It doesn’t matter whether the explosion is an air burst, a ground burst or an underground or underwater explosion. The article doesn’t specify fission, fusion or location, you know why? because a nuclear explosion is a nuclear explosion is a nuclear explosion, OK? This is a point I have been trying to make from the very beginning. Yes you can tweak it some with various designs to maximise this, minimise that, but ultimately they all work on the same basic principle. A nuclear reaction is used to generate a massive quantity of energy and staggeringly high temperatures. This produces a massive explosion and a burst of electromagnetic radiation, inherent in those temperatures. See my response to Iris’s latest for more info on that.

    I really don’t know where you got the notion that a fusion explosion can be free of hard radiation but you are utterly misguided. True to say that long-term radiation (as in radioactive fallout) can be minimised ( never completely eliminated) but a burst of hard electromagnetic radiation is inherent in the temperatures required.

    Your snarky mention of popular mechanics was not wasted on me btw because I am a 9/11 truther.

    • Replies: @glib
  35. @anon

    Keep hating. You have nothing else left.

  36. glib says:

    I do not fail anything. Explosions that are way underground show no photons and very little radioactive nuclei. Explosions that are in the open are described by article (fission type). Explosions under varying amounts of material will look somewhere in between. The matter at hand is what happens when you may have meters of concrete, nitrogen, and hydrogen between you and the explosion.

    The latter two have specific nuclear properties, whereas pulverized concrete can certainly block all UV and blue light at least. And I can imagine what may happen because I am in a related scientific field and have worked with nuclear radiation for decades. But without a simulation I can not.
    We do not even know if it was a fusion or fission device, as Iris points out, nor if someone went around Beirut with a Geiger counter afterwards.

    • Replies: @Iris
  37. @Druid

    “These guys like Chomsky think they’re smart in all fields when they are educated in only one.”

    Nobody claims, certainly not Chomsky, that “these guys” think they’re smart in “all fields.” Chomsky reached the undisputed pinnacle in linguistic research by developing a theory of transformational grammar. Then, he moved on to political science to expose American imperialism and American mass murders in Vietnam and other (countless) countries. In this venture, he also excelled. Not bad for one person. What can you (or anybody you know) offer that would come even close to Chomsky’s accomplishments? A rhetorical question, of course.

    • Agree: Loup-Bouc
    • Replies: @anon
  38. Iris says:

    OK, one more try.

    Please, don’t even bother trying as I have nothing to learn from somebody who does not understand such a fundamental difference between electromagnetic waves and particles.

    Seen from our non-quantum scale:
    – Electromagnetic waves are a form of energy and all of them, including X Rays, travel at the speed of light (3×10^8 m/sec or 300 million meters per second in vacuum), i.e. extremely fast.
    – Radioactive fallout is mostly matter, which is going to move like matter particulate do: be carried by the wind and other hydrodynamic forces , be trapped in airborne water vapour, fall under its own weight, etc, i.e. extremely slowly.

    After a fusion nuclear detonation, the electromagnetic waves would have “lasted” for only a few seconds. So unless somebody with foreknowledge of the Beirut bombing had been hovering above with a Geiger counter, you have no way of knowing whether there was or there was no X rays. They would have disappeared too fast in the atmosphere.

    Assuming an aneutronic fusion reaction, there would have been no radioactive fallout, only perhaps a marginal quantity of neutrons resulting from a tiny fraction of imperfect reactions. (May be this was the short radioactive spike measured by a lab somewhere in Cyprus/Sicily and quickly covered up).

    In the case of fission nuclear detonation, there is indeed long-lasting emission of Gamma rays in particular, which are captured and re-emitted by the by-products of the explosion over a period of weeks/months, possibly years, under secondary radiation effect. But this is specific to fission and does not apply to a fusion reaction.

    Fission and fusion are very different phenomena: no need to post more nonsense.

  39. Iris says:

    Hello and thanks for reading.
    If the Beirut detonation was of nuclear nature, then it could only have been a new type of “pure” fusion thermonuclear weapon, a “clean” weapon leaving no radioactivity behind.

    A fission (A) bomb, or a traditional fusion (H) bomb using fission as trigger, would both have left unmissable, long-lasting radioactive fallout in the aftermath.

    What some have been saying (Thierry Meyssan, Gordon Duff), is that such new, undetectable “clean” fusion nuclear weapons, dialed down at will, have been developed by the US, unbeknownst to the public.

    By doing some research, one finds this to be a very plausible thesis made possible by a 2006 technological breakthrough, where an experiment resulted in an accidental fusion reaction:

    • Replies: @MarkU
  40. anon[327] • Disclaimer says:
    @Robert Konrad

    The Noam misdirects, deceives, leads astray
    disregards, with the best of ’em. Maybe the best.

    Fifty, sixty years of gate keeping.

    And CIA, AIPAC funding.

    • Replies: @Loup-Bouc
  41. MarkU says:

    You finally made a statement I can agree with. You are evidently correct, you will never learn anything from me (nor anyone else who isn’t telling you want you want to hear)

    For people who might be unaware of the origin of the dispute, it all started with an article by Gordon Duff of Veterans Today in which he claimed that the recent explosion in Beirut was actually caused by a nuclear device. Kevin Barrett then published an article on the subject here on Unz Review

    An argument ensued and quickly formed into two main camps :-

    Against, two main arguments.

    1) Occam’s razor. We already knew of 2,700 tons of mining grade explosive, the nuke was superfluous.
    2) My argument. In a nuclear explosion fundamental natural processes are at work with inescapable characteristics which would inevitably leave discernible evidence. There was no evidence at all that a nuclear explosion had occurred.

    For, one main argument:-

    That a new super-secret form of nuke might have been developed that left no evidence.

    The arguments carried over to the next article by Kevin Barrett but then petered out, not to be mentioned again (or so I thought)

    Cut to the present thread.

    As I see it there are two main scenarios:-

    1) Beirut was nuked, the worlds scientists were silent. OK the NATO ones and the Israeli ones were unlikely to speak out. But what of the Russian scientists, the Chinese and especially the Iranians? Surely in the whole world there should have been some scientist somewhere with who noticed and was prepared to announce “that was a nuke that was” (I haven’t heard one mentioned anyway)
    The perpetrators would have gotten clean away with it if it wasn’t for those meddling kids.
    Yes, Gordon Duff-webmaster extraordinaire, the commenters known only as Patagonia man, Iris and Glib arrive to save the day, to expose the nefarious and murderous plot. They succeed where the worlds foremost scientific experts have so signally failed. We must confront those so-called experts and demand to know why they were silent in the face of all the evidence.

    The likely Modus Operandi is coming into focus. It seems to have been a suitcase nuke (Patagonia man) detonated either behind the 2,700 tons of explosives or deep underground (Glib) The existence of the super secret traceless nuke has been exposed by Iris by the simple expedient of downloading stuff from the internet and pasting stuff in arguments with me. And what of me? Kevin Barrett himself suggested that I was likely a shill, probably working for the Israelis, though he wasn’t specific on that point.

    Scenario 2

    Beirut wasn’t nuked, the explosion was caused by 2,700 tons of mining grade ammonium nitrate set off by the fire in the fireworks warehouse next door.
    The world’s scientists are not incompetent after all.
    Gordon Duff occasionally prints utter garbage.
    Patagonia man has watched too many James Bond movies.
    Iris and Glib are not experts in nuclear power at all, whatever they think.
    And I am just a single, ageing, poverty stricken, unemployed science graduate in the UK who is quietly going mad because I have been more or less in solitary confinement for the last 5 months and have nothing better to do than argue the toss with scientifically semi-literate individuals who are spouting conspiratorial garbage.

    I leave it to the reader to decide which is the more likely scenario, my own opinion is obvious. In some respects scenario 1 would be preferable though. At least that way I would get paid for this.

    And finally I would like to thank Kevin Barrett for allowing me to say my piece. Free speech is very important in my opinion, it is why I come here to the Unz review in the first place. Although I don’t always agree with Kevin he has never censored me, which is more than I can say for Steve Sailor or the Saker. Keep it up Kevin, you are OK in my books.

  42. Parbes says:

    I agree there is at least a significant possibility that Andre Vltchek was murdered, via poisoning or some other means. But if he really was, then it’s curious how Kevin Barrett doesn’t even mention the likelihood of the Turkish Erdogan regime, either acting alone or with the collusion of the Anglo-Zionist secret services, as being the likely perpetrator of this assassination. The incident took place in Turkey, after all – and Vltchek was a strident, non-word mincing critic of the Turkish state and regime, along with all the other U.S.-and-NATO collaborating right-wing “allies” around the world. Plus it’s not like the present Turkish regime and its Islamo-nationalist minions respect freedom of speech, or are incapable of such a killing – many leading Turkish writers, journalists, legal and intellectual figures etc. have been assassinated in Turkey during the past several decades (starting before Erdogan), always due to having written or said things deemed offensive or too critical towards the sacred cows of the regime’s state ideology or “Turkish national feelings”. The Nobel prize-winning Orhan Pamuk, one of the best writers Turkey has produced in the last century, had to flee the country a decade ago because of death threats and dares not go back out of fear for his life, due to being perceived as “un-patriotic”. Given the increasingly brazen aggressive actions and open advocacy of belligerent neo-Ottomanism of the Islamofascist Erdogan regime during the last few years, it’s really strange why Kevin Barrett, who takes it as a given that Andre Vltchek was actually assassinated, fails to even entertain the notion that the Turkish government or its supporters might have been the culprits. You would think that he would consider the circumstances highly suspicious, at the very least. Is it because Barrett is a Muslim convert, and sees and hears no evil when it comes to Islamist regimes?

    In any case, if Vltchek’s death really was the result of murder and not sickness, then he was certainly a reckless fool to go visiting a place such as today’s Turkey, after all the stuff that he wrote about the country and its government.

    • Agree: true.enough
    • Troll: Sya Beerens
    • Replies: @Commentator Mike
  43. @Luther Blisst

    And bozos like you and your Leftist Chink worshipping fanboys are going to bring the world into “spiritual light”…lol

    What a crock of shit.

    • Replies: @Parbes
  44. @jsinton

    Why “jump the gun”? The story is now, when guesses sell better than facts. Who’ll be interested in a journalist’s death in a few weeks. Wasted copy.

  45. Parbes says:

    They’re Chinese, psycho swine – not “Chinks”.

    • Replies: @GeneralRipper
  46. @Parbes

    Glad that triggered you…lol

    Glad this Commie douche Vltchek is dead.

    Glad Ruth Bader Ginsburg is rotting in Hell.

  47. Parbes says:

    Go fuck yourself scumbag. You’re not even Vltchek’s dirty toenail.

    • LOL: GeneralRipper
    • Replies: @GeneralRipper
  48. @Parbes


    Stay triggered, my friend. 😉

  49. Parbes says:

    Eulogies for Andre Vltchek sure seem to trigger you. Wonder what anyone will say after you when you croak.

    And I ain’t your friend.

    • Agree: Robert Konrad
  50. @restless94110

    “Chomsky lost all credibility with his silence about 9-11.”

    Actually, he gained even more credibility. Unlike, of course, you and the hordes of other “conspiracy theory” nuts, who have spread like … the current pandemic.

    • Replies: @restless94110
  51. @Robert Konrad

    Chomsky is ensconced in MIT. Buildings simply cannot fall the way they did by the laws of physics. MIT is one of the centers of physics in the world. Chomsky denies the impossible physics of the collapses and is thus a completely discredited oaf.

    And anyone who throws around the phrase “conspiracy theory” proved to be a term the CIA promoted in 1967 in order to attempt to discredit those who questioned the JFK assassination, anyone who throws that CIA phrase around is immediately discredited.

    You have nothing but names to call so in this instance you are even stupider than Chomsky.

    Finally, notice how I said nothing about any conspiracy. Buildings don’t fall that way. They can’t. Period.

    • Replies: @Robert Konrad
  52. @restless94110

    Being restless could be a physical symptom, ever thought of that?
    Doctor Barret never lauded Chomsky, not in this article at least. In fact he has called him out as 911 denier.
    Just as the zionists degenerate holohoax truthers, so should you and I call out 911 deniers like Chomksy.

    • Thanks: restless94110
  53. @Parbes

    Strange deaths of foreign journalists in Turkey are not uncommon; remember that British woman found hanged at Istanbul Airport:

    Everyone was satisfied with the Turkish inquiry report. But if she was suicidal why choose to hang herself in a toiler at Istanbul Airport en route to an assignment in Iraq?

    • Replies: @Robjil
  54. @restless94110

    Being “stupider” than Chomsky is quite a compliment if only because Chomsky is regarded by educated and intelligent people all over the world as one of the leading American intellectualists. When I was in Norway, just to give you one example, the faculty of the English Department at the university I was teaching held a birthday celebration for Chomsky.

    This is how the best educated intellectuals in the world value Chomsky.

    You, however–on the basis of what you have scribbled incoherently on this Blog–are not among the educated and the intelligent: ergo, you, sir, are a fool (or an “oaf,” a term you prefer) if you think the 9/11 massacre was masterminded by some evil people “ensconced in MIT” or wherever.

    But I am wasting my precious time on an infantile bozo.

    Anyhow, I can assure you that no faculty member at any university in the world is ever going to celebrate your birthday. And don’t bother to write to me any more. I have no time to read crazy scribblings of a loon.

  55. @Robert Konrad

    Being “stupider” than Chomsky is quite a compliment if only because Chomsky is regarded by educated and intelligent people all over the world as one of the leading American intellectualists. When I was in Norway, just to give you one example, the faculty of the English Department at the university I was teaching held a birthday celebration for Chomsky.

    Who cares how he is regarded or by whom? Your tale about Norway is a great example of why universities should be disbanded. Chomsky denies the physics of 911, there’s no reason whatsoever to laud him.

    This is how the best educated intellectuals in the world value Chomsky.

    I have rarely seen such a tone deaf statement of elitism. Wow. Breathtaking. But once again: who cares? No one.

    You, however–on the basis of what you have scribbled incoherently on this Blog–are not among the educated and the intelligent: ergo, you, sir, are a fool (or an “oaf,” a term you prefer) if you think the 9/11 massacre was masterminded by some evil people “ensconced in MIT” or wherever.

    Another fantastic near perfect example of the ad hominnem logical fallacy, which is, an attack on the man,, not the idea.

    Also note that I never said or implies any of what you said: I did not talk about masterminding anything. I did not refer to the plethora of physicists in MIT as some kind of weirdos who are evil and ensconced there. I referred instead to the resources available to Chomsky in order for him to better understand that, by the laws of physics, the towers could not have fallen in the way they did. That does not depend on some evil people.

    But I am wasting my precious time on an infantile bozo.

    More infantile ad hominem. I can’t argue the facts so I’ll name call.

    Anyhow, I can assure you that no faculty member at any university in the world is ever going to celebrate your birthday. And don’t bother to write to me any more. I have no time to read crazy scribblings of a loon.

    Why would I care if someone I never knew celebrated my birthday? More to the point, why would Noam Chomsky care either?

    So I should not reply to you because I am mentally deficient? Wow. Portrait of an arrogant,, elite, hater. Thanks for your contribution to the clearly emerging picture of academics as a danger to Western Civilization.

    • Agree: Robjil
    • Replies: @MarkU
    , @Robert Konrad
  56. I often accused Andre of being a shill for the Sino establishment, and didn’t agree with many of his positions, but I was horrified to learn of his untimely death.

    R.I.P. + Andre Vltchek +

  57. MarkU says:

    You are entirely right of course that the official story of 9/11 is a pile of garbage, I think you are being a little too unkind to Chomsky though, if you consider his life overall, on balance his influence has been for the good.

    Regarding 9/11, I have had a lot more success at convincing those with a scientific education than I have with those that haven’t. People who understand the conservation laws and the laws of thermodynamics cannot really support a story in which they are violated. Non-scientists on the other hand, lacking the intellectual toolkit required, are not in a position to make an independent judgement on the matter. For someone without a science background it is one set of people saying one thing and another set of people saying the opposite. But even for a layperson Building 7 is a totally in-your-face smoking gun, something went wrong with the timing and its collapse was announced 23 minutes before it happened, both on the BBC and CNN. It is also (embarrassingly) the most perfectly executed example of a controlled demolition ever. I have challenged people to find a better one, no-one has yet come back with anything anywhere near as perfect.

    As for Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent remains a classic, that alone makes it hard for me to view him overall as an enemy of the truth. There are plenty of reasons why a person might be reluctant to support 9/11 truth or even oppose it, there are/were many like him, Justin Raimondo was a very good example. They might be a ‘gatekeeper’, they might be a coward, they might form the impression that the cause is hopeless and believe that it isn’t worth being de-platformed for. Look at the Kennedy assassination, only a fool could believe the official story of that, a huge proportion of the population don’t but what difference does that make? But a lot of what you say is right, while I can certainly forgive those who remain silent on the subject (fighting a losing battle is rarely good for your career prospects and might seriously impact your health) being a shill for the other side is contemptible.

    • Replies: @restless94110
  58. @MarkU

    Thanks for your reply,, but i disagree with your defense of Chomsky.

    A man of his stature could have been immensely influential had he challenged publicly the Official Story, just on the grounds of physics. But he instead did not. And does not. Another commenter also mentioned his denial of AIPAC as influential in American politics, an obvious absurd lie.

    There is something rotten in Chomsky. And I am telling you this after many many hours of listening to him speak on stages and on Democracy Now! which I watched religiously for over a decade.

    I tepidly agree with your idea that those who know science more readily understand the impossibility of the Official Explanation, but have to disagree that WTC 7 is the most perfect example. Actually the collapse of both of the Twin Towers is even more perfect, due to their immense height and girth.

    Thanks for your final comments but again you should acknowledge that an 80-plus-year-old man regarded by the world has perhaps America’s foremost living intellectual has very little to lose by stating the truth about the impossibility of those 3 collapses. What are they going to do to him or his reputation at this point in his life and why should he care?

    The fact that he acts like he sincerely believes in the nonsense is very very telling,. He’s either an oaf or a liar. I’m not sure which, and I’m sure we will never know.

  59. Lmao, you really think that the oligarchs in the West gave a crap about some obscure tankie journalist that the overwhelming majority of people – that is, normies who don’t read sites like The Unz Review – haven’t even heard of?

    They have other priorities, and far bigger fish to fry. If anything, America’s corporate elites share Andre’s Sinophilia.

    Don’t flatter yourselves, my tankie friends; you’re not that subversive or important.

  60. @restless94110

    “Who cares how he is regarded or by whom? Your tale about Norway is a great example of why universities should be disbanded. Chomsky denies the physics of 911, there’s no reason whatsoever to laud him.”

    I have quoted only one of your statements, even though all of your statements contain disturbing evidence of your mental and intellectual state. But one quotation is enough because to state in a public forum that (all) universities should be disbanded because of “tales” like mine can only be argued by a certified moron. Also, to argue that Chomsky “denies the physics of 911” is yet another red flag. Where does Chomsky argue that?! (Whatever “the physics of 911” means!)

    What a certified moron you are! No, I am not using an ad hominem fallacy here. When psychiatrists or psychologists diagnose a person as a moron, they are not using a fallacy; they are using a medical term. It’s a statement of medical fact.

    Quote: “A moron is a term once used in psychology and psychiatry to denote mild intellectual disability. ”

    You see I am tactful enough to use an understatement because, clearly, you are not suffering from a mild intellectual disability, you are suffering from a severe, incurable intellectual disability. But to call you a certified moron is fine with me. I am easy. (And btw, I have had several careers in my life: being a college professor for some time was only one of them. I have had nothing to do with academia for over 10 years now. And never will.)

    That you are a moron, a certified moron, is a statement of fact, not an attack on you. I will never read any of your comments again and will never again dignify you with another response. You have just joined my list of certified morons, whom I avoid like the pandemic. Adios Amigo!

  61. I have quoted only one of your statements, even though all of your statements contain disturbing evidence of your mental and intellectual state.

    Why are you disturbed about my mental state? Well I guess that takes care of the Thanksgiving Dinner you were going to come to.

    Where does Chomsky argue that?! (Whatever “the physics of 911” means!)

    So if America’s foremost intellectual ignores the laws of physics that’s not enough for you. He must also vocally argue to someone about it? So, you do not understand what laws of physics were in play in 911? I’m beginning to see why you keep on replying.

    It’s a statement of medical fact.

    You are correct. Pretending to diagnose someone you don’t know and haven’t examined immediately makes you a certified moron.

    The rest of your screed is filled with name calling.

    That’s ok, it does not matter. The physics of 911 are irrefutable and Chomsky is a discredited oaf. His legacy will forever be stained. As will yours.

  62. @Robert Konrad

    Being “stupider” than Chomsky is quite a compliment if only because Chomsky is regarded by educated and intelligent people all over the world as one of the leading American intellectualists.

    So being educated and intelligent means you do not understand the laws of physics?

    Who would say such a preposterous thing?

    And why would someone think of persons as ” educated” and ” intelligent” who cannot reason anything through?

    Wow. I just could not read any further. The stupid and ignorant is so strong, it calls in doubt American education.

    By the way, you are employing the Call to Authority logical fallacy. Because Chomsky is so lauded he must be right. Not.

    Good luck, bud. Chomsky is an oaf. He disgraced himself at 80.. He could have told the truth and instead he was a coward and a moron. Most of us are not fooled. Obviously you are not most of us.

  63. Yee says:

    RIP. Mr Andre Vltchek. It takes a very brave man to go against the narrative set by the power.

  64. Robjil says:
    @Commentator Mike

    Serena Sim was an American reporter for Press TV. A car accident killed her which was never “solved”. The truck that hit her car was never “found”. Turkey is like the US in this way. It does a lot of plausible deniability killings for those who dare question its rulers.

    Serena Shim, a Lebanese-American reporter for Press TV, was killed this weekend in a car crash.

    “She was going back to her hotel from a report scene in the city of Suruç in Turkey’s Urfa Province when their car collided with a heavy vehicle,” Press TV’s report on the death of its correspondent based in Turkey read. “The identity and whereabouts of the truck driver remain unknown.”

    • Thanks: Commentator Mike
  65. Loup-Bouc says:
    @Chris Moore

    You are both seriously deranged and an outrageous libeler.

  66. Loup-Bouc says:

    You are deranged-malevolent and a heinous libeler.

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Kevin Barrett Comments via RSS