Aaron Swartz, MIT, institutionalized ritualistic child abuse and Noam Chomsky the CIA spook
46 2016-03-02 by whipnil
The story is that Aaron in his quest for horizontal information sharing pulled the entire JSTOR archive and despite the fact that JSTOR wanted to drop charges, the feds (including the secret service) wanted to go after him hard. MIT could have been able to intervene to assist but seems not to have.
"The MIT investigation seemed to me reasonably well done. MIT's contribution to the tragedy was mostly negative: It didn’t take aggressive measures to try to free him from the charges, or at least mitigate them, as it should have," Chomsky told HuffPost. "Part of the tragedy is that there were apparently very good opportunities to reduce the punishment to something fairly limited, nothing like the crazy threats of the prosecution in the early days."
The idea is that because he was a political activist and quite successful at that, that they thought they would make an example of him. If that's the case however, why did the need the full force of the secret service and FBI involved and not simply rely on the legal system to fuck him up.
"Among the documents released are accounts of the several raids the federal government made on Swartz's property. In these accounts are pages upon pages of lists of all of the property the government confiscated from him. Pages worth of hard drives, phones, computers, iPods, and compact discs were seized."
I'm struggling to find a working link to the rense article that started this line of inquiry. I did find a copy of it on facebook but if I include that link this post gets deleted. Just type facebook dot com before this /DavidShurter/posts/538236202889492 if you want to see it.
Yoichi Shimatsu presents the idea that elite academics from American universities frequently visit South East Asian orphanages and child housing to exploit them for their pedophilic tendencies and satanic ritualistic abuse. One of the primary investigators of this story was killed after they fell from their high rise apartment in Thailand when police were coming to arrest them.
"Nicholas Negroponte with the notorious President Kagame. "The 'One Laptop per Child' project was initiated by the MIT Media Lab founder, who is the brother of former UN ambassador and intelligence official John Negroponte." "
Nicholas Negroponte works with MIT and allegedly is involved with child abuse videos.
"Frank Moss, who was trained at the Technion Institute in Haifa, a center for the Israeli Defense Force’s cyberwarfare R andD projects. The Media Lab itself is heavily involved in military-related projects with the US Air Force, the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center, the Army Research Office and Google, which is a high-tech contractor in artificial intelligence for DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) ."
"MIT Media Lab is yet another spin-off from the all-powerful MK-ULTRA and DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency).
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com.au/2013/01/jewish-hero-aaron-swartz-exposing-elite_16.html
Just putting together a few dots here, but Penn state uni has been involved with Sandusky, Alan Dershowitz of Harvard defends Jerry Epstein the billionaire pedophile, Nicole Kidman's father from Sydney University of Technology was allegedly involved before his death:
"It has emerged that Nicole Kidman's father died after fleeing Australia when accused of the sexual abuse and murder of children in an elite Sydney pedophile ring. A month prior Fiona Barnett had filed a complaint with the Australian NSW police and Child Abuse Royal Commission alleging Kidman’s sexual and physical assaults on her throughout childhood. When the Commission opened an investigation the clinical psychologist suddenly left his 43 years with the Sydney University of Technology and Royal North Shore Hospital to stay in Singapore until he died. "
The intelligence community don't seem to interested in pursuing internal allegations of such behaviour within the Pentagon
"In 2006, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, which conducts Internet pornography investigations, produced a list of 5,200 Pentagon employees suspected of viewing child pornography and asked the Pentagon to review it. But the Pentagon checked only about two-thirds of the names, unearthing roughly 300 defense and intelligence employees who allegedly had viewed child pornography on their work or home computers."
It's pretty well established that the CIA is well aware of this, and with all likelihood heavily involved, considering George Bush Snr's claims that Sandusky's boys organization was a ray of light in this world and the myriad of other allegations surrounding their murky dealings.
Here's something to take the idea further though: Noam Chomsky and the Willful Ignorance of 9/11
http://digwithin.net/2013/11/29/chomsky/
In this the author cites a number of statements by Chomsky that demonstrate either intellectual dishonesty and hypocrisy or intentional dishonesty.
Miles Mathis takes this even further in his piece on Chomsky being a spook: http://mileswmathis.com/chom.pdf
Mathis presents ample information which shows Chomsky's involvement with numerous individuals associated with intelligence and propaganda efforts, strange numerology, possible deception for his academic work, intentional obfuscation of linguistic principles etc.
IF Aaron pulled the entire MIT network and found pedophile information, he may well have pulled sensitive documents from Chomsky which would have blown his cover as a spook. Chomsky is basically the gatekeeper of the left and if he fell, a whole shower of shit would reign down. Chomsky's misinformation on 9/11 would cause people to investigate it properly, his role in the scuttling of occupy would become obvious and all manner of other deceptions. He'd be an asset that must be protected at all costs, hence the secret service involvement and heavy handedness on coming down on Swartz.
19 comments
9 IanPhlegming 2016-03-02
Excellent work connecting dots. I wrote off Chomsky the moment he went along with the official 9/11 story. His dismissal of the JFK assassination is likewise an insult to intellectuals.
5 ichoosejif 2016-03-02
I can't help but wonder about Tom Cruise. You know he had to have known Nicole was abused....
Also, I saw a you tube video that deliniates all the pedophilia that A.S. was uncovering. I will try to find it.
Fyi- I am one of about 5,000 moms from white upper middle class America who tried to legally protect my child from his father's rape. Despite $100k, experts, photos of injury, reports from hospitals to police etc...custody was given to the abuser and I was jailed, and served a protective order against my child and reduced to paying $65/hr to see him despite over 60 valid reports from professionals to CPS.
It's the same story in almost every case.
Why? Besides that the court is incentivized to grant sole custody and eliminate the other parent. But WHY can no mother protect a child from another parent in US?
There's a sophisticated underground of secreting away moms and kids based on no other options. It's truly unbelievable.
Thoughts?
5 whipnil 2016-03-02
First of all, I'm so sorry to hear that and can't imagine how horrible a process that must be.
I don't really know much about Tom Cruise. I haven't really looked too deeply into scientology but as I understand it, it has its roots in the Vril and Thule society and was kind of developed as a front for the Nazi mind control techniques brought over with Operation Paperclip and for manipulation and creation of CIA assets including Hollywood celebrities.
What's your child's father's history like? As in employment, family history, affiliation with certain groups? Are there any common threads behind these abusers that are being protected?
1 ichoosejif 2016-03-02
The thread is the court knows my family assets through probate, and they place the child in jeopardy to extort $$, also, he is a violent recidivist, so court is payee on federal funding 'ex prisoners as father's" it's all funded through dhhs. They are incentivized to give abuser custody they get a 66%-300% match through fatherhood.gov through dhhs. So, $$$ is theme.
1 911bodysnatchers322 2016-03-02
Hmm...Scientology as an outsource managment agency / mythology framework for child sex abuse victims when they grow up ('grown monarchs'-- a big turnoff. You know, adult tom cruise and nicole kidman, so unsexy now)
1 ichoosejif 2016-03-02
Right
3 Orangutan 2016-03-02
Pat Tillman was also supposedly associated with Noam Chomsky
3 whipnil 2016-03-02
Reading up on that now.
Tillman was a massive PR dream for the military, if he wised up to the shenanigans in the Opium fields and then subsequently became savvy to the false flags, he'd be a massive liability if he started running his mouth. 3 taps to the head in friendly fire, I don't think so. They burned his diary too. What I've found so far is was liaising with Chomsky about what do to. Chomsky could then easily relay that back to his handlers and then you've got yourself an accident.
1 JonoLith 2016-03-02
All you can pin on Chomsky is that he's skeptical in the absence of evidence. That's been his position on everything else. Not sure why people think it should be different here.
3 whipnil 2016-03-02
I know. I can't pin anything on Chomsky. I wouldn't expect to be able to pin anything on a spook either. They'd have the entire MIC protecting them as an asset.
Did you look at the link by Mathias listing all the suspicious fellows that are also recipients of the Harvard fellowship Chomsky received, his suspicious circumstances for him receiving it in the first place, the CIA involvement in MIT's media department?
It's not just healthy skepticism on 9/11 but rather intellectual dishonesty when he says that "although it may be possible that it was a controlled demolition, that could only have been carried out by Osama or Sadam and the conspiracies suggest Saudi Arabia which are our ally so it's impossible."
Such a false dichotomy is blatantly absurd and not a statement the "greatest living intellect" should make.
1 notonmysundae 2016-03-02
Chomsky is a great intellectual and academic, and that is why you will never catch him making claims in that he can't back up. This is what the empirical method means in practice, despite what your bad source assumes.
So to understand his true statement, you must read between the lines in context. In this statement, his is NOT disagreeing with conspiracies, but rather he is admitting that it is impossible for both versions of the story to be true; he is implying it could have been a controlled demolition, and not just the official version of things. And because he is not a total idiot, he needs to state it indirectly so he won't be outcast from society into shady anonymous internet forums.
0 notonmysundae 2016-03-02
This theory and source are flawed on many levels. The only main connection you have with these two individuals is that it happened at MIT. The amount of loose connections you are trying to string together seems either grossly underestimated or willful.
I even read your whole source somehow, and overall it was terrible and much more offensive to the academic process than anything Chomsky has ever published. I did enjoy the part where he argued he couldn't have anti-semitic views because he's dated Jewish girls before. For example, your own linguistic style here with several weasel words like 'spook' and wooden language would not be acceptable in a formal, peer-reviewed analysis of evidence. You are either ignorant on many issues, or you are being intentionally manipulative. Whatever it is you are trying to accomplish, it is wrong to rashly associate your wild claims and lack of evidence with such a sensitive case as this alleged suicide...
1 notonmysundae 2016-03-02
Another benefit to an analysis by peer review is the absence of anonymous downvotes! As satisfying as that would be, it is not conducive to a productive conversation.
-1 ParanoidFactoid 2016-03-02
This is the worst sort of smear job against Negroponte and his OLPC project. As well as Swartz. You and aanigirfan should be ashamed of yourselves.
6 whipnil 2016-03-02
"After Yoichi Shimatsu, two New Zealanders – Gerald Thorns and Jack Sanders, and Cambodian Deputy Minister of Commerce Narith Chhim formed the anti-pedophile group Global-PAC, they immediately came in for criticism from Krisher’s Cambodia Daily, rumored to have been started with seed money from the CIA.
Global PAC was looking into reports that FLO, located minutes from Phnom Penh International Airport, was being used by its major financiers, Krisher and Negroponte, for questionable activities involving minors."
"Eventually, when the pressure on Krisher and Negroponte reached a near boiling point, they withdrew their funding from FLO, practically leaving 221 orphans up to the age of 18 to fend for themselves financially. On a visit to FLO, director Phaly Nuon told this reporter that while there was never a problem with the girls at the orphanage, some of the boys had been lured away from the compound to do things like “watch TV.” She also indicated that under the financial regime of Krisher and Negroponte, some visitors to the orphanage behaved “badly.”"
Meanwhile, to this day, young children continue to walk Phnom Penh’s streets hawking Krisher’s Cambodia Daily for $4 a copy. Negroponte continues to run schools in Preah Vihear near the Lao border.
http://www.roseanneworld.com/blog/2013/12/asean-pedogate-americas-insidious-scandal/
I am in NO way smearing Swartz in this post.
1 notonmysundae 2016-03-02
You ARE effectively smearing Schwartz, because you are trying so hard to establish facts surrounding his tragic case with some baseless, biased speculation about Chomsky. Presumably it is because you just don't like him. And I can only assume you're not a Schwartz fan either, judging by your recklessness and insensitivity in analyzing his case.
In terms of actual evidence, the only solid connection you have here is that they both were at MIT at some point. You probably hate Chomsky because of his outspoken political language, not because he has committed any harm. If you want to uncover some solid truths, then I suggest you look forward than your own words! Some of your own phrasing seems to imply that you are incapable of understanding at least some of his academic work, e.g. "the intentional obfuscation of linguistic principles". These specific principles are published and well researched, not some kind of shrouded occultism. Does it still count as 'intentional obfuscation' if you are just unable to learn them? I would also like to reiterate that your source is bad, and you should feel bad about it.
1 whipnil 2016-03-02
You're so far off base yourself with your presumptions about my intention.
This was tagged as a premise in a subreddit that's designed to allow users to entertain an idea without necessarily believing it. About two or three years I thought Chomsky was great. Now if I think about it a little clearer I start to ask more questions about him like what has actually accomplished and what the media have said about him. I still think a lot of his stuff is relevant, and subsequently that's how he's been so successful as a gate keeper of the left.
What are your thoughts on 9/11? We are going to be on such a different page if you don't acknowledge that it was a false flag attack that there's no point continuing this conversation.
As for Aaron, you're even further off. I am deeply moved by his story and feel he stood for all the right things and that unlike many, he was actually doing something tangible about it. He was a great man. I also feel compelled to carry on his legacy, think his guerilla manifesto is spot on and would love to see all information shared horizontally. You say I am smearing him, but I see it as my responsibility to pursue evidence which suggests he may have been murdered rather than committed suicide.
Consciousness is a construct of linguistics. There is a war on words, and if you force through inauthentic evidence that creates a paradigm around certain fundamental linguistic assumptions, then it can have downstream implications which keep us within certain parameters of discourse.
This allows those with knowledge of the real principles of grammar and syntax to effectively perform magic on an unsuspecting population because an entire model of consciousness is built around those fundamental linguistic assumptions.
I never mentioned anything about Swartz being a sacrificial Jew. But now when I think about it Swartz means black. He's probably of Shepardic stock and Chomsky is probably Ashkenazi. Sacrificial Jew for the brotherhood of the snake.
1 notonmysundae 2016-03-02
It seems like your only motivation for connecting these two people in this badly sourced story is because it suits your personal narrative about Jews. There are no new facts in your bad source that contribute anything to the facts and circumstances around Aaron's untimely death. As for your mentioning of a sacrificial Jew... Well, I didn't mention anything about that either, I don't know where in your ass you pull this shit from. If you want to speculate wildly like this with posted evidence, at least choose a source that strengthens your position, even a little bit. Your post could have been 2 sentences, and been just as valid.
1 whipnil 2016-03-02
Oh, hey friend. Thought you might show up. Do you have a script that alerts you to come defend Chomsky when something bad about him is said on here?
1 notonmysundae 2016-03-02
Chomsky is a great intellectual and academic, and that is why you will never catch him making claims in that he can't back up. This is what the empirical method means in practice, despite what your bad source assumes.
So to understand his true statement, you must read between the lines in context. In this statement, his is NOT disagreeing with conspiracies, but rather he is admitting that it is impossible for both versions of the story to be true; he is implying it could have been a controlled demolition, and not just the official version of things. And because he is not a total idiot, he needs to state it indirectly so he won't be outcast from society into shady anonymous internet forums.