Talk:Michel Chossudovsky

Availability of books

Are his books available online? I can't find them. -Mel

I have added ISBNs to the bibliography so that should help you. --Theo (Talk) 11:21, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You can get his books at any Chapters or Indigo, we use two of his texts as text books in my university.

Writings

This section included a claim that Chossudivsky "is a frequent contributor to Le Monde diplomatique". The claim, however, was referenced with a link to one article he wrote for the magazine in 1996. A Google search seems to bear out that he hasn't contributed to the journal in over ten years. I removed the claim. No-itsme (talk) 13:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

This section really needs some improvement. He has written thousands of articles. I do not think that HAARP and Swine flu should have their own category. We could could have a thousand categories if we wanted to but there should be some efforts to improve this. Maybe a category called middle east / northern africa - instead of just Syria and then we can add details of Iran and Libya , etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ifersen (talk • contribs) 18:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Who is MEDIA RESEARCH who is falsely claiming that the research is top notch and brilliant. I have found it to be blatantly false and more propaganda than fact on most occasions. For example, his Fukushima stuff is pure anti-nuclear bluster - I expect this will not last long, but the article praises a fraud and leads more lambs to the slaughter.

[OBJECTION to some of the comments below. As someone who knows the material well that is referred to here it is clear that the work of www.globalresearch.ca ,which is top notch and brilliant research, is being deliberately targeted here and disrespectfully. The work of Professor Michel Chossudovsky is immensely important and the website www.globalresearch.ca that he established is one of the most important and significant free speech websites in the world. It is very well done and useful for news agencies to consult and represents the work of vast numbers of journalists with academic credentials. The way that the work on an important living academic of significance and note is being consistently targeted by one or two individuals here wanting to discredit the important work is something that ought to be brought further to the attention of Wikipedia mediation on the basis that is violates the principles of Wikipedia. It is not acceptable to have these on-going attacks on a living academic. Prof Michel Chossudovsky is clearly as significant and important as Noam Chomsky. That is why the attempts to discredit the work cannot be left without comment. I have contacted Wikipedia about the issue and will do so further. This web entry is one that requires attention.] [contributor: MEDIA RESEARCH]

---

Michel Chossudovsky & Conspiracy Theories

This page really needs a "Conspiracy Theory" Moniker. I think that we need to scale up the discussion. (talk)

Is there any connection between Michel Chossudovsky and Lyndon LaRouche? They seem to have the same agenda and share many beliefs. Shouldn't the text about Michel Chossudovsky focus a bit more on his conspiracy theories about the New World Order (conspiracy), globalization and such things. Now they are just mentioned. - Johan, Sweden

He is not a conspiracy theorist. He states very clearly that there are institutional structures which result in the outcomes which he highlights. He never implies a dark cabal of shadowy figures plotting to rule the world. Those who characterize his work as being conspiracy theory are using a straw man. Troyc001 13:48, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

he does claim e.g. that al qaeda is controlled by pentagon [1], or that u.s. military received advanced warning of the 2004 tsunami, but withheld this information from asian countries [2] [3]. sounds like conspiracy theories to me. - Ktotam 16:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Rubbish. Al Quaeda is known to have been helped by the CIA and perhaps even created by the CIA during the Soviet-Afghan war. The aim was to draw the Soviets into the "Afghan trap." The CIA funded and trained militant Islamic fanatics in the hope that they would wage Jihad on the Ruskies and weaken them significantly. It's no conspiracy theory.

Honestly folks, whether you believe him or not is not in question, but a man who has articles on his own website that posit the theory that the United States government can control the weather is clearly catagorizable as a conspiracy theorist. This is not POV, this is common sense. See [4]. I have returned the category to the article and I believes it deserves to be there unless someone can address my points. Zabby1982 21:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

He doesn't say, that the US gov can control the weather. Btw. have you heard about global warming?--Raphael1 23:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually that's exactly what he said. The article's title is "Owning the weather for military use" - how else would you like to interpret it? Yes I have heard about global warming, that is totally a separate issue from believing the HAARP program is a clandestine effort to control the weather for military purposes.Zabby1982 (talk) 17:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

"Rubbish. Al Quaeda is known to have been helped by the CIA and perhaps even created by the CIA during the Soviet-Afghan war." - rubbish.

"The aim was to draw the Soviets into the "Afghan trap." The CIA funded and trained militant Islamic fanatics in the hope that they would wage Jihad on the Ruskies and weaken them significantly." - entirely correct.

The salient point is that the ISI did not want to have the CIA (whom they distrusted as much as depended on) snooping in their own backyard. Combine this with a language/culture barrier and the CIA's need to maintain some degree of deniability; do some research, ask some Afghan refugees for Abraham's sake; every major country should have quite a number by now, after all the miscellaneous crusaders for "the supreme" civilization have done to that country. The Mujis were/are a diverse bunch, and the CIA only had control over part of them; some were handled by Pakistan alone, some were joint Pak-US enterprises, some were sorta independent, some were supported by Iran and I believe there was even some Iran-US cooperation. But the al-Qaeda idea was only born as a consequence of all this - to create an opt-in platform that would render such endeavors independent of Western interference. OBL's Afghan adventure is vastly exaggerated in most sources; his group back in the early 80s were mainly smugglers, and the CIA had little if any direct contact with them. The ISI, greedy for Osama's greenback stack, didn't want external forces to jump on their gravy train, and the aversion of core members of the OBL group to associate with shirkers certainly helped. The ISI has always held personnel for such cases, people who were "pure" enough in matters like tawhid can succeed in negotiations where pig-eating Westerner theological relativists who use their ass-wiping hand to manipulate food (i.e. your average CIA agent) would not stand a chance. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 02:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way folks: Chossudovsky is not involved in the "propagation" of alternative theories on 9/11. They get published on Global Research along with a great deal of other stuff that wasn't written by Chossudovsky or approved by him. For a real conspiracy, try checking out Chomsky's work on the "Manufacture of Consent" and the use of big media conglomerates to keep people in check. Chossudovsky's work is mild and uncontroversial when compared to real conspiracies and large scale dissemination of propaganda (anyone remember the Pentagon's Office of Strategic Information? Nope, it was NOT closed down, either, contrary to what you might think by reading only the mainstream media reports).

That's ridiculous, of course the 9/11 articles are approved by him, as with anything else on that site, he's the editor of globalresearch.ca [5]. That's what editors do, they approve articles and manage content. Zabby1982 22:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Apparently he was part of a speaking tour about "alternative theories on 9/11". [6] Zabby1982 19:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Everyone who hates America says the American government is either hatching complex and dark schemes of conquest and suppression or are stumbling, silly clowns without a clue... which is it? Just pick an America that fits your hate and make it "real."

Chossudovsky does not hate America, he is one of Canada's most brillent academics who has been a contributing factor to international research in economics. He is grossly and deliberatly misrepresented to belittle his work. He was in Chile when Pinnochet took over--- in fact all his collugues, American economists teaching in Chile, started running the country's economic affairs with Pinnochet's take-over. He was also in Kosovo and the former Yugoslavia and saw first hand the truth behind what was really happening there. He is respected greatly in Europe and Asia where he is very popular in countries such as Malyasia, South Korea, and Serbia. His work on 9/11 uses offical and mainstream sources such as CNN transcripts which prove that the Bush Administration had meetings with Pakistani intelligence which was funding the 9/11 terrorists. 74.101.98.235

If he is such a brilliant academic, Why aren't any of his books published by an academic press? Quackgrassacrez (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC).

"he is one of Canada's most brillent academics" - I hope not. Brilliance in the humanities should encompass at least some ability to adequately predict the future, or aspects of it, from analysis of the past. Chossudovsky's analyses regarding US foreign policy in the aftermath of 9/11 have a failure rate approaching a whopping 100%. He might be better off if he constrains himself to economics, of which he seems clearly capable enough. Global politics-wise, he has been cranking out regression fallacies by the dozen. Prove me wrong, but his predictions e.g. regarding Iran have fallen flat. He is still, like so many others, mentally stuck in the 20th century, failing to acknowledge that the "only superpower left standing" has become much worse for the wear and is only one big playa among several (US/NATO, Russia, PRC, India, EU, the Ummah and MERCOSUR for example). Tehran still stands, the Russians have overwhelmingly won the W Caucasus war, and Hugo Chavez' Bolivarian game ist stil running at full speed and Israel is deadlocked in its domestic problems and arguably lost the S Lebanon war, and all the while the one and only satisfying and comprehensive theory on how 9/11 happened was published by as-Sahab. All events that Chossudovsky did not anticipate - to the contrary! The narrowness of his analyses compares "well" with people like Ledeen or Perle who thought that their grandiose Straussian ideas simply could not, under no circumstances, backfire. In a nutshell, few if any of these people are historians, and it shows in their undue emphasis of has-been philosophers' ephemeral pipe dreams.

A few actual quotes by the man would be in order to spice up this article beyond the factual yet positively hagiographic "oh he's so educated and so VIP and so cool" stuff. I mean, Rumsfeld held a spade of high offices, but he despite having the world's mightiest military at his beck and call and near-carte blanche on how to use it ("We don't do body counts."), he nearly lost a war against a ragtag guerilla. A war, moreover, in which he had in theory a level of C3I never achieved before. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 02:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

You are talking as if conspiracy is not an actual category in the criminal law or the subject of historical and social scientific (especially criminological) study and, furthermore, that there can be no theories about them. A conspiracy is any plot by two or more persons planned in confidence designed to advance, at the expense and likely objection of others, the material interests of the planners or of those they represent. In science, one can have theories about anything that isn't supernatural. Clearly conspiracies are within the scope of scientific inquiry. There is no rule that a scientist has to use a natural science method based on models induced from those domains where things and systems do not plan or are planned. Human beings have a complex brain that allows them to act intentionally and coordinate their actions (this is why we have social science). In short: humans plan. The fact is that there are conspiracies. If there were no conspiracies, then one would be hard pressed to explain why so many people sit in prison for having been convicted of one. And without theories about them, no criminal trial in which conspiracy was entered as a charge would be possible. Moreover, it is not as if the only valid conspiracy theories are the one's the state legitimizes through the official ritual of a criminal trial (at that point they are not theories anymore, but findings or rulings). In fact, conspiracies and the competing theories about them are, for historians and social scientists, mundane. The denigration of the term "conspiracy theory" is designed or at least functions to dismiss certain theories that risk undermining elite projects and official narratives. Why would Wikipedia perpetuate the ideological twisting of a valid construct by labeling some pages "conspiracy theory" with the meaning imposed here? This transforms Wikipedia into an obfuscation machine. If this practice were regularized, Wikipedia would be stamping some knowledge as legitimate while casting doubt on other knowledge with a label that benefits some interests over others. How is that in keeping with the goal of providing an objective source of information for the world community? On the contrary, it makes Wikipedia an instrument of propaganda. Let there be an entry on “conspiracy theory” and have all views regarding the meaning of that phrase covered. But do not employ the use of the term as a designation for other entries. No stamps of disapproval should be allowed. Wwsword (talk) 21:51, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theory Category

Very clearly should be an entry for him. He eschews traditional institutional analysis... or, its not so much that he ignores it... He posits a theory and then finds and organisation which seems to exemplify, or be an expression of his ideas, then posits that this "instituion" is actually an example and proof of his theory. eg. see his latest article on how the US and Canada are "training combat troops in Haiti" -- for his conspiratorial mindset he just couldn't fathom that military forces have been traditional first responders to all sorts of emergencies... Canadaman1(talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.116.40.235 (talk) 23:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Michel Chossudovsky is very clearly eligible to be in the conspiracy theory category. Not only is he a 9/11 conspiracy theorist as previously discussed on this page, but he also believes the United States has a malicious weather machine that they use against their enemies to great effect. See this source : http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7561. Please do not revert this edit without discussion. Zabby1982 (talk) 05:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

this is a distortion of the meaning of the term 'conspiracy theory.' His work on HAARP is meant to highlight that the US has researched weather manipulation technology that has some degree of success. His own work on 9/11 has been to focus on the unanswered questions, such as "Why has no other skyscraper collapsed in the spectacular fashion of the Twin Towers, despite experiencing similarly hot fires?" It is not a conspiracy to question officialdom on the matter. Chossudovsky in no way fits in with Lyndon LaRouche or Alex Jones or David Icke. They are conspiracy theorists.

I don't even know the definition of 'conspiracy theory' but this guy seems to qualify. I think it can be argued that he has some say into how his books are presented for sale on the CRG web site http://www.globalresearch.ca/globaloutlook/truth911.html. What does it say? "In this new and expanded edition of Michel Chossudovsky's 2002 best seller, the author blows away the smokescreen put up by the mainstream media, that 9/11 was an attack on America by 'Islamic terrorists'." That's enough for me; I'd say he fits community definition of a conspiracy theorist.JakartaDean (talk) 08:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Troyc001 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC) _______________________________________________________________________________________________ The 'Criticism' Section: I have removed that section on the basis that section was absurd. This article has been highlighted for improvement and so removing the last section is a start towards that. Professor Chossudovsky is an important academic and ought to be treated with respect at the very least. The website www.globalresearch.ca is an important source of information and is the work of many people who have academic credentials and so to simply dismiss it all is not appropriate for an article that introduces such an important person and such fine work. [Ian] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.184.62.67 (talk) 05:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC) [ in addition] With the greatest of respect to those who are part of this discussion forum, I feel that the last section of this article ought to be removed and I did so on the basis that it is extreme. I have not been able to do so. My contribution has been considered and thoughtful and respectful and I would appreciate it as being seen as such please. It is true that I have not a 'signed name' here, but it is true that I appreciate the work of Professor Chossudovsky and would like more respect to be shown to a living academic in order to fit in with the Wikipedia guidelines on that. If the final section cannot be removed then how can this article be improved? To say that someone who does the work that he does as 'nutty' is a comment that will leave others feeling ill at ease and misinformed. I think it is disrespectful and not appropriate for a Wikipedia article and that it falls short of the quality standards expected. I will leave this comment here for others to reflect on and hope that people will view it as being in keeping with the Wikipedia philosophies of respect and consideration. The article falls short and there seems to be no obvious way to be able to improve it. The changes I made were immediately reverted and it means that the article is still not adequate. Perhaps the standards will improve. All the best.

[Ian] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.184.62.67 (talk) 06:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Verifiability, truth, and sources

Hi,
I'm worried about edit summaries like this. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth; articles are supposed to reflect what independent sources say, and if you carry a burning Truth in your heart which disagrees with sources, wikipedia is probably not the best place for it. bobrayner (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I like the sentiment in your own edit summary though: "I don't really care about <article name here>, I just want neutral articles." This explains why I now have tons of random articles like this on my watchlist. a13ean (talk) 21:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Why is this a concern? I have read thousands of wiki articles and I would find it very odd if one of the first things said about the subject were the opinion of a journalist of a magazine such as Western Standard or Jewish Tribune. Call it what it is - a critisism. Wiki is supposed to be neutral, but it seems Chossudovsky's work is being cherry -picked to paint him in a bad light. Cheers. Ifersen (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2012

Who is Terry O'Neill and why are his derogatory comments considered merited for use as source?

Who is Terry O'Neill of the Western Standard, and why is one of his (pretty unsubstantiated) comments about who's "nutty" or "nuttiest" from some obscure article in an equally obscure canadian internet publication considered a factoid that has encyclopedic merit? Nunamiut (talk) 16:48, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The Conservative Western Standard is clearly cited as the source for this. If you believe the comments are unsubstantiated or derogatory, feel free to add material to the contrary.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 04:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC))

Perhaps it should be pointed out that this article was written before the stock market crash. That "nutty" theory of his became true upon the collapse of several lending institutions in the Unites States having world wide reprecussions.Ifersen (talk) 02:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

HAARP

Some contributors (including Bobraynor's multiple attempts and now Groundzero) keep editing out four words from the HAARP category, specifically the words "from a military standpoint". Clearly these "contributors" only purpose is to discredit Chossodovsky. If you read an article on HAARP by Chossudovsky, he is clearly only stating HAARP's potential "from a military standpoint". I would like to know why these posters keep removing these four words that only clarify Chossudovsky's position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.163.65.73 (talk) 23:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Let's try to keep this neutral

Can't we stick with what sources say? Altering the wording of a quote, like this, is fundamentally dishonest. Globalresearch.ca may work differently, but here on en.wikipedia dishonesty is a Bad Thing. bobrayner (talk) 15:27, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Bobraynor, When I looked up the source to the quote it was the description of the book and did not lead to the quote. It was only until I saw that you could click on the book and read the preface that I understood your point here. I do apologize for this misunderstanding, as I was just trying to match what the source said (http://www.amazon.com/Americas-War-Terrorism-Michel-Chossudovsky/dp/0973714719#reader_0973714719).

However there are much larger concerns on this page. The fact that you try to pretend that you just want this article to be neutral after most edits you have done have been fabricated / or erasing information for no good reason is pretty funny. The mistakes on the swine flu and IMF categories you created, it was like you did not even read the sources you even provided (don't worry I fixed them so they are now "neutral"). If you want to be neutral, at least stop trying to erase the write-up on Global Economic Crisis or whatever. If anything more categories need to be added, not erased to suit your POV. I know you don't like Globalresearch as it doesn't suit your views on Yogoslavia. You don't strike me as a neutral fellow at all. Cheers, Ifersen (talk) 02:59, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

This Page is working to Smear Chossudovsky and make him look like a Lunatic

The people doing the biased editing have a bad editing history and negative motives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.131.58 (talk) 14:54, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Please look at the editing history and their activities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.131.58 (talk) 17:00, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• This warrants a closer investigation, made possible in part by you being blocked for edit warring. Drmies (talk) 17:58, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
• Removed the "Writings". Whether it makes him look like a lunatic or not (apparently he holds those opinions) is less relevant than the fact that this was simply a lengthy rehash of the man's opinions sourced to his own publications (his own website, mostly). That cannot be. Especially with BLPs in the field of politics and media, rigorous secondary sourcing should determine content. Some of it (some) could conceivably be brought in to "counter" the "Criticism" section--but note that "Criticism" sections really are discouraged. What's needed is not the typical stupid pro and con, but a balanced assessment based on secondary sources of the man's thoughts and actions, including critiques thereof. But this article should not be turned back into a resume, summary, tenure document, or whatever. Drmies (talk) 18:06, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I think that the article really needs to be checked. It is trying to make Chossudovsky look like an anti-Semitic bigot.

"Criticism"

re "criticism" section

1. Karadjis isn't necessarily reliable [7] and no detail is provided such as to qualify it as "criticism" rather than assertion
2. this minor incident has been moved to Globalresearch.ca; it's barely worth keeping there, there's no argument it merits inclusion here.
3. unknown journalist from minor paper provides insults. Justification for inclusion: none.

Podiaebba (talk) 14:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

The section has been repeatedly restored without any attempt at discussion. Please do not do so - see WP:CRITICISM and WP:BLP. Podiaebba (talk) 08:57, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Still no effort to respond to these points, while reinserting the disputed content into a WP:BLP. Podiaebba (talk) 04:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Project Censored

In no way should we ever rely on Project Censored for content, or let it set the tone of articles. It's WP:FRINGE by definition. This encyclopædia should reflect the mainstream view, not the incredible controversies that all the other media refuse to print! All the more so on a BLP. bobrayner (talk) 23:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

This is unmitigated nonsense. WP:BLP does not encourage the use of fringe insults and trivial incidents, which you're delighted to include (still with no effort to respond to my comments about these in the section above, despite reinserting them 3 or 4 times). On the other hand, Wikipedia:FRINGE#Independent_sources encourages precisely the use of such excellent academic sources as Project Censored, particularly with clear in-text attribution. Wake up: you're not having your way with turning this entry into a WP:ATTACK page. Podiaebba (talk) 15:21, 12 October 2013 (UTC)