I have written previously expressing the view that Obama’s presidency had been the result of a scam that committed the US and the world to eight years of lacklustre and often entirely contrary action by Obama in relation to the promised ‘change’ and I speculated that the voting public may well have been conned again by an elaborate sleight of hand in the theatrical rise of Donald Trump.
I argued that (at that time) a confrontation with Iran lurking in the background behind high drama distraction up on stage seemed to suggested that it could be so; ‘The pattern so far is one of fanfare inconsequential matters masking the serious issues that receive minimal attention’.
I had been about to write again on this same theme ‘Fooled Again?, to point out that behind all the high drama in the media of Trump’s confrontation with the ‘Enemy of the People’, with the security services over alleged collaborations with Russia and with the courts over discrimination against ‘mostly Muslim countries’ (which other presidents have bombed with impunity) Trump was simply implementing the standard Republican Agenda of Low Taxes, War Budgets and Cuts to Services with minimal public resistance, when suddenly struck by an almost surreal distraction.
Did Chomsky really say “that President Donald Trump could stage a “false flag” terror attack in an effort to consolidate his power and strip Americans of their constitutional rights”? This surely must be fake news of the highest order!
Surreal seems almost to understate this ingredient thrown into the mix in a cauldron stirred by a zealous advocate and master of chaos theory. An inscrutable ‘Psy-Op”.
Here is a significant event that richly deserves analysis.
It was Chomsky who once remarked of the Kennedy Assassination, shockingly in my view, ‘Who cares?’ and went on to dismiss the significance of the event; ‘What difference does it make?’ arguing that too much time and energy was being wasted by ‘The Left’ in analysing this event. Chomsky leveraged on this argument dismissing the 9/11 Truth Movement similarly, as a distraction consuming valuable resources; the time and effort of people he nevertheless ranked as advocates of all sorts of ‘Conspiracy Theories’. My own response to this was to argue that when a trusted and respected intellectual makes an argument on subjective and non-rational grounds one can only agree to differ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vl_YwQ6WXQQ&lc).
Chomsky’s main case against the 9/11 Truth Movement at this time was that the proposition of an ‘Inside Job’ was simply untenable; the project would involve so many people and would be so difficult to achieve in secrecy and the prospect of maintaining a cover-up after the event so daunting that no-one in their right mind would even contemplate it.This is a compelling argument that has wooed a good many down from the fence; unwilling to bear the disgrace of association with conspiracy theorists. Having lived through the era of the Vietnam War and witnessed first-hand the manner in which the 20th Century great lies of the ‘Domino Theory’, the ‘Yellow Peril’ and ‘Communist Aggression’, sustained over a decade of vicious, criminal violence and inhumanity with an indecent disregard for the dignity of human life and all matters of intelligence and morality that elevate the human existence, all of it arduously sustained by the makers and shapers of the collective consensus, I was perhaps less so inclined.
This whole ugly business now repeated in Afghanistan (harbouring terrorists), Iraq (Weapons of Mass Destruction, remember?), Libya (a potential massacre – perhaps akin to Shabra, Shatila and Gaza) and Syria (another unthinkable tyrant – perhaps as evil as Shah Pahlavi or Hosni Mubarak), one would think this argument flawed except when one considers the distinction that a disgusting lie that serves as cover for illegal, immoral and aggressive violence in foreign lands is more sustainable than one intended to do the same in the domestic context, particularly if the domestic violence is not to be confined to a race or class.
Valid or not, that was Chomsky’s main argument, raised against the credibility of a theory richly supported by the evidence and despite the alleged conspirators and perpetrators having at their disposal all the resources of the State, the Deep State and the Media, with all its zeal, talent and means for sustaining the most idiotic and obvious of untruths. Just not credible that anyone in their ‘right mind’ could contemplate it.
However, if Chomsky is not to be accused of hyperbole, it follows logically that if such a concern is to be raised about Trump, that it would not be beyond him to stage a “false flag” terror attack, then Chomsky clearly believes Trump to be a man not in his ‘right mind’, or at least, not smart enough to realise that maintaining secrecy would be essential but impossible.
This is his apparent conclusion, despite the achievements of Trump in amassing a billion-dollar empire and attaining the presidency. And still further, reached despite, as at least appears to be the situation, Trump not having the resources of the Deep State and the media ‘on side’ and willing to comply in effecting the operation and maintaining a cover-up. Even the Donald Trump currently presented (arguably with his cooperation) by the media as a reckless adolescent, alongside the emotionally unstable Diana who wrote to her butler before her death expressing fears of a plot to murder her, or the wobbly eccentric monarchical relic of Prince Charles or the deranged loner Lee Harvey Oswald, would not present a sufficiently out of his ‘right mind’ state to contemplate undertaking a ‘false flag’ operation, and certainly not now. So how is Chomsky’s warning to be explained? The late years? Possible onset of dementia? (not with any derogatory intention). Vexation?
When Chomsky first was approached for his views about 9/11 and the much-discussed contention that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition he took the ostensibly neutral ground of asserting that evidence should be presented in a scientifically acceptable manner, by publishing papers. Yet when two teams of scientists led by, Niels Harret in Denmark and Stephen Jones in the US published just that he was utterly silent.
This is quite remarkable for a celebrated academic and particularly one who has outspokenly argued for a disciplined, academic approach. Still more remarkable in that Chomsky is in a position to understand that these papers deal with Applied Science undertaken by materials scientists with extensive experience, unlike Research Science undertaken at the frontiers where even long experience gives no certainty in the realm of the unknown and not-well-established facts. This is the kind of science that allows the combination of analysis and collected data applied to a handful of mixed sand and sugar allows science to identify the ingredients as to which beach supplied the sand and from which refinery the sugar.
The jury is still out regarding Trump. Is he a genuine force for change, breaking with the sordid past of an intriguing Deep State in collaboration with a corrupt, deceitful mainstream media, yet with a wealthy businessman’s commitment to the interests of wealth, or is he part of an ‘upping of the game’ to redeem the credibility of the US Democracy ‘Punch and Judy’ show, while still maintaining world order of the 1%? For me, Trump’s credibility is fragile but not altogether discernible. The case is not the same with Chomsky.
Chomsky’s silence in relation to the work of the Harrit and Jones teams is explainable in many ways. His warning in relation to Trump is also, in isolation, explainable in many ways. However, these two cases of resounding discord with the reputation of a man esteemed for his intellect, a reputation clearly deserved, and with the very tight and important connection between them in the realm of terrorism and the use and implications of false flag operations in these very Interesting Times, Chomsky’s credibility collapses.
It collapses utterly!
|< Prev||Next >|
Most Read News
- Tens of thousands to protest Trump's climate policies
- Trump tells NRA he will never 'infringe' on gun rights
- Trump: Major, major conflict with North Korea possible
- Donald Trump: US to renegotiate NAFTA, not scrap it
- Trump administration proposes major tax overhaul
- Trump to review protections on vast nature preserves