Watching the old croak Noam Chomsky interviewed by Ford Foundation shill Amy Goodman on They Tube, I find his analysis of financial problems basically sound yet uninspired and tired. He has a bad case of the intellectual's vice, namely ineffectuality. Intellectuality, ineffectuality. Endless analysis and talk directed to no good end. It's quite incredible the multifarious agencies of dissidence scattered across the wasteland of the tangled internet websites, which more or less serve as forums of highly advanced and eloquent futility. Chomsky is a kind of Panglossian positivist, left guardian and gatekeeper,who is very conscious of this status which is entirely bound up with the very systems which he critiques with admittedly great eloquence and profound insight. This is precisely why he very rarely deviates from the socially accepted norms of contrarian academia. This is also why he and his local mouthpiece, D. Barsamian are so dismissive of compelling arguments concerning the events of 911 and the Kennedy assassination. Along with his interlocutor Ms. Goodman they are highly resistant to the subtleties of conspiratorial political analysis as this undermines their substantial investment (well paid as it is) in conforming viewpoints that offer a world view strictly positivist and devoid of any ontological significance. As they have long ago dismissed any spiritual or metaphysical foundation to events, they have consequently hemmed themselves and their ideas into a very narrow range of rationalistic thinking which can only remain in endless subservience to the very model which they seemingly seek to subvert. Thus they will forever remain obscurantists, dismissive of more incisive political and social analyses as a threat to their flimsy structures of dissent which draw life only from the object idols on which they are hopelessly erected.
I have drawn reference to the events of September 11, 2001 and the Kennedy assassination of November 22,1963 which embody the two signal events which have most significantly transformed and defined our national identity over the past several decades. Around these pivotal events has gathered a vast literature of what is now referred to as "conspiracy theories" which attempt to explain the manifold inconsistencies and evasionswhich official explanations have multiplied in an effort to obscure the truth. The left gatekeepers realize that the propagandistic fables which foster the lie of state power, as well as their own constantly reiterated opposition to such are both very much dependent upon the maintenance of that lie and its constant "unmasking", a service which they provide on an ongoing basis. This latter is as essential to the state power structure as its own aims and objectives which indeed could not be carried forth without the active and equally ineffective efforts of the left guardians. On another level, when more extreme measures are called for, the state practitioners have to take matters into their own hands employing informants, provocateurs, and false flag operations to instigate opposition and "hostile" activities. This is a murky realm wherein one finds such human shadows as William Ayers and his cohort Bernadine Dohrn as well as the notorious Ward Churchill, and most famously, Barack Obama. As the founder of Zionism, Theodore Herzl, once said "we ourselves will form the ranks of our most adamant opponents".