Perhaps one of the easiest ways to declare oneself as a radical is to challenge the perceived cliches rampant in a prevailing narrative, preferably in a manner that gives some semblance of art and intrigue. The author of this blog considers himself a radical insofar as the first standard is concerned, though he would like to leave it up to others as to how artful and intriguing the execution comes across. But contrary to what some might guess, the established narrative regarding the American political dialectic is not a uniform juggernaut that can be assaulted with a lone sling and stone, but a dense and confounded spiderweb that may appear as a uniform pattern from afar, but in actuality an elaborate system of points and counterpoints that somehow manage to land us right back where we started every time.
Case and point in this regard is famed Linguist and political radical Noam Chomsky, or at least the latter title is attributed to him by both the Mainstream Media and his legions of hipster cult followers. At first glance, what is viewed is an astute yet unconventional thinker challenging norms of thought and discourse, challenging the brutish politicians to justify their inane failures with regards to government policy. Indeed, Chomsky has spoken at length regarding the problem of concision in the media in his writings, as showcased in a soon-to-be-popular video with Ron Paul supporters on YouTube, by virtue of it being featured on www.dailypaul.com.
However, with the advent of the internet, the narrative is shifting a bit toward a less shallow and sound-byte driven affair into one where Chomsky's often verbose revelations of political corruption are now being subjected to the closer scrutiny that he complained about in his earlier years. Unfortunately, for a mind not prone to latch onto just any alternative voice without assessing a greater scope of its ramifications, this advent does not serve him as well as one would think. Instead of being vindicated as a long-standing dissident who has now gotten his chance at enlightening the masses, what is revealed is an elaborate game of wordplay (in keeping with his expertise in language) to put the political discourse in a box that is about as restraining and limited as the one presented on the idiot box.
Much of this began to come to light when dissidents demanding answers regarding the less than adequate investigation of the 9/11 attacks and the enshrining of preemptive war and found a Noam Chomsky who was parroting the same nonsense one might hear on Fox News. He wrote in response to the question regarding CIA support for Osama Bin Laden as saying "CIA support for bin Laden (which is not quite accurate)
or the Taliban (also not quite accurate) doesn't seem to me remotely relevant." If one assumes Bin Laden to have been the head of the organization that murdered more than 3,000 Americans, this author would argue that any support that this nation's government agencies are quite relevant.
Interestingly enough, Chomsky has made it a regular practice of playing interference for the CIA, claiming it to be little more than a scapegoat agency for abuse of executive power. In his book "Understanding Power", Chomsky writes "There's very little evidence-in fact, I don't know of any-that the C.I.A. is some kind of rogue elephant, you know, off on its own doing things. What the record shows is that the C.I.A. is just an agency of the White House, which sometimes carries out operations for which the Executive branch wants what's called "plausible deniability"; in other words, if something goes wrong, we don't want it to look like we did, those guys in the C.I.A. did it, and we can throw some of them to the wolves if we need to. That's basically the role of the C.I.A., along with mostly just a collection of information". Would anyone be curious as to why a tenured professor at a prestigious institute has no knowledge regarding Operation Mockingbird, MK ULTRA/Project Paperclip, or any number of other CIA experiments and yet this information is readily available via declassified government documents?
Interestingly enough, Chomsky has made it a regular practice of playing interference for the CIA, claiming it to be little more than a scapegoat agency for abuse of executive power. In his book "Understanding Power", Chomsky writes "There's very little evidence-in fact, I don't know of any-that the C.I.A. is some kind of rogue elephant, you know, off on its own doing things. What the record shows is that the C.I.A. is just an agency of the White House, which sometimes carries out operations for which the Executive branch wants what's called "plausible deniability"; in other words, if something goes wrong, we don't want it to look like we did, those guys in the C.I.A. did it, and we can throw some of them to the wolves if we need to. That's basically the role of the C.I.A., along with mostly just a collection of information". Would anyone be curious as to why a tenured professor at a prestigious institute has no knowledge regarding Operation Mockingbird, MK ULTRA/Project Paperclip, or any number of other CIA experiments and yet this information is readily available via declassified government documents?
Are these views regarding clandestine activity really in keeping with a so-called radical? Similarly, would it come across as rational that a man who decries so-called government abuse also thinks that only government officials should be allowed firearms? According to this esteemed thinker in his book "Secrets, Lies, and Democracy", professor Chomsky obfuscates with the best of them, "It’s pretty clear that, taken literally, the
Second Amendment doesn't permit people to have guns. But laws are never
taken literally, including amendments to the Constitution or constitutional
rights. Laws permit what the tenor of the times interprets them as permitting." In a parallel universe where tyrants such as Mao, Stalin and Hitler were not proponents of exclusive rights to weapons by government thugs, this mode of thinking might appear unconventional, but in reality it is little more than classical Fabian Socialism with a wordier exterior and an American PHD. Similarly, one can't help but be astounded that an alleged great mind cannot grasp the notion that words have a clear and specific meaning, particularly when spelled out in such a declarative way in the words of "shall not be infringed".
The rabbit-hole naturally goes a good bit deeper regarding Chomsky, though in the interest of brevity this will suffice for this excursion. However, one thing is quite clear from the limited information presented here, and that is that the underlying message of this so-called radical is one that is all too conventional, and one that has misdirected a great multitude of would-be radicals into regurgitating modified versions of existing cliches in the present political discourse. There is nothing substantially different between what Chomsky writes in his books and what is preached by the mainstream Democratic Party, and any dissent on his part with belligerent policies initiated by the Obama administration is, at best, hypocritical. Chomsky complains about not being invited onto Nightline during his formative years as a radical, but this eventuality appears to be less an issue of substance and more one of style, assuming that Chomsky is really deemed an outsider by the MSM, which wouldn't be logical, but as this newly born blog states so plainly, there is no logic in politics.
For further reading on Chomsky's oddly conventional yet confused rhetoric:
1. An in-depth analysis of Chomsky's many contradictory statements on a whole host of issues. Some may not like the conspiracy theory tilt of the article, but the facts are well documented.
2. An article critical of Chomsky's blind support of Israel, in direct contradiction to his opposition to American foreign policy that is heavily the product of AIPAC lobbyists and the governing Likud Party.
3. Chomsky finds himself in agreement on Obama with Sarah Palin, despite having told his readers to vote for him over McCain in 2008.
4. A long diatribe by Chomsky slamming Obama that, while appearing admirable given Obama's heavily tyrannical policies, showcases the MIT professor to be slower on the uptake the so-called conspiracy theory types that he derided during both the Bush administration and the lead up to Obama's election.
No comments:
Post a Comment