Monday, May 3, 2010
Game-changers: Why "conspiracy" issues matter most
by Kevin Barrett, truthjihad.com
In his lecture "Is the War in Afghanistan Justified by 9/11," David Ray Griffin quickly proves that the war is both illegal and unjustified by 9/11, regardless of whether or not 9/11 was an inside job. He then spends the majority of his lecture demonstrating that 9/11 was in fact an inside job. Why?
Griffin explains that the dominant public perception of the war in Afghanistan, which excuses or overlooks that war's illegality, depends on the Official Conspiracy Theory (OCT) of 9/11. President Obama knows this. As Jason Leopold wrote of Obama's escalation speech: "The commander-in-chief repeatedly invoked 9/11, attempting to justify his plan to escalate the eight-year-old war, which calls for the rapid deployment of 30,000 additional US troops to the region by next summer."
As Obama himself put it: "We did not ask for this fight. On September 11, 2001, nineteen men hijacked four airplanes and used them to murder nearly 3,000 people. They struck at our military and economic nerve centers. They took the lives of innocent men, women and children without regard to their faith or race or station. Were it not for the heroic actions of the passengers on board one of those flights, they could have also struck at one of the great symbols of our democracy in Washington, and killed many more."
Despite 9/11 being the only thing keeping us in Afghanistan, Noam Chomsky argues in so many words that it doesn't really matter whether or not 9/11 was an inside job, and that those who focus on this issue are undermining the antiwar movement. He uses the same "doesn't really matter" argument about political assassinations, such as those of JFK, RFK, MLK, Malcolm X, and Paul Wellstone.
Chomsky is wrong, and Griffin is right. It does matter. Here's why.
The really BIG issues, the ones that get tarred with the dreaded "conspiracy" label, are the game-changers. They're the crimes the ruling elite will never be able to explain away...the crimes that, if they are exposed, will destroy that elite's stranglehold on power.
Chomsky may be right in his claim that the murder of millions of Vietnamese, Iraqis, Indonesians, and so on are vastly greater crimes than the murder of almost 3,000 Americans on 9/11...or of one American president on 11/22/63. But the former crimes are relatively easy for the criminals to explain away to the satisfaction of most of the American public. Vietnam? Sure it was awful, but we had to stop Communism...or at least we thought we did. Same with Indonesia. And even though there were no WMDs in Iraq, and things have gone very wrong there, well, Saddam really WAS a bad guy. The Taliban violates women's rights. In any case, we're just killing foreigners, as one always does in war. It's the way of the world. C'est la vie.
But once the American public knows that CIA-Mossad (or is it Mossad-CIA) killed Kennedy and the others, blew up the World Trade Center, bombed the Pentagon, and so on...the jig is up. As George H. W. Bush said to journalist Sarah McClendon in December, 1992, "If the American people knew what we had done, they would chase us down the street and lynch us."
"Conspiracy" issues--the real ones, the ones that are demonstrably true--are the game-changers. That's why they are suppressed in the first place, by psychological warfare operatives brandishing the "conspiracy" label.
Is Chomsky one such psychological warfare operative? That's what Barry Zwicker suggests in his book chapter "The Shame of Noam Chomsky and the Gatekeepers of the Left." Besides leading THE critical segment of the American public -- the educated left -- away from the game-changers discussed above, Chomsky also works overtime against all potential game-changers in the Israeli-Palestine conflict: Exposure of the treasonous Zionist fifth column that owns Congress and the media, showing that Israel is not and never has been a legitimate state, using the term apartheid to refer to Israel (a comparison that is unfair to South African apartheid), calling for an end to the Jewish regime in Palestine, and demanding boycotts, divestments and sanctions (BDS) are some of the key game-changers that Chomsky seems to want to suppress.
Based on my own correspondence with him, I am convinced that Chomsky is either a psychological warfare operative or a madman. Last week's radio guest Jeff Blankfort also seems to lean in that direction. Tomorrow's guest, Four Arrows, disagrees. Tune in tomorrow, Tuesday, May 4th, 11 a.m. Central, NoLiesRadio.org to find out why.