- Category: Occidentalogy
- Written by Zahir Ebrahim
- Hits: 12522
Full Spectrum Primacy is the underpinning of all power calculus. Be it of the State, just the full title of Zbigniew Brzezinski’s aforementioned book betrays what’s already obvious: “The Grand Chessboard – American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives”. Or be it of the controlling oligarchy, which is also already obvious, and for which books upon books of respected scholars like Professor Carroll Quigley’s “Tragedy and Hope” disclose their overarching agenda being world government.
Empiricism confirms these facts.
The Hegelian Dialectic of Dissent
Having now perceptively understood the subtle, almost undetectably precise imperial craftsmanship of Bernard Lewis et. al., which forms the crucial seed for implanting the “doctrinal motivation and intellectual commitment” necessary for sustaining “imperial mobilization” via the Hegelian Dialectic “militant Islam” vs. “moderate Islam”, it should not be surprising to discover that even the steward of public conscience for the West, Noam Chomsky, judged Bernard Lewis to be “just a vulgar propagandist”!
In a revealing interview on CBC, at just about that time:
‘… now, until Bernard Lewis tells us that, and that’s only one piece of a long story, we know that he is just a vulgar propagandist and not a scholar. So yes, as long as we are supporting harsh brutal governments, blocking democracy and development, because of our interest in controlling the oil resources in the region, there will be a campaign of hatred against us!’ — Interview to Evan Solomon, CBC, part-2, minute 5:50, December 9, 2003,
But in furthering our forensic and critical study of the Dynamics of Mantra Creation solely on the anvil of empirical political science, it is even more instructional to observe the omissions and commissions in Noam Chomsky’s own vaunted dissent as “arguably the most important intellectual alive” (NYT). The disease of deception is evidently infectious among that clan.
Noam Chomsky himself continued to echo from the very day of September 11, 2001, and still maintains so in this tenth year of 9/11, that Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda carried out that day of infamy upon which all matters ‘War on Terror’ hinge!
Thus, strangely enough, despite all his famous dissent, Noam Chomsky has exactly managed to echo Bernard Lewis’, Samuel Huntington’s, the Pentagon’s, the White House’s, the incumbent as well as all living former presidents of the sole superpower, the Israelis’, and the world Zionists’ collective mantra of “Islamofascists” being the perpetrators of 9/11.
Noam Chomsky is of course, also the most outspoken champion of Wikileaks in his otherwise erudite disagreements with his opposite numbers in the establishment.
All this public fracas of dissent against the establishment is somewhat akin to the American and Russian spies strategically collaborating with each other despite their often antagonist tactical missions, for the greater common good of the military-industrial complexes of both nations during the Cold War. When we perceptively read the works of Anthony Sutton, Carroll Quigley, and W. Cleon Skousen, it becomes obvious that the uber-capitalists and the uber-communists where in fact covertly collaborating at crucial core nexuses despite all their overt WWF wrestling style public antagonisms. Both serving the interests of the same financiers. In other words, at the highest levels of social control, there is evidently no difference of overarching agendas among its seemingly antagonistic players, each one of them merely playing a theatrical public role. Shakespeare aptly dramatized it in As you like it:
‘All the world’s a stage,
And all the men and women merely players:
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts,
His acts being seven ages.’
It should now be self-evident that Bernard Lewis and Noam Chomsky together, while seemingly cogent opposites, in fact represent the class of counterpoint tunes of the Mighty Wurlitzer which nicely bookend all public discourse between the artificial bifurcation of Right and Left, Conservative and Liberal, Establishmentarian and Rebel, Totalitarian and Anarchist, Consent and Dissent. It is the two antipodes of a fabricated Hegelian Dialectic to respectively engineer both consent and dissent in order to sustain “imperial mobilization”.
Noam Chomsky himself argues the veracity of this observation in his own erudite manner:
‘The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum – even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there’s free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.’
and yet, he just as willingly participates in it.
Thus, observe that Chomsky too echoes that there is a ‘Muslim Rage’, but instead of it being deemed “irrational” like Bernard Lewis posits in his “vulgar propagandist” scholarship, Noam Chomsky calls it a rational rage, a “blowback” to American foreign policy and the history of American political aggression! See Chomsky’s money minting booklet “911” by Seven Stories Press; and how it was cobbled together in “The Closet Capitalist”, where the Hoover Institution critic observed: “Chomsky’s marketing efforts shortly after September 11 give new meaning to the term war profiteer. In the days after the tragedy, he raised his speaking fee from $9,000 to $12,000 because he was suddenly in greater demand.”
While dissent which retains the core-lies of empire when vehemently critiquing its effects is typical of all prominent controlled assets, in this instance of “arguably the most important intellectual alive”, it would perhaps be more apropos to give it the same epithet that Noam Chomsky anointed Bernard Lewis with. Just to call a spade a spade – and no more.
Who else echoes that same “vulgar propagandist’s” core-lie of empire, of 9/11 being invasion from abroad and the work of “militant Islam”, in deep consonance with Bernard Lewis, the Pentagon, the White House, and the neo-con think-tankers? Surprise, surprise, it is the other patron saint of latter day dissent, Congressman Ron Paul, echoing exactly Noam Chomsky’s theme of 9/11 being a “blowback” by malcontent Muslims. Ron Paul’s absurdities are dismantled in My beef with the stellar congressman Hon. Ron Paul.
As a Muslim, I hope I might be forgiven if I observe some ground floor reality check to put all this specious “blowback” in hegemonic context. I don’t see any such naturally percolating “blowback” rage in any significant tenor in any Muslim country despite what the white man’s burden has done to us worldwide, except perhaps in the three nations militarily occupied by Israel and the United States today, Palestine, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Even there, all I see are some manufactured “insurgents” being “tickled” into expressing a manufactured rage on demand. This is deconstructed in great detail in the two comprehensive reports Manufacturing Dissent and Insurgency vs. Counter-Insurgency ( http://tinyurl.com/what-is-insurgency ).