Saturday, November 26, 2016

Manufacturing Consent: the Shifting Politics of Obama, Trump, and Chomsky

The American two-party system has allowed Noam Chomsky to appear to be an enigma for many, many years, permitting him to criticize any given person or policy without actually compromising his ethnic loyalties, even despite his having drawn paychecks throughout from the Massachusetts Institute of Homeland Security. In true complementarily-ethnic style, everybody knows the fight was fixed. Like Moldbug, Chomsky never had to pull punches when he was criticizing the war machine, because his effect had been weighed ahead of time. E.g., we know the U.S. isn't going to stop bleeding itself to permit Israel to destroy anything, ever, so Chomsky can even criticize Israel, just as Moldbug can criticize violent Africans, thereby making each appear to be completely lacking in their true ethnic interest. It's a ruse, of course; Chomsky criticized media corruption and war in the same way that Jake LaMotta threw punches at Billy Fox: because he knew that Fox wasn't going to go down, and things look more plausible when you put on a decent show. Linguistics is both really complicated and really simple, and Chomsky can seem brilliant when he criticizes twentieth and twenty-first century war-propaganda, because like our other mainstream politicians, he's receiving the interviewer's questions ahead of time. Everybody knows that the war is over, everybody knows the good guys lost.

Through the juxtaposition of Trump's Zio-civic nationalism and the Republican Party's assortment of mestizo straw globalists, the denser adherents of America's "right wing" were granted permission to see the wreck of their presumed salvation, and offered an updated version. Trump has been useful in that sense--helping people who thought of themselves as "conservatives" realize that nothing has been conserved. More importantly, he's been useful in a way that prevents any days of the rope. Like Obama covering for the bankers from the other side, Trump has served them ably, collecting anger that ultimately possesses only a single logical solvent, and directing it at African rioters or Mexican looters, rather than the source of either.

Even compared to Trump*, Obama's* achievement (*personalizing achievements to the persona for literary efficiency, rather than referring to the associated handlers/regime) should not be underestimated. In the early twenty-first century, leftist bastions were becoming increasingly organized in their attempts to "raise awareness" on campuses, do BDS, fill the internet with anti-"Zionist" articles, challenge the corrupt structure of the international finance system and the Fed, stop military aid to Israel, and ultimately cause great harm to the Jewish cause. In 2016, Trump has driven the American right to embrace the Jewish program whole-heartedly: he has done significant things for it. Yet Obama's work was perhaps greater in magnitude, for while the American right has viewed war as beneficial for decades, the American left has not. And Obama's task in 2008 of turning the left away from their anti-Israel course, and toward gay trans black lives matter, seems the more difficult by comparison.

"The left" has long revered Chomsky for playing the antiwar card against politicians and candidates from both parties, and for speaking forcefully against Jewish interests, however ineffectively. Now, though, as either or both a hypothetical autonomous individual and/or a hypothetical committed tribalist playing the goyim for kicks, Chomsky has revealed his work to be of temporary, rather than enduring, utility. He's now sided with the mass media in whining that Hillary Clinton--the threatener of Iran; the invader and co-sanctioner of Iraq; the saber-rattler at Russia; etc., etc., etc.~--would have been a better choice than Donald Trump (who, despite his inevitably Zionist land wars in Asia, was by far the less-interventionist "candidate"). Every analysis from the Cold War to the present is proven irrelevant, his agenda and persona wholly besmirched, like Trump proudly selling his children to the children of the financiers who built Hart-Celler. Of course Trump might deport some drunk driving rapists, because Kushner's cousins will happily reimport some new ones in 51 years.

That'll actually be an interesting thing to check up on: how many of the campaign promises Trump keeps versus Obama. The Obama the left believed in should have prosecuted people for torture and drone strikes on children, or at least given Cheney to the Hague, but didn't. And in more pragmatic dreams, that Obama should have at least jailed and shut down some Wall Street bankers. Less pragmatic, he should've at least token-indicted some of them, then let them weasel out with a fine once three months had passed and everyone had forgotten. Instead, nothing: it was gay marriage and trans bathrooms and blacks are heroes for ambushing black cops. That's how skilled Obama was--he didn't have to keep even the tokenest of his token "actually mattered" promises. If Trump has to build the wall, it'll show he's less skilled than Obama.

Back to Chomsky, if you're a fan or former fan, go read your Manufacturing Consent again. It should be old-hat to you by now how he deliberately ignores and obfuscates the ethnic ownership of the media he supposedly pillories, so don't focus on that. Instead, read all of the old chapters in view of the new way news is done: by anti-newsing itself. Consent is not manufactured any longer by the media advocating for a policy, but by the media advocating against that policy, knowing how much people hate and mistrust the media itself. Ergo the massive negative publicity for Trump--in which most actor-politicians as well as actor-journalists participated--was, contra 1980s-Chomsky, positive publicity, while the positive publicity for Clinton was, in truth, negative. Showing deep concern for Hillary's health problems, and zooming in on her horrible hectoring rants, was, of course, negative coverage, just like it was positive coverage for Trump to portray your very own hosts sneering at the idea of showing concern over attacks on Trump's rally attendees. All at once, a lifelong Zionist became the hero of the nascent nationalist movement that had sprung up in response to BLM's race war. Americans, even when they think they're becoming un-complacent, remain a complacent people, easily appeased by scraps from the television (okay, okay, throw in a few bumper stickers and seeing someone in a familiar hat). A people who once would've only been contented by seeing Blankfein and his parasitic horde impaled along the Mexican border is now content to post pictures of white liberals crying over Hillary's loss. What a false triumph indeed.

How will America's great academics take the Chomsky turnabout? Will seeing the anti-media, anti-war hero using the media to lament the electoral loss of one of the most explicit and publicly-vocal warmongers left in the western echo chamber be enough to un-saint Chomsky? How long before some tenured schlub produces an anti-Trump screed detailing the ways in which the apparently-anti-Trump media was actually helping him from the beginning? And how long before Trump picks up some small crappy little country and throws it against the wall, freeing Chomsky up to become anti-war again?

(Kudos if you caught the Ledeen reference. Naturally, he was educated by and collaborated with TPTB, but those damn old-guard WASPs wouldn't let him have tenure initially because of concerns about, wait for it, plagiarism, but he managed to find lucrative employment criticizing Italy elsewhere.)


  1. some have made the plausible argument that Chomsky is allowed to operate because he fulfills a valuable function of a pressure release valve. For example, by focusing on the atrocities of US foreign policy, he provides the bleeding hearts something to be outraged about - and they cannot do absolutely anything about it. At the same time, this allows shifting attention from domestic abuse of the population. So, win-win.

  2. And to think that for years the thing that has most bothered me about Chomsky is that he never, ever--in the literal sense--raises his voice. (Yes, Noam, I'm thinking of Jesus brought to a rage against the temple moneylenders.)