James Corbett is someone whose work i respect although his voluntaryism seems inimical to coordinated resistance en masse, and i truly don’t understand how such an educated and intellectually curious guy can develop such weird ideas on feminism. i mean i can imagine, i just find it very unfortunate for him and what he attempts to speak on. however i do think his pulling of information from various sources prevents him from falling prey to totally limiting ideological blinders, and i use his work as any critical thinker is able to do, even from those they disagree with. he does provide a type of resistance in the work he does and the thought i know he inspires in any case.

that being said, the following video is a really great exposition on Noam Chomsky’s strengths and weaknesses, even with his inclusion of Stephen Pinker’s comments, believe it or not! i find it interesting that Pinker so adeptly summarizes the definition of anarcho-syndicalism within the left spectrum for all his warping of even the existence of sociological meaning and political ideologies, which makes his work in general pretty much unreadable for me.

among the other objections one might have to Corbett’s approach, i offer a couple of caveats: first off, Corbett does decent work of informing on Chomsky’s outspoken views on the american war in Vietnam, but he omits meaningful credit that he should be due for his views on the ethnic cleansing, occupation, and enclosure of Palestine. as @RedKahina reminds us:

second, his position on “ending the fed”, no matter how pointless one may find this tack (and i find it unhelpful, fully co-opted, and a form of controlled opposition strategy under Ron Paul), the non-answer Chomsky gives in a q&a when asked of its significance is very telling of not only how apologetic he is to capitalism itself, but how anarcho-syndicalism has been shaped under the great influence he has had on the left. Corbett also points out how he never directly answers the question posed for him. instead he relies on his grumpy-academic-telling-the-hard-truths act to score populist points and make his following feel good without challenging pretty basic democratic party idealism pounded into liberals.

toward the close of the video, Corbett includes a segment from one of his prior interviews with James F. Tracy from memoryholeblog.com, a site i find hit and miss with its analysis and editorial line, but informationally valuable nonetheless. at any rate, their discussion really provides for broader understanding in how the spectacular production of 9/11 worked to erode dissenting left thought academically as well as momentum for the antiwar movement. it is evident in how nearly fifteen years after the fact that 9/11’s manufacture is still taboo (not to mention a point of mockery of those who do challenge the official story that doesn’t even exist anymore according to the USG’s own admissions and detractions) to discuss among the broader circles on social networking who refer to themselves as leftists with regard to how it not only pre-empted wars, but so effectively disciplined more broad-based dissent while traumatizing americans into more complete submission. Tracy suggests that Obama’s selection was more detrimental for the left because of its rallying of democrats for the neoliberal war machine than a Romney selection would have been, and that perhaps his war mongering would have been curtailed considering how unpopular the Iraq invasion was under Bush II. i think this is important to consider on a higher strategic level, though i am still left questioning with regard to logistics in the case of either theatrical selection.

the 9/11 conspiracy-mongering was certainly a key tool in distracting and misleading. as has often been said of the JFK spectacle, acceptable theorizing allowed for establishment chosen dissenters to wax on about counting bullets, entry wounds, and the grassy knoll for decades. the investigators who made deeper connections to the high level networking that put it in motion have been discredited at nearly every turn. similarly, speculation on steel beams, jet fuel, mysterious pod attachments, missiles, and holograms have worked to mislead away from the hidden factors that made it possible. in fact i think that there were more surface level anomalies by design to distract after lessons learned from the JFK assassination among many other collaborations and that these avenues of investigation taken on by perhaps less discerning disbelievers were not only infiltrated, but fed dis- and misinformation directly from sources that lead back to intelligence groups. one example that various researchers on the web have discredited is the Loose Change series — a google search is easy enough to discover its omissions and shady production connections.

for some factual, meaty research into typical state functioning behind 9/11, i recommend Sibel Edmond’s work on the extent of what PNAC meant for the production. additionally, Tom Secker has recently provided us with a well-documented, easy to follow foray into the 9/11 operation, paralleling it with Gladio B — one is required to be a subscriber to Boiling Frogs Post to listen in full, but the blurb gives names and direction, and the comments are helpful too (i just saw a link to some of Doug Valentine’s work as well into structural understanding).

i did not mean to go on as long as i did about these issues regarding 9/11. however i hope this gives readers an impression of my own mindset when considering videos such as these and understanding as to where my endorsement lies. it’s so very vital to give fuller appreciation to if not at least break the hypnotic submission it was meant to inculcate in a myriad of ways while millions have been murdered by these unaccountable criminals.