Yeah, those particular nuggets of commentary from near the end were bizarre enough.... "who cares?"....LOL .... and maybe the Yankee Clipper had paid Greer to be the jilted trigger man HA HA!
However, upon closer inspection, it is conceivable this was a clever ploy. It's at least worth considering. After all, Chomsky has been a well known figure allowed access to the public at large for many years. Over his time he has been privileged with access to various outlets of the collective media apparatus. Chances are pretty good that he is smart enough to know beyond reasonable doubt that if - operative word, he should ever get it into his head that he'd like to attempt revealing profound truths to the public by way access to the media apparatus he's frequently given, especially if these truths are contrary to The Official Story, he will soon find his self pushing up daisies, sleeping with the fishes, wearing concrete galoshes, possibly turned into a "armed bank robber" and if needs be, Heaven forbid, fabricated into the next lone-nut, gun-wielding terrorist whacko du jour to be A) first dreamed up and B) subsequently exterminated by the FBI and gang ..... capeesh? Just trying to give some benefit of the doubt, if you go on the premise that maybe, just maybe, there happens to be an ounce or more of honesty attempting to leak, by purpose, out of a Chomsky and into the public awareness at large, by necessity such leaking would need to be cleverly arranged in order to have any reasonable chance of not looking or sounding like an actual truthful revelation. As such it makes perfect sense that Noam frequently poo-poos the notion "conspiracy" as though silly that it could be at work behind world events. Take a close look at the early part of this video and see if you do not also notice the schizoid nature of his comments on the overall. Has he really lost it, or is he crazy like a fox? To wit: the two-part question that the became the basis for some rather flaky answers.
Part one questioned the potential for the post-911 version of democracy USA Inc style to be devolving into oligarchy. Since evidence has been trying to seep into public awareness for, conservatively speaking, at least a century, that there has been a league of a relative few conspiring to control the many, some critique is in order for the questioner having posed this question the way they did. Some additional benefit of doubt is owed the questioner. As a foreign host, perhaps he was just going out of the way to make nice with his guest by taking a round-about way to asking a question that really deserved to be asked as "so, Noam, what are the more significant elements Republican and Democrat making up the corrupted oligarchy better known to the world as USG?" The second part asked for evidence, either for or against, concerning the Bush administration's complicity - direct or indirect, with the events of 911.
Noam sidesteps first part, saying it was "too complex"; red-flag oddity # 1. Even going by textbook definition, an oligarchy is "a few who rule the many". By this definition, it is not complex but borderline child's play to avoid noticing how the rule over the lands of this world controlled by flavors of democracy the past one to two centuries constitutes rule by a relative few people over the many. Routine conditioning applied to the many over the years plays a key role in such a question to begin with. The average person is likely to be inclined to only think of "a few people...." in terms of the most obvious, most basic and most literal terms. From such a limited point of view, it then follows that many people are unable to discern the obvious reality because they just cannot fathom how, for instance, a country of 300,000,000 people can be controlled by 3 or 4 people. Is it really too complex to notice that in comparison to hundreds of million, a thousand, perhaps 5,000 to 10,000 people conspiring in league with each other does in fact constitutes a few?
Did the present administration of government in US benefit from post 911 activity? Yes. Does this mean anything? No. The real tell comes in listening closely to Noam provide a brief explanation of why this does not mean anything. More routine conditioning is in play. It relies on the people at large being trained to think of their collective government only in terms of the particular party front that is administering the collective at any given time. At the present time this is of course a Republican administration; ergo, people at large who are want to notice things gone wrong with their government will tend to do so only in terms of partisan party rhetoric. The government is currently administered by the Republican party, ergo, everything wrong the past 8 years is mostly the fault of Republicans. Again, some critique is in order for the way in which this part of the question was framed ... perhaps this was more about the host bending over too far backwards in asking an uncomfortable question that by rights could easily have been asked as: " So, Noam, which specific elements within the USG - Republican, Democrat, Independent, et. al. - were either directly or indirectly complicit in 911?" Despite the softball nature of the question posed, some profound nuggets were revealed in answer, and some of these were contrary to surrounding commentary they were couched in. Did the present administration benefit from 911? Yes, does this mean anything? No. Why? (paraphrased) Because, duh, all power systems world wide gained additional power post 911, as they do any time there are similar wide-scale events of mayhem perpetrated .... they love to use the pretext of terror to step up their control over their people .... the more violent ones (powers) just extended their violence, but the "less violent ones.....like England, United States, France*, immediately implemented acts under the guise of "against terror" which had nothing to do about being protecting from terror but was instead intended to increase discipline of / control over their own people".
* while cute, it is plainly laughable that England, France, and USA were characterized as "less violent". It is especially laughable that A) no, governments don't conspire against the interests of their people, they just B) coincidentally take advantage of their people whenever events of disaster accidentally fall into their laps to exploit.
I gotta tell you, folks, if there have been governments in power around the world always seeking to ("predictably") move in ways to increase their base of power in the wake of disasters, this is about as plain as evidence gets and needs to be for evidence that tells of a conspiracy existing, of a relatively few people of thousands worldwide conspiring in league with each other. Again, there is all manner of conditioning ... predictive programming .... brainwashing wrapped around this one little word that has been well prepared for the majority of masses to mishandle in the event they bump into this word. This conditioning has shaped this word into the trigger necessary for people to envision massive shifting of reality as they know it in order to recognize this word for what it means. To do that, though, means surrendering propped up beliefs in the Easter Bunny, the Lone Ranger, Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and the like. The painfully obvious and simple fact of the matter is, no matter how "few" number among them at any given occurrence, when some people use the cover of mayhem, to the extent that they have become "predictable" in the process, in exploiting disaster towards the end of increasing their power base against the interests of the masses of common people, this is conspiracy, plain and simple.
Noam was so casual in telling this without actually saying it. To boot, he then immediately scoffs, to the contrary of his own remarks, that it is silly to notice the conspiracy in front of our faces ....... hello? To take him at his outwardly spoken literal words, the moral here is that when a relative few around the world have been so regularly and so predictably and so successfully conspiring for so long down through the centuries, at some point this passed the point that it no longer constitutes conspiracy. It requires no small amount of double-speak and double-think to swallow that kind of notion.
That address occurred over 4 years ago. Either Noam was acting like the crazy fox, or was in serious need of having his medication tweaked. If the latter was the case, it is plainly well past time for him to hang up his pen and be retired to a quiet sanitarium where the only trouble available to be gotten into is taking in pastoral scenery, hearing birds chirp, watching grass grow, being spoon-fed applesauce promptly at 5PM, Wapner reruns at 7PM, and perhaps the opportunity to tell an assembly of fellow residents in rocking chairs some of old war stories from the trenches of science wrapped around celebrated journalism before being tucked into bed at 9PM.