Very articulate as usual, yet he has his characteristic blind spots. He speaks of financial “collusion”, which is a synonym for “conspiracy”, yet he absolutely refuses to address the overwhelming scientific proof and political context of the 9/11 conspiracy, the achilles heel of the “war on terror”. He mentions “meaningless paper money” without reference to the entire ponzi scheme of debt based paper money and how it inexorably leads to the irrational short-term profit seeking that he excoriates, to the benefit of the oligarchs who control the central banking cartel.
It’s interesting how the “left” and the “right” wing’s analysis of the systemic problem overlap without either “side” recognizing the common ground: that the system is saturated with conflicts of interest (monopolies). This gets to the issue of whether it is inevitable that a grassroots capitalist system (voluntary economic interactions among autonomous human beings) evolves into concentrations of power. My guess is that it IS inevitable in the absence of legal obstacles to corporate immortality.
It’s a shame that he has never clued into false flag terrorism as an instrument of statecraft. His silence on 9/11 drove a stake into the heart of the anti-war movement. While alex jones isn’t as articulate and careful in his analysis, he’s also not constrained by chomsky’s self-imposed blindness to the hidden machinations of the corporo-governmental convergence. Sometimes one must accept the existence of unknowns and try to deduce around them to form a larger picture. This is the branch of the scientific method which chomsky calls “conspiracy theory”.