Naomi Klein is a mainstream media darling that simultaneously enjoys the adulation of so-called anti-Establishment activists. Many people regard her as a reputable critic that defends truth and justice, and most people would never think she’s a plant. Cognitive dissonance rears itself whenever a Klein-supported is confronted with the fact that the Establishment media showers her in praise despite her supposed anti-Establishment exposés. How can she be applauded by ‘The System’ while concurrently exposing ‘The System’?
This paradox is tackled by Miles Mathis in his article What’s Wrong with Naomi Klein? He discerns the inconsistencies in her purported image as a political and social heroine. Mathis unveils the sly technique–omission–that showcases Klein as an effective operator in psychological operations against the followers that champion her. Here are some highlights from his article:
9/11: The Litmus Test
“Naomi Klein supporters will say something like, ‘You agree with her on almost everything. So how can you say she is a mole? Is it because she is Jewish?’ No, it isn’t because she is Jewish. It is because her articles are published by places like The Nation and Harpers, which are fronts for the faux-left. I have caught all these fake leftist magazines pushing propaganda over and over, so even when they publish something I agree with, I know they must be spinning me with it. That is what they do. That is why they exist.
Even worse is her position as Miliband Fellow at the London School of Economics. The LSE was founded by Fabians, including George Bernard Shaw, Sidney Webb, and Annie Besant. Remember, Besant led the Theosophy movement at the time, which I have shown was an Intel creation. The newer fake progressives like Klein are following the Chomsky-Zinn playbook of first telling their audience everything they want to hear, and only then diverting them into inaction or useless actions. That is why it doesn’t matter that these guys and gals ‘agree with me on everything’. I admit that is mostly true. When I go down the list of Chomsky or Zinn or Klein, I do indeed agree with almost everything they say, which is why they are so insidious. It is the things they aren’t talking about where the disagreements lie, so they don’t come up. I learned this first with Chomsky and Zinn, who at first refused to talk about 9/11, but when they did talk about it then it was only to get mad or huffy and dismiss all questions as from a lunatic fringe. It was 9/11 that ripped the masks of Chomsky and Zinn for most people. Before that we were successfully diverted.
But back to Klein. Most importantly, like Chomsky and Zinn, Klein has continually dodged all questions about 9/11 and other events since then. I don’t trust anyone who does that for any reason. Period. She says that she “reports on what she can prove, and she can’t prove 9/11, so she is not reporting on it. But she can prove that Bush invaded Iraq base on lies,” etc. Hmmm.
Do you really think there is more evidence Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, or more evidence 9/11 was an inside job? Neither one will ever make it to a court, but supposing they did. Would it be difficult to prove in court the mainstream story about 9/11 is a lie? No, it would be fabulously easy to prove that on about a thousand individual counts. It would be more difficult to discover the whole truth about the event, but ‘proving the lies’ would be a slam dunk. It has already been done, in fact, so Klein saying she is unaware of that is just bunkum. She could prove the lies of 9/11 to the same extent she could prove the lies regarding Iraq, so we have caught her misdirecting in awesome fashion.”
The Doctrinal Shock
“Klein’s 2007 book The Shock Doctrine also misdirects furiously on 9/11 and other important topics, mainly by omission. Notice all the examples she gives of the Shock Doctrine: she applies the doctrine to Chile, Russia, Poland, South Africa, and even the Falklands. She also applies the doctrine to the Iraq War, which she calls the most comprehensive implementation ever attempted. But wait, did she miss something? She missed September 11, 2001, didn’t she? Most people would say that is a more comprehensive and important implementation of the shock doctrine than the Iraq War. Curious that she left it out; you should be shocked that she left it out. You should also be shocked she left out some others, such as the Kennedy assassination, the Lincoln assassination, the Manson murders, the Oklahoma City bombing, the Waco massacre, Columbine, and so on. In fact, she left out all the top examples. If you or I were writing the book, the examples would be completely different. So you see, it is what she is not saying that is important. All the meat is in the omissions. Like a magician, she is misdirecting your gaze and conditioning your response.
If the Shock Doctrine had really ever been either important or revolutionary, do you think the Dow Jones Business News would have reviewed it favorably? The DJBN is owned by Newscorp, which is Rupert Murdoch. Klein also got a positive review from the New York Observer, owned by Jewish billionaire Jared Kushner, whose father Charles had just been convicted (in 2005) for illegal campaign contributions, witness tampering, and tax evasion. Son Jared is married to Ivanka Trump.”
Mathis is correct in identifying shills like Klein and Chomsky as Establishment lackeys–more precisely, he’s doubly correct identifying them as magicians: they deal in misdirection. Orwell stated that ‘omission is the most powerful form of a lie’ and so this deceptive technique is the mainstay of media magic. Lastly, we should take special note of Mathis’ mention of Kushner’s role in propping up Klein, considering that Jared is married-in with the Trumps–and The Donald has been seeding a new 9/11 misdirection (limited hangout): blame it on the putrid House of Saud. Is this intimation just some ‘sand thrown in the eyes’ of the public? Or is it a revelatory omission for a future application of Shock Doctrine? Furthermore, what other misdirections could Trump, Kushner et al be peddling?