Thursday, May 28, 2015

Mafia Rationale Rules  (It's True If We Say So?)  Lies About Lies Abound, We Do Not Believe In Markets (Really) and, Finally, Noam Chomsky Calls the Count on the New York Times and Why Half-Assing Cuba Now?  (Controlling Next N/C/AFTA Propaganda) Driving Us To Total Disaster

Free Financial Markets Are A Hoax

Neo-Feudal USA:  The Death of Democracy

Why so many lies?

And for no particular reason right now.

Could this be it?

Collapsing Global Economy, Imploding Financial System:  China Has Only One Option

Or this?

Bob Woodward's Credibility Finally Hits the Ocean Floor

In which we learn the full depth of Bob Woodward's plunge into sheer hackery.

The latest entrant in the "Mistakes Were Made" sweepstakes regarding C-Plus Augustus's blundering in Iraq is journalistic giant — and stenographer to the powerful — Bob Woodward, who stopped by Fox News Sunday this weekend because he is a big-time Beltway 'ho* who doesn't care what kind of riff-raff leaves the money on the dresser these days. Anyway, Bob wants to assure us that the leadership of the late Avignon Presidency were "babes in the woods."

WOODWARD:  I spent 18 months looking at how Bush decided to invade Iraq. And lots of mistakes, but it was Bush telling George Tenet, the CIA director, don't let anyone stretch the case on WMD. And he was the one who was skeptical. And if you try to summarize why we went into Iraq, it was momentum. The war plan kept getting better and easier, and finally at the end, people were saying, hey, look, it will only take a week or two. And early on it looked like it was going to take a year or 18 months. And so Bush pulled the trigger. A mistake certainly can be argued, and there is an abundance of evidence. But there was no lying in this that I could find.
Holy hell, what a foof. (Do we all owe Nixon an apology? I ask this in all seriousness because the Bob Woodward in the above quote sounds like someone waiting for that check from the Nigerian prince to clear.) The fact remains that a lot of people inside and outside government — in fact, most of the actual military and diplomatic experts in the field — told the neocon fantasts in the administration exactly what was going to happen if it decided to "kick over the hornet's nest" in Iraq.

These people were ignored ("The Future of Iraq" project at State), marginalized (Hans Blix), or actively destroyed (Eric Shinseki). There was a reason for this. The reason was that the people who were talking to Bob Woodward wanted to deceive the nation to get what they wanted.

On October 7, 2002, C-Plus Augustus gave a speech in Cincinnati. In that speech, he laid out his fanciful case for war in some detail. Because Bob seems to be floundering a bit in the swamps of history these days, let's lend him a hand.

"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program...Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."
Uh, no. The great body of evidence "indicated" no such thing. This was simply the story they fed to Judith Miller, who then returned the serve to them so Dick Cheney could nail the putaway in front of a gullible Tim Russert on TV. Bob seems to believe that a campaign of deception and trimming is not a "lie." I had nuns who would have beheaded him with a window pole for that kind of "purpose of evasion."

There were journalists who got it right, including the remarkable crew at McClatchy-Knight Ridder, and they didn't have catered access the way Woodward did. Against all this, Woodward hands us one quote from notable "truth-teller" George Tenet, probably because Woodward long ago divided the world into two kinds of people — People Who Talk To Bob Woodward and Everybody Else. Sad, really.

Who knows?

But this may be why we're finally hearing Noam Chomsky's name uttered aloud, and facts being questioned that were received as gospel not that long ago.

It's almost become like the small child's story (on the national stage this time) that constantly changes any time there's an occasion to bask once again in the limelight, and also beat a hasty retreat from a current activity he'd like to distance himself from. FAST.

And, Hillary? Is anyone paying attention to that nonsense?

I know Craiggers is seen as an old guy by all the younguns now, but he's still Reagan's hotshot gone bad to me. And, of course, he's been around long enough to recognize all the easy lies told to a largely ignorant or uncaring audience who are really just pausing a moment before they get all eager agin to turn on the new TV "Family Feuds."

You, on the other hand, should give this a good hard read.

And don't be afraid to follow the winking links.

Washington Protects Its Lies With More Lies

Paul Craig Roberts

My distrust has deepened of Seymour Hersh’s retelling of the Obama regime’s extra-judicial murder of Osama bin Laden by operating illegally inside a sovereign country.

That Hersh’s story, which is of very little inherent interest, received such a large amount of attention, is almost proof of orchestration in order to substantiate the Obama regime’s claim to have killed a person who had been dead for a decade.

Americans are gullible, and thought does not come easily to them, but if they try hard enough they must wonder why it would be necessary for the government to concoct a totally false account of the deed if Washington kills an alleged terrorist. Why not just give the true story? Why does the true story have to come out years later from anonymous sources leaked to Hersh?

I can tell you for a fact that if SEALs had encountered bin Laden in Abbottabad, they would have used stun grenades and tear gas to take him alive. Bin Laden would have been paraded before the media, and a jubilant White House would have had a much photographed celebration pinning medals on the SEALs who captured him.

Instead, we have a murder without a body, which under law classifies as no murder, and a story that was changed several times by the White House itself within 48 hours of the alleged raid and has now been rewritten again by disinformation planted on Hersh.

Perhaps the release of book titles allegedly found in bin Laden’s alleged residence in Abbottabad is part of the explanation. Who can imagine the “terror mastermind” sitting around reading what the presstitute "London Telegraph" calls bin Laden’s library of conspiracy theories about 9/11 and Washington’s foreign and economic policies?

Keep in mind that the government’s claim that these books were in bin Laden’s Abbottabad library comes from the same government that told you Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, that Assad used chemical weapons, that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, and that Russia invaded Ukraine.

There is no evidence whatsoever that bin Laden had these books, just as there is no evidence for any claim made by Washington. In the absence of evidence, Washington’s position amounts to this:  “It is true if we say so.”

I would wager that the Hersh story was planted in order to gin up renewed interest in the bin Laden saga, which could then be used to discredit Washington’s critics. Notice that the authors in bin Laden’s alleged library are those careful and knowledgeable people who have severely whipped Washington with the truth.

The whip wielders are Noam Chomsky, David Ray Griffin, Michel Chossudovsky, Greg Palast, Michael Scheuer, William Blum. You get the picture. You mustn’t believe these truth-tellers, because bin Laden approved of them and had their books in his library. By extension, will these truth-tellers be accused of aiding and abetting terrorism?

Obama claims to have settled the score in "mafia godfather" fashion with bin Laden for 9/11. But there is no body and not even a consistent story about what happened to the body. The sailors aboard the ship from which the White House reported bin Laden was given a burial at sea report no such burial took place. The SEAL unit that allegedly supplied the team that killed an unarmed and undefended bin Laden was mysteriously wiped out in a helicopter crash.

It turns out that the SEALs were flown into combat against the Taliban in an antique, half-century-old 1960s vintage helicopter. Parents of the dead SEALs are demanding to have unanswered questions answered, a story that the presstitute media has conveniently dropped for Washington’s convenience.

Other than 9/11 itself, never has such a major event as bin Laden’s killing had such an enormous number of contradictory official and quasi-official explanations, unanswered questions and evasions. And the vast number of evasions and contradictions arouse no interest from the Western media or from the somnolent and insouciant American public.

Now it turns out that Washington has “lost” the bin Laden “death files,” thus protecting in perpetuity the fabricated story of bin Laden’s killing.

Here is Tom Hartman’s interview with David Ray Griffin:   Is bin Laden dead or alive:

Here is Philip Kraske’s "OpEdNews" article on Steve Kroft’s orchestrated “60 Minutes” interview with Obama on the killing of Osama bin Laden:


So it's not just me?

May 25, 2015

Noam Chomsky Holds the "New York Times" to Account

Paul Craig Roberts

I can remember when the "New York Times" was only partly a CIA asset using its ink in support of Washington’s lies. The other part of the paper was the upper-class paternalistic liberalism of that time. The "New York Times" helped to destroy America.

Washington has taken the place of America and now the "Times" serves full time to protect Washington. All the troubles in the world originate independently of Washington, which is always trying to do good for everybody and to maintain stability for the One Percent.

Stability trickles down. If the One Percent couldn’t afford their $750,000 Franck Muller wrist watches and their $700,000 Mont Blanc jewel-encrusted pens, their $50,000,000 yachts, and $42,000 Louis Vitton handbags carried by $100,000 bodyguards, the rest of us would be down and out.

I mean, really, what would be our fate if hedge fund managers didn’t collect their $575,000,000 bonuses each year and the Federal Reserve didn’t print trillions of dollars with which to buy the bad assets of the deregulated banks too-big-to-fail”? There would be nothing to trickle down to those minimum wage part-time Walmart jobs. If the rich weren’t ripping us off, we would be even worse off!

That’s the way the "New York Times" and its chief fool, Thomas Friedman, reason.

Here is Noam Chomsky explaining how the "Times" covers up Washington’s crimes with platitudes:

The “Paper of Record” Is Pure Propaganda

Noam Chomsky

A front-page article is devoted to a flawed story about a campus rape in the journal "Rolling Stone," exposed in the leading academic journal of media critique.

So severe is this departure from journalistic integrity that it is also the subject of the lead story in the Business Section, with a full inside page devoted to the continuation of the two reports. The shocked reports refer to several past crimes of the press:  a few cases of fabrication, quickly exposed, and cases of plagiarism (“too numerous to list”). The specific crime of "Rolling Stone" is “lack of skepticism,” which is “in many ways the most insidious” of the three categories.

It is refreshing to see the commitment of the "Times" to the integrity of journalism.

On page 7 of the same issue, there is an important story by Thomas Fuller headlined “One Woman’s Mission to free Laos from Unexploded Bombs.” It reports the “single-minded effort” of a Lao-American woman, Channapha Khamvongsa, “to rid her native land of millions of bombs still buried there, the legacy of a nine-year American air campaign that made Laos one of the most heavily bombed places on earth” – soon to be outstripped by rural Cambodia, following the orders of Henry Kissinger to the US air force:  “A massive bombing campaign in Cambodia. Anything that flies on anything that moves.” A comparable call for virtual genocide would be very hard to find in the archival record. It was mentioned in the "Times" in an article on released tapes of President Nixon, and elicited little notice.

The Fuller story on Laos reports that as a result of Ms. Khamvongsa’s lobbying, the US increased its annual spending on removal of unexploded bombs by a munificent $12 million. The most lethal are cluster bombs, which are designed to “cause maximum casualties to troops” by spraying “hundreds of bomblets onto the ground.” About 30 percent remain unexploded, so that they kill and maim children who pick up the pieces, farmers who strike them while working, and other unfortunates. An accompanying map features Xieng Khouang province in northern Laos, better known as the Plain of Jars, the primary target of the intensive bombing, which reached its peak of fury in 1969.

Fuller reports that Ms. Khamvongsa “was spurred into action when she came across a collection of drawings of the bombings made by refugees and collected by Fred Branfman, an antiwar activist who helped expose the Secret War.” The drawings appear in the late Fred Branfman’s remarkable book Voices from the Plain of Jars, published in 1972, republished by the U. of Wisconsin press in 2013 with a new introduction.

The drawings vividly display the torment of the victims, poor peasants in a remote area that had virtually nothing to do with the Vietnam war, as officially conceded. One typical report by a 26 year-old nurse captures the nature of the air war:  “There wasn’t a night when we thought we’d live until morning, never a morning we thought we’d survive until night. Did our children cry? Oh, yes, and we did also. I just stayed in my cave. I didn’t see the sunlight for two years. What did I think about? Oh, I used to repeat, `please don’t let the planes come, please don’t let the planes come, please don’t let the planes come.'”

Branfman’s valiant efforts did indeed bring some awareness of this hideous atrocity. His assiduous researches also unearthed the reasons for the savage destruction of a helpless peasant society. He exposes the reasons once again in the introduction to the new edition of Voices. In his words:

“One of the most shattering revelations about the bombing was discovering why it had so vastly increased in 1969, as described by the refugees. I learned that after President Lyndon Johnson had declared a bombing halt over North Vietnam in November 1968, he had simply diverted the planes into northern Laos. There was no military reason for doing so. It was simply because, as U.S. Deputy Chief of Mission Monteagle Stearns testified to the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations in October 1969, `Well, we had all those planes sitting around and couldn’t just let them stay there with nothing to do’.”

Therefore the unused planes were unleashed on poor peasants, devastating the peaceful Plain of Jars, far from the ravages of Washington’s murderous wars of aggression in Indochina.

Let us now see how these revelations are transmuted into "New York Times" Newspeak:  “The targets were North Vietnamese troops — especially along the Ho Chi Minh Trail, a large part of which passed through Laos — as well as North Vietnam’s Laotian Communist allies.”

Compare the words of the U.S. Deputy Chief of Mission, and the heart-rending drawings and testimony in Fred Branfman’s cited collection.

True, the reporter has a source:   U.S. propaganda. That surely suffices to overwhelm mere fact about one of the major crimes of the post-World War II era, as detailed in the very source he cites:  Fred Branfman’s crucial revelations.

We can be confident that this colossal lie in the service of the state will not merit lengthy exposure and denunciation of disgraceful misdeeds of the Free Press, such as plagiarism and lack of skepticism.

The same issue of the "New York Times" treats us to a report by the inimitable Thomas Friedman, earnestly relaying the words of President Obama presenting what Friedman labels “the Obama Doctrine” – every President has to have a Doctrine. The profound Doctrine is “’engagement,’ combined with meeting core strategic needs.

The President illustrated with a crucial case:  “You take a country like Cuba. For us to test the possibility that engagement leads to a better outcome for the Cuban people, there aren’t that many risks for us. It’s a tiny little country. It’s not one that threatens our core security interests, and so [there’s no reason not] to test the proposition. And if it turns out that it doesn’t lead to better outcomes, we can adjust our policies.”

Here the Nobel Peace laureate expands on his reasons for undertaking what the leading US left-liberal intellectual journal, the "New York Review," hails as the “brave” and “truly historic step” of reestablishing diplomatic relations with Cuba. It is a move undertaken in order to “more effectively empower the Cuban people,” the hero explained, our earlier efforts to bring them freedom and democracy having failed to achieve our noble goals.

The earlier efforts included a crushing embargo condemned by the entire world (Israel excepted) and a brutal terrorist war. The latter is as usual wiped out of history, apart from failed attempts to assassinate Castro, a very minor feature, acceptable because it can be dismissed with scorn as ridiculous CIA shenanigans.

Turning to the declassified internal record, we learn that these crimes were undertaken because of Cuba’s “successful defiance” of US policy going back to the Monroe Doctrine, which declared Washington’s intent to rule the hemisphere. All unmentionable, along with too much else to recount here.

Searching further we find other gems, for example, the front-page think piece on the Iran deal by Peter Baker a few days earlier, warning about the Iranian crimes regularly listed by Washington’s propaganda system. All prove to be quite revealing on analysis, though none more so than the ultimate Iranian crime:  “destabilizing” the region by supporting “Shiite militias that killed American soldiers in Iraq.”

Here again is the standard picture. When the US invades Iraq, virtually destroying it and inciting sectarian conflicts that are tearing the country and now the whole region apart, that counts as “stabilization” in official and hence media rhetoric. When Iran supports militias resisting the aggression, that is “destabilization.” And there could hardly be a more heinous crime than killing American soldiers attacking one’s homes.

All of this, and far, far more, makes perfect sense if we show due obedience and uncritically accept approved doctrine:   The US owns the world, and it does so by right, for reasons also explained lucidly in the "New York Review," in a March 2015 article by Jessica Matthews, former president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace:  “American contributions to international security, global economic growth, freedom, and human well-being have been so self-evidently unique and have been so clearly directed to others’ benefit that Americans have long believed that the US amounts to a different kind of country. Where others push their national interests, the US tries to advance universal principles.” Defense rests.

(Noam Chomsky is a professor of linguistics and philosophy at MIT.)

Speaking as one who marched for years protesting this war, I remember reading about the bombing of the "peasants" and how they got what they deserved.

After all, we're the know-it-all exceptional country. Have been for over 60 years.

Wonder how long before we get ours?

How about one more dollop of non-insanity?

And from "Znet:"

Noam Chomsky:  US Power and the Godfather Principle

By Noam Chomsky, John Holder
and Doug Morris

27 May 15

n Interview with Noam Chomsky conducted by John Holder and Doug Morris, May 4, 2015, at MIT, Cambridge, MA. This is the fifth in a series of interviews concentrating mostly on questions gathered from young folks. Video is forthcoming.

Q. We are here at the beginning of May 2015 and there appears to be a rapprochement developing between Cuba and the United States. There is a lot of mainstream talk about the economic opportunities this could bring to the business community in the United States but very little about how this impacts the Cuban revolution and her citizens. What are your thoughts on Cuba and her future?

NC: First, why did Obama make this gesture?

According to the official story, his own speech, and then the echoes of the cooperative media is that we have been trying for fifty years to bring democracy and freedom to Cuba, and our methods so far have not worked so we should find other methods to pursue our noble aims.

And this is described in the "New York Review of Books," way out on the left liberal fringe of the intellectual world, as “a noble gesture that will create a new legacy for Obama,” and so on.

Turning to the real world there was a summit coming up in Panama, a hemispheric summit. At the previous hemispheric summit which was in Colombia, the U.S. and Canada were totally isolated from the rest of the hemisphere on two issues and therefore there was no consensus agreement. One was admission of Cuba into the hemisphere which the U.S. and Canada adamantly rejected.

The rest of the hemisphere has wanted it for a long time. The second was interesting; it was moves toward de-criminalization of drugs. The U.S. so called “drug war” is having no effect on availability of drugs and that has been known for forty years, but it does have a lethal effect in Latin America. And here in the U.S. it is basically a technique for locking up black males. So it is part of the control of what is seen as a superfluous population. And Latin America wants to get out of it but the U.S. and Canada won’t. That is the background.

The next summit was coming up in a couple of weeks in Panama and it would have been an absolute disaster for the United States unless Obama had made some kind of gesture. So he finally agreed to move toward limited normalization. The embargo remains, Cuban scholars are still not permitted to come to scientific conferences in the United States, and so on.

As to the “noble effort to bring democracy and freedom to Cuba” what was ignored in most of the commentary is mentioned but there is a crushing embargo for fifty years, which is opposed by the entire world. If you look at the votes in the United Nations General Assembly, there is an annual vote, only Israel votes with the United States – occasionally a Pacific Island.

And on top of that there is a major terrorist war, primarily under Kennedy, but a serious terrorist war that went on into the nineties. The only thing allowed to be mentioned is there were some attempts to assassinate Castro, which is true, but they can be laughed off as CIA shenanigans. They are a footnote. The main thing is the terrorist war; that is the attempt to “bring justice and democracy to Cuba.”

And we know the reasons but they are unmentionable. It is an open society. We have internal records. The reason was, the concern was, as the State Department put it, “Castro is carrying out successful defiance of U.S. policies that go back to 1823,” the Monroe Doctrine which declared that the U.S. must dominate the hemisphere.

The U.S. was not in a position to do it at the time, but that was the goal. And that has been U.S. policy ever since, and Castro’s defying it means getting in the way of that, and you can’t do that.

International affairs” is very much like the mafia. A major principle of international affairs is the Godfather cannot brook disobedience. Here it is given various, kind of euphemisms, so it is called “the domino theory,” but what it actually amounts to is what Henry Kissinger described very well.

He happened to be talking about Allende’s Chile, which was a parliamentary democracy moving toward social democracy, and he described it as “a virus that might spread contagion.” In other words, others might pick up the model of moving through parliamentary means to social democratic policies, and that is extremely dangerous because the system of domination and control might fall apart.

So, the U.S. backed a vicious, murderous dictatorship to kill the virus, and instituted murderous dictatorships in the surrounding area to prevent contagion. That is exactly what it was doing in Southeast Asia at the same time. These are leading themes. And the same was true of Cuba.

When Kennedy came into office he had a Latin American Commission, a research commission. The report was handed to him by Arthur Schlesinger a well known liberal historian and his Latin American advisor, and the way Schlesinger put it was, the summary of the study was that the problem of Cuba is the spread of the Castro idea of taking matters into your own hands which might inspire others in other countries who are suffering the same repression and violence that the Cubans are, might inspire them to do the same thing.

As any mafia don understands, if you allow any disobedience and you let them get away with it, then it can spread, so you have to crush it at the source. That is a dominant theme of foreign policy.

The U.S. did not make it up; it is understood by every imperial power, but it is the leading theme of U.S. international policy, and Cuba was, of course, the victim of that. And since they were successful in their defiance they had to be subjected to unusual punishment, a crushing embargo, a very serious terrorist war, and that is the translation of Obama’s lovely phrases into English.

But he did have to make the move; otherwise the U.S. would have had a catastrophe at the Panama summit. This way, though they were under plenty of criticism, they could sort of pretend that the U.S. was greeted with enthusiasm for its forthcoming gesture. That is the way the propaganda system operates.

The moves are of some significance, but the Cuba case is pretty interesting. Typically, foreign policy is pretty much dictated by concentrated domestic power, as you would expect. That means the corporate sector, pretty much in terms of policy.

The American population has been in favor of normalization with Cuba for about forty years. But, the population is usually disregarded, so that is not surprising. What is of interest is that major sectors of U.S. capital were in favor of normalization, the pharmaceutical industry, agribusiness, energy corporations, they are usually very influential in designing policy, but not in this case. The State interests, the godfather interests in punishing Cuba for its successful defiance overwhelmed the normal factors that determine policy. That is not a unique case but an interesting one. Actually, Iran is another case. Apart from what was done to Cuba, which is pretty awful, it is of great interest in understanding ourselves.

Q: Briefly, on January 29th of this year, NPR published a piece that included the following, “through controversial politicking, the U.S. was given a perpetual lease at Guantanamo in 1903. We don’t see it as “controversial.”

NC: It is kind of interesting when you compare it to Russia’s annexation of Crimea – which was of course illegal. But U.S. control over Guantanamo is far worse. The lease they are talking about was at gun point. Cuba was essentially under military occupation, so it is totally meaningless. The U.S. simply demanded, and of course, was granted control over a large part of Southeast Cuba, including its major port, Guantanamo. And the condition was that it would be used as a coaling station and a couple of other such things. When Cuba finally achieved independence in 1959 it asked to have that territory returned. The U.S. refused, of course.

Q: Just to be clear, we are not just talking about the military base, but the actual land.

NC: Yes, there is a region which includes the base, and the harbor which is Cuba’s major harbor, or would be. So, the U.S. is keeping it for several reasons. One is as part of the punishment of Cuba. It significantly impedes the economic development of Cuba. Secondly, the U.S. uses it for a variety of illegal purposes. It used it to house Haitian refugees fleeing from the terrorist state, of course in violation of international law, but the U.S. sent them off to the Guantanamo prison. And, of course, in more recent years, it has been one of the major torture chambers in the world. In fact, if you look at human rights violations in Cuba, which everyone is obsessed with, by far the worst of them are in Guantanamo.

But the U.S. has no claim to Guantanamo whatsoever, either historical, strategic, or anything else, it just holds onto it because it has the power to. By comparison Putin looks pretty mild in the case of Crimea. But to discuss this in the United States is almost inconceivable.

Q: A question from high school students. Most people in this class were born in 2001 and the U.S. has been involved in military aggression our whole lives. It is the norm for us. We have discovered that the U.S. has been involved in military aggression constantly since 1950. Why does U.S. power stay committed to violence and militarization?

NC: Going back to 1950, the U.S. far and away was the most powerful state in history. It had about half the world’s wealth, incomparable security, it controlled the hemisphere, both oceans, opposite sides of both oceans, other industrial societies had been devastated by the war, the U.S. economy boomed during the war, industrial production quadrupled. The U.S. was basically in a position to run the world. Planners understood it, and they laid out detailed, sophisticated plans as to how to run the world.

Well, let us go back to the mafia. When the don controls some huge territory, he does not want to give it up. In fact, in 1949, a critical event took place. China became independent. That is called, in the United States, “the loss of China,” which is a very interesting phrase. And it became a major issue in American domestic policy. It was kind of the roots of McCarthyism, McCarthyist repression, [and the question was] who is responsible for the loss of China? When Kennedy came into office, one of the reasons for his sharp escalation of the war in Vietnam was the fear that he would be blamed for the loss of Indochina. I can’t lose your computer, only you can. But since we own the world, and that is taken for granted, it is “the loss of China.” And they do not want to lose anything else, just like the godfather doesn’t.

And to maintain control often requires violence, and the world knows this. Not Americans, but the world does. So, for example, about a year ago there was an international poll, run by the Gallup organization, the main U.S. polling organization, so everyone knows the results, it was an international poll and one of the questions it asked was “Which country is the greatest threat to world peace?” The United States was far in the lead. No one else was even close. Second place was way behind and it was Pakistan, inflated by the Indian vote, practically nobody else was mentioned.

That is an international poll. Why don’t Americans know about it? Very simple, the free press refused to publish it – do a data base search. A couple of people reported it. I did and a few others. Every editorial office, of course knew it, but they also knew this is not the kind of thing you tell Americans. What you tell Americans is that Iran is the greatest threat to world peace. That is trumpeted by every major media outlet. Every candidate for office, every presidential candidate, the official media constantly declare that Iran is the greatest threat to world peace. That is the party line here.

For the world it is the U.S. that is the greatest threat to world peace. And this is of course related to what the students described. We are constantly at war, the country maybe has a thousand military bases around the world, no other country has anything like that. The U.S. is conducting the most extraordinary global assassination campaign, terror campaign in world history, it is the drone campaign, which is officially described, not a secret, as a campaign intended to kill people who are suspected of maybe someday planning to harm us.

If Iran said it was carrying out a global assassination campaign to murder people who it knows are intending to harm it, not just “suspects,” like the Israeli leadership which is constantly threatening to bomb and is carrying out terrorist activities in Iran, the editors of the "New York Times" and the "Washington Post" who publish Op/Eds calling for the bombing of Iran, we would think it was terrorism.

But when the mafia don does it, it is just stabilizing the world. But the world does not necessarily see it that way, especially the victims. And yes, constant aggression, terror, Special Forces operations, etc. Right now, the U.S. is supporting the Saudi attack on Yemen which is destroying Yemen. The U.S. has practically demolished Iraq, incited and spread sectarian conflict that did not exist [prior to the U.S. invasion] which is now tearing the region to shreds. The U.S. participated in the bombing of Libya in violation of the Security Council resolution that the triumvirate, Britain, France, and the United States introduced.

It has destroyed Libya. It has now vastly escalated the number of casualties, left the country in tatters. It is part of the immigration crisis in the Mediterranean. All of these things are happening but it is called “stabilization” and “benevolence” and so on. Not for the world. They see it differently.

Q: More and more the U.S. public is being made aware of the dangerous intersection between the police of this country and its male African American citizens. Do you find that the frequency of these incidents is something new or is it that the documentation of them is getting better?

NC: I think what is happening is a kind of statistical aberration. It goes on all the time. But it happens that there has been a cluster which is probably a statistical accident. But it is enough that it brought the matter to the fore; it is very hard to avoid when these things are striking you in the face day after day, but it is a constant phenomena. Black communities just live under these conditions. If you look at the record, over the years, the number of black males who have been killed or injured by the police is way beyond any relationship to crime or certainly the white population or anything else. When there is a riot of young whites, people don’t get killed. When it is blacks, they get killed.

It is part of a long story that goes back 400 years. 400 years is when the first slaves were brought to the United States. The American economy, a substantial part of it, our wealth and privilege, developed on the basis of a century of vicious slave labor camps. The worst in the history of slavery. They would have impressed the Nazis. But they produced the wealth that created the financial industries, the commercial industries, manufacturing, etc.

After that there were a couple of years, a decade in fact, of relative freedom, then the system was basically reinstituted by criminalization of black life, creating a new slave labor force by the government that contributed a large part of the American industrial revolution that was based on essentially slave labor from the incarceration of black, mostly black males – mining, the steel industry, the agricultural aspect is known (chain gangs you could see them), but the rest you didn’t actually see but it was happening. That went on virtually until the Second World War.

Then there were a couple of decades of rapid economic growth and a certain degree of opportunity. Then you get in the era of the drug war and kind of back to the late nineteenth century. And all of this is the background.

The killings and the repression are in part a class issue and in part a race issue. And the two are pretty closely correlated so they are hard to tease apart but undoubtedly the race issue is a major part, after all that is the leading theme of American history for four hundred years now.

Q: A more lighthearted question, perhaps – from a sixteen year old student. See if you want to take this up. If your sixteen-year-old self was in high school today and could interview Noam Chomsky today at 86 what would you ask?

NC: I remember what I was doing at sixteen. I was deeply immersed in radical political activities such as there was and all sorts of reading of all that was involved in the rise of fascism, the Second World War was going on, I was critical of a lot of what was happening, especially the imperial conquest of Southern Europe, attacks on Greece, on Italy, very much involved in the Spanish Revolution, interested in that and many other things, and, incidentally, thinking about dropping out of college because it was so boring. I’m not suggesting that as advice to a sixteen year old. I was so far out on the fringe that it is not a model for anyone.

If I was a sixteen-year-old today I’d be asking “What are we going to do about the fact that we are racing towards a precipice and we are going to fall over it and it will be devastating for these kid’s children and grandchildren?” The number of people who are already dying from global warming is in the hundreds of thousands a year. It is going to escalate sharply.

About one out of six species has already been destroyed. It is the worst species destruction in sixty million years. If we don’t cut this off pretty soon it will be beyond the tipping point and the worst part is that young people don’t know about it. There was just a poll released, a major poll, of Millennials, people who are teenagers today, like this student. About fifty percent of them believe what practically 100% of scientists believe. About 20% agree that “yes, there is global warming but human beings don’t have anything to do with it.”

And about 30% take the position of Rubio and so on “I’m not a scientist, I don’t know, the science isn’t settled.” The science is settled, as much as anything is. That is one major catastrophe. The other is the constant threat of nuclear war. If you look over the record for seventy years it is just a miracle that we survived. And top strategic analysts are aware of that and warned that we can’t live like that forever. Even just by accident, something is going to happen. And the threats are actually building up.

There is a famous “Doomsday Clock” of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists set up in 1947, and it keeps moving up and back before midnight. Midnight means terminal. It was just advanced a couple of months ago to two minutes closer to midnight. Three minutes from midnight. It is the closest it has been since a major war scare in the early eighties.

That is a serious threat; the other is environmental catastrophe which is coming and we are racing towards it, increasing the use of fossil fuels. It is common knowledge among qualified scientists that these just have to be kept in the ground if we are going to survive.

And as I said, people don’t know. Interestingly, younger people, who it was thought might be more aware of it, really aren’t. Somewhat more. So, if you take older people, say among older Republicans, ten percent think there is global warming. They are just living in another universe. But even of the majority, a near majority (about half the population), don’t really accept it. That is one of the most dangerous things you can imagine.

So advice that any sixteen-year-old ought to be thinking about is “What can I do about my own peers and what can I do about a political and social system which is structured so that it is going to drive us to total disaster?” That is the question they should be asking.

Q: This raises a question related to that. This is a college student, a college student who is studying to be a teacher, an elementary teacher, she says: “Given the severity of the nightmares we face, nuclear nightmares, ecological destruction, extinction of species, do we need new approaches to formal education? If not now, how bad does it have to get until we say it is time for (1) a radical re-thinking of education, and (2) radical reconstructions of education?

NC: My own feeling is that we should return to a more sane educational system that did exist. The tendency in the recent period, in my opinion, is to undermine the educational system. So, take K-12, which is now geared increasingly toward “teaching to tests” – the worst possible form of education. All three of us know from our own experience and everyone knows it if they think about it, you can take a course which you are not interested in, you can study for the exam, pass the exam, get an “A,” and a week later you forgot what the course was even about.

If something is poured into you from the outside and you regurgitate it, it doesn’t stay. If you want to understand and learn anything it has got to be self-generated. That is well-understood, the psychological mechanisms, the history, this goes back hundreds of years to the Enlightenment. The education system has been turned away from that and toward imposing passivity, conformity, obedience, memorize what you are told, put it on paper, forget about it, go on to the next thing.

That is part of the reason why you have these shocking statistics about the lack of awareness of young people about what is facing them. They are not educated to discover what is happening in the world, only to repeat what they are told and put it in a test, which you then forget about.

So, the educational system should be completely redesigned to be a system that is designed for education not for training for passivity and conformism.

Q: So, are you pointing out that there was a time when creativity, curiosity, exploration, etc. was paramount?

NC: Not paramount, but present to an extent. What existed is being undermined. In fact, the right of a teacher to be a good teacher is being undermined. There are plenty of good, dedicated, committed teachers who would love to be able to inspire their students to search for themselves, to think things through, to challenge, to pursue interests, and they are being prevented from doing that.

For being prevented from doing it they have to tell students, I’ve heard many stories, suppose a six-year-old kid is interested in something, well you have to tell them you have to study for the exam that is coming because your future will depend on it and though the teacher does not say so “my salary will depend on it.” It is a system of indoctrination and control. It has nice names like “No Child Left Behind,” “Race to the Top,” and so on, but it is a very harmful system.

And something similar is happening at the college level. There is an imposition of a kind of business model on colleges and universities that is very harmful. To an extent you even see it in places like MIT. MIT is a research university, so if you take a course here you are not supposed to memorize it and put it in an exam. You are supposed to learn to inquire, to create, to challenge, and so on. Nevertheless, the shift toward the business model and corporate funding does have a cheapening effect. It tends to drive research and with it teaching towards short-term applied problems instead of fundamental issues. It is not an overwhelming tendency at MIT because in a research university there is going to be resistance to it, because it is understood that you have to create the science and economy of the future, but it is there.

In other colleges and universities it is more so. It is a very dangerous thing. In England, it is even worse. In England, which had a great university tradition, one commentator pointed out, the way he put it, “The Tory conservative government is intent on turning first class universities into third class commercial enterprises.” And that is pretty much what is happening. So, if the Classics Department wants to continue to exist it has to find funding somewhere. That is not the way to develop a civilization.

Q: From a high school student. The word “radical” is often linked to your social critiques. If “radical” means “getting to the root cause,” what is the root cause or what are the root causes of all of these problems we have been talking about?

NC: Well, there is not a single one. So, one problem I mentioned, for example, is racism, which is deeply embedded in American culture and history. In fact, what I described, I mean, it is known to scholarship, but most people are not aware of this. Another is the United States is somewhat unusual among industrial societies in a number of respects. One of them is, to an unusual extent it is a business-run society. So, for example, take voting. One of the main scholars of American electoral politics, Walter Dean Burnham, he studied non-voting in the United States. He has pointed out that if you do a demographic analysis of non-voters here they are approximately the same as the people in Europe who vote but vote for labor-based or social democratic parties and since they don’t exist here they just don’t vote.

In fact, he and a colleague, Thomas Ferguson, just did a study of the last election, November, 2014 and the results are pretty startling. It turns out that voting participation was about at the level of the early 19th century when voting was restricted to propertied white males.

They conclude, the obvious conclusion, most people just don’t see any point. There is nothing in there that has anything to do with us, and studies demonstrate that. Mainstream political science has interesting results about this. It turns out that for about 70% of the population their representatives pay absolutely no attention to their attitudes. There is no correlation between what the population wants and what is legislated, the lower 70% on the income scale. When you get to the very top they basically set policy.

That is one of the reasons why if you look at studies of the OECD, the Organization of the Industrial Democracies, there is about 31 of them, they do many studies of all sorts of things, and one recent study was on social justice – how countries do in social justice by various measures. The United States is practically at the bottom. I think it is 27 out of 31 right alongside Turkey and Mexico, poor countries. There is a lot more that reflects this.

So, for example, take transportation. To get from Boston to New York, or Washington, probably the most heavily traveled corridor, maybe, in the world, to get to Washington it takes about seven hours. In any European country it would be about two hours. In China, you can go from Beijing to Kazakhstan by a high speed rail, but you can’t go from New York to Boston. The United States is extremely backward in public services.

On the other hand it is one of the freest countries in the world. Freedom of speech is protected beyond the norm, though police repression of minorities is severe, by comparative standards, people with any degree of privilege are pretty free.

Many of these things are rooted in the very nature of American society. After all, the country was founded on two enormous crimes. One of them is slavery which is a horrifying crime and is the basis of a lot of our wealth. The other is the destruction of the indigenous population.

Take a look at the front pages of the paper this morning, the "New York Times." There is a report on the rising rate of suicides among teenagers on Indian reservations. Why is that? I mean, this was their country. They have been exterminated, expelled, driven to reservations where they can barely survive. So, they are committing suicide. What else are they supposed to do? These are huge crimes and we have not come to terms with them.

There are “Holocaust Studies” in every town, Holocaust museums all over the place. Try to find a slavery museum; or an American Indian museum. I mean there are a couple of things that are anthropological studies, but nothing commemorating the hideous crimes and immense tragedy on which our wealth and privilege depend. That leads to a kind of cultural degradation which infects almost everything. You see it almost every day. There are plenty of examples. Take say "American Sniper" which everyone was going to see.

Q: You are speaking about the movie, yes?

NC: Yes, the movie, but the memoir on which it is based is even worse. I tried to see it and I lasted about fifteen minutes. I couldn’t handle it any longer. The first incident which the sniper is extremely proud of, and about which everybody cheers, is when the marines are attacking a town and a woman comes out holding a grenade and the sniper kills her with one shot and kills her son, and he is very proud of this, he says these are savages, they are monsters, we hate them, they are not human, they are barbarians – a person defending their town from an American invasion.

Let us go to the intellectuals like say the readers of the "New York Times." The day after the draft agreement with Iran there was, of course, a lot of commentary. One thing was a think piece by one of their liberal analysts, Peter Baker, and he said it is basically a good thing but there are problems:  we can’t really trust Iran; Iran carries out terrorism, and aggression; destabilizes the region, and he gave some examples.

The most interesting example, which aroused no comment, is that Iran supports Iraqis who are killing American soldiers. In other words, when we invade and destroy a country and now spread chaos around the region, even leading to the establishment of the Islamic State, that is “stabilization.” If somebody defends themselves from our attack they are criminals and that is “destabilization” and we can’t trust them. One can go on and on with examples.

All of this reflects cultural attitudes similar to the notion of the loss of China, similar to the idea that if anyone resists our violent domination and control they are criminals, not us. We can’t be criminals, we are exceptional. We are exceptionally benign. The world doesn’t happen to think so, but we protect ourselves from that fact by simply not reporting it. These are serious problems. There is no single root for all of them; there are a lot of historical roots. But they are all things to pay attention to.

Q: Didn’t the Japanese prime minister just offer an apology for crimes the Japanese government committed during WWII?

NC: A kind of qualified apology – something but not much.

Q: We have not heard any apology from anyone in the State Department for the destruction of Iraq.

NC: Of course not. How about Vietnam? It is the worst crime since the Second World War. Killed millions of people, destroyed three countries, people are still dying, many babies are dying from the effects of U.S. chemical warfare which was begun by Kennedy. How do we react? It is kind of interesting. Let us look at some examples.

The war ended in 1975. The next year President Carter was elected – the human rights president, way out on the liberal extreme. And he was asked in a press conference in 1977, “Do we have some responsibility for what happened in Vietnam?” and his answer was “We owe Vietnam no debt, because the destruction was mutual.” Not a comment… not a comment. Let us go on to, we can skip Reagan for whom it was “a noble cause,” and so on.

Go to George H.W. Bush, the statesman-like Bush. He was asked some similar question and what he said was “We should explain to the Vietnamese that we are a compassionate people, we are willing to forget the crimes that they committed against us, but there is a condition. They have to devote their energies and resources to the one moral issue that remains after the Vietnam War, namely finding the bones of American pilots who they maliciously shot down,” while they were just kind of cruising somewhere, maybe over central Iowa. That is the central moral issue.

John McCain is considered a hero. Well, he suffered torture and imprisonment, obviously a crime, but he was also involved in a major war crime, aggression, bombing another country. I mean if someone was bombing us we would not call them a hero.

Q: For the last five interviews my mother keeps asking me to ask you the following question, so I have to ask.

NC: You have to do what your mother says.

Q: She said “Please ask Noam ‘When will there be peace?’”

NC: Well, actually Bertrand Russell was asked that question once and he said “Someday there will be peace, after everything in the world has been destroyed and all that is left is primitive organisms, then there will be peace.” I hope it comes before that, but we are not helping.

Q: That is not what my mother wants to hear! A "New York Times" article a few weeks back titled something like “Endless Growth Meets Nature’s Limits” looking at the drought in California. We were hopeful that this article was going to look at capital’s imperative toward endless growth linked to the destruction of nature, but when one reads the article virtually everyone interviewed gave the same response, “The market will solve the problems.” It struck us as a form of market fundamentalism that is extremely dangerous – when confronted with a very harsh reality the market fundamentalist belief system supersedes that reality.

NC: Market fundamentalism is a very interesting phenomenon. For one thing, we do not believe in markets.

Q: When you say “we” to whom are you referring?

NC: This country and its leaders, political leaders, economic leaders, and so on. You guys probably have an iPhone, or an “i” something or other. If you look at the technology inside it most of it is developed in the state sector in places like MIT. Nothing about markets. Computers, internet, the technology there, the advanced economy, a lot of it is driven by the state sector and this goes way back.

I mentioned before that American economic growth to a very substantial extent was based on slave labor camps. Is that the market? Of course, the elimination of the Native population by force, is that the market? And that goes on right to the present. The market is for poor people. The rich protect themselves from the market.

But there is an element of the markets, it is there. Markets have a very well known property, it is called “ignoring externalities.” So if you and I make a transaction we pay attention to our own welfare but not to somebody else’s. We don’t ask what it does to them.

Well, one of the externalities happens to be destroying the world. To the extent that say the energy corporations and the government behind them, follow market principles, what they are going to be doing because that is the nature of the market is maximizing their own profit and ignoring the fact that it is going to destroy the possibility of a decent life for their grandchildren, because that is an externality. That is the nature of markets.

A more sensible version, not quite as bad, came out a little bit after that, their "Week in Review" section, front page, “Is California Dying,” and it said “Well, California was created by human innovation and technology and it will be saved by human innovation and technology. Well, maybe, but that innovation and technology is not coming from the market, except peripherally, but the core is coming from where it always came, the dynamic state sector of the economy.

So, the market fundamentalism is preached, but not practiced. It is imposed on others, so you impose it on people, so people should not get food stamps, they should live on the market, but not the rich. They don’t get food stamps, they get lavished with massive subsidies of all kinds, no market there.

Q: Including the subsidy of daily exploited labor, yes?

NC: Yes, that is one, but it is all over the place. Take for example, the home mortgage deduction. Who benefits from that? Not people who bought a $200,000 home, people who bought a $2 million dollar home, yes, they benefit enormously.

And in fact, the whole system of laws and administration is geared toward ensuring that the wealthy and the privileged are protected from market ravages. The most extreme case, it is so blatant that it takes genius to miss it, is the financial institutions.

These are a huge part of the economy. Where do their profits come from? There was a study by the International Monetary Fund of the six major U.S. banks. It found that almost their entire profits came from a government insurance policy, meaning a taxpayer insurance policy. Informally, it is called “to big to fail.”

It means the credit agencies and others understand that they are not going to be allowed to fail. That has a lot of consequences. For one thing, they get bailed out if there is a problem, but it also means they have inflated credit ratings because it is going to be known that the taxpayer will save them, they have access to cheaper money; they can undertake risky transactions which are profitable because if they collapse the taxpayer will come in and pay them off.

This is a huge amount of money. The business press estimates it as over $80 billion a year, straight taxpayer subsidy to predatory institutions which probably harm the economy more than they benefit it. And, of course, they yield extraordinary wealth and power that is highly concentrated.

But everywhere you look it is the same. Right now there are secret negotiations going on about what are called “trade deals,” the Trans-Pacific, Trans-Atlantic Partnership, TPP. The government insists on what is called “fast track,” meaning Stalinist-style policy – we make the arrangements, you shut up, we tell you about it when it is done, and you can say “yes” or “no,” and of course you have to say “yes.” That is called “democracy.”

When I say it is in secret that is not entirely true. It is not secret to the corporate sector. Their lobbyists and lawyers are the one’s writing it, so they know what is in it. It just has to be kept secret from the population.

Why? Well, if you look at other so-called “trade deals,” you can make a good guess – it is not a trade deal. It is a deal for investor rights. It is going to be highly protectionist, undoubtedly, of what are called “intellectual property rights,” which means measures to ensure inflated profits for pharmaceutical corporations, huge media corporations, and so on, investor measures that grant investors rights that human beings do not have.

For example, you and I can’t sue some other country because we don’t like what they did, but the existing treaties, like NAFTA, do permit a U.S. corporation or conversely, if they could do it, a Mexican business to sue, but U.S. corporations can sue and have sued Mexico if it carries out measures, like setting up a national park which they can claim undercut future profits, things like that. These are called “trade-related investment mechanisms” that have nothing to do with trade.

Even what is called “trade” is often a joke. Take say NAFTA, the model, the North American Free Trade Agreement. Economists will tell you it has increased trade between Mexico and the United States. What is that trade? So, for example, if parts are produced in Indiana and sent to Mexico to assemble, and a car is sold in Los Angeles, that is called trade in both directions. It is not trade; it is interactions inside a command economy.

It is kind of like in the old Soviet Union if parts were made in Leningrad, assembled in Warsaw, and sold in Moscow, we would not call it trade – it is inside a command economy. General Motors is a command economy, a tyranny. How much? Roughly probably 50% of what is called trade. I mean, you really have to look at these things carefully. The talk about markets is mostly propaganda. There is an element of markets functioning and it is probably good for cutting down the price of toothpaste or something, but it has strongly harmful consequences.

Q: If a moral and rational being from outer space was looking at all that you are describing do you think they would conclude that it is insane and immoral?

NC: I think you have to distinguish between individual and institutional insanity, and stupidity for that matter. The individuals involved may be perfectly sane, but the institutional structure in which they are operating is insane. That is a fact.

Institutional stupidity is much harder to get rid of than individual stupidity. And we are trapped in it. And in fact, we are now in a lethal trap. If we don’t get out of it soon, we will be gone.

Q: “Trapped” sounds rather closed.

NC: It is not a law of nature. It can be changed by the sixteen year old who asked for advice. It is in their hands. The first thing they have to do is at least educate their peers. It is a big problem. Then organize them; then get them to become active. Since we are a very free society there are plenty of opportunities.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _

*# lewagner
"It took Woodward 18 months of looking at Bush to figure out what many of us figured out in 18 minutes. Instead of finding a Deep Throat, he allowed himself to be deepthroated by Cheney and Co."

It's well-known and even admitted in "All the President's Men" that Bob Woodward had ties to the Office of Naval Intelligence even during the Watergate "exposures".

Nixon had been getting a little too uppity, and Jerry Ford (of the Warren Commission) was considered more reliable and pliable. So the "burglary" was set up, carried out, and then "exposed" by roughly the same crew involved in the "Bay of Pigs thing".

It was during the Ford Administration that Rumsfeld and Cheney began their rise in federal "service".

Bob Woodward was/is still a mole.


TONY @oakroyd said...

Good old Noam. Still working it to them as effectively as ever.

Cirze said...

But as the MSM constantly reports about commies like Noam (well-respected professor at MIT for decades) he's on the fringe!

And NOT WORTHY of our respect.

Or notice.

You're the man, Tony!