Showing posts with label Chomsky. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Chomsky. Show all posts
Friday, July 09, 2010
Bin Ladens Cave according to Rumsfeld
"Oh, you bet! This is serious business!! And there is not just one of those, there are many of those!!!"
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
NOAM CHOMSKY ON IRAN
The Obama administration has been rapidly expanding its offensive capacity in the African island of Diego Garcia
The Navy reports sending a submarine tender to the island to service nuclear-powered guided-missile submarines with Tomahawk missiles, which can carry nuclear warheads. Each submarine is reported to have the striking power of a typical carrier battle group, includes 387 “bunker busters”
“US bombers and long range missiles are ready today to destroy 10,000 targets in Iran in a few hours,” he said. “The firepower of US forces has quadrupled since 2003,” accelerating under Obama.
Amitai Etzioni warns that “The U.S. will have to confront Iran or give up the Middle East,” Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and other states will “move toward” the new Iranian “superpower”
the Iranian threat is not military, it threatens US control of Middle East energy resources, a high priority of planners since World War II, which yields “substantial control of the world,” one influential figure advised (A. A. Berle).
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Johann Hari on Chomsky, Hitchens, Iraq, and anarchism
Link to: Nick Cohen: Writing from London
having a kind of anarchistic temperament towards power is quite useful. Serially doubting what people in power are telling you, and assuming that they will only do good things if they are forced to by social movements, is a very sensible way of looking at the world.
he basically disputes the two major institutions of power in the world today: the nation-state and any institution of market capitalism
as a first premise: The world should not be in any way as it is now, very valuable when you are looking at the IMF and World Bank – completely illegitimate institutions of corporate fundamentalism that are imposing on poor countries a completely failed economic model.
firstly the alternatives that Chomsky posits are unbelievably vague and, at times, incoherent; and secondly, when you look at his philosophy on markets
alternatives are voluntaristic, anarchist communities. Firstly
how that could work except on a very small scale. he gives an example of anarchist communities that sprang up during the Spanish civil war
But they were crushed precisely because they were anarchists and unable to mount a proper defence. should they have an army to defend themselves? Chomsky said, “I’m not going to get into that. implausibility of these voluntaristic, anarchist communities in a world of 6 billion people with extremely complex urban societies can be organized in that way.
you have to acknowledge there will be some structure of power and that they should be a damn sight more democratic.
For example, he voted for Kerry rather than Bush. John Pilger, who refused to acknowledge any difference and basically said voting in America is pointless and you have to wait for the revolution.
He has used the word “bullshit” to describe the idea that markets in any way generate wealth. markets are a tool need to be extremely tightly regulated. They do things
like abuse workers’ rights or trash the environment. you need very strict, tight democratic regulations and strong trade unions within those regulations. they generate wealth. Chomsky denies that
And there’s another element of Chomsky’s thought which is very important which is his analysis of the media. I was initially skeptical of it but I think there is some truth in it.
MK: You write in the mainstream media.
MK: Do you feel pressure? Do you think if you said certain things your editors would mention something?
MK: It’s unspoken?
JH: Yes. What he would say is you internalize the norms and there are certain things that you don’t say. I think that is how it works; it doesn’t work as self-censorship
I think trusting one of the most important institutions in a free society – the media – to the benevolence of billionaires is pretty dodgy
MK: How else do you structure it though? You can’t have it under state control can you?
MK: He’s into independent non-corporate media though isn’t he? But that’s hard to get off the ground.
JH: The Guardian is a good example but he would say that is corrupted by the fact they have to take advertising from corporations
It is a manufacturing of a common sense that people do absorb. I’ve seen it most clearly on things like asylum.
Norman Finkelstein.
What he has done in exposing Joan Peters who is a fraud and liar was amazing. I think he is now doing the same thing with Alan Dershowitz. I think it is very valuable. I love what he says about Elie Wiesel. I hate the mystification of the Holocaust and the attempt to turn it into a kind of quasi-religious thing. I love – partly because Finkelstein has the unimpeachable moral authority of having two parents who survived the Holocaust – he can say this in a way that if other people said it you would instinctively be more suspicious of it. Elie Wiesel says things like “the Holocaust cannot be comprehended by human beings.” That is a ridiculous thing to say. It was one of the worst crimes of the 20th century. It was unbelievably evil but it is comprehensible. if you set it up as being incomprehensible you increase the chances of happening again
The American occupation has bought with it a program of extreme neo-liberalism – far more extreme than anything tried in any democratic country, just like the one imposed on Russia. When I interviewed Joseph Stiglitz about this he said “The way they are acting in Iraq suggests they think what they did in Russia after the fall of Communism was a great success,” when in fact it saw the country slide back towards fascism which is basically where it is under Putin
Islamism is a totalitarian movement. There’s another half to that equation. Totalitarian movements do not emerge in vacuums. The context for Nazism was the humiliation imposed by the Versailles treaty. the context for this psychopathic, totalitarian ideology is what has been done to the Arab world over the last 60 years
“It’s a psychopathic movement” – yes, that’s true but psychosis rarely occurs in a vacuum. The reason why this psychotic movement has developed is that for the last 60 years Western governments have systematically murdered all the liberals and democrats in those countries. When there was a profoundly democratic movement in Iran in the 1950’s what did we do? We installed a sub-fascist dictator because they wanted a stable access to oil.
look at Chechnya. Look at what happened in Beslan – murdering and torturing school children. look what’s happened with the Chechens over the last 40 years Chechnya was deported by Stalin to Siberia, half died half died on the way back. Soviet Union fell they wanted to be independent.
They weren’t allowed to be and they were further brutalized. And a third of the population of Chechnya has died since 1991. You look at aerial picture of Grozny and it looks like it’s been nuked.
having a kind of anarchistic temperament towards power is quite useful. Serially doubting what people in power are telling you, and assuming that they will only do good things if they are forced to by social movements, is a very sensible way of looking at the world.
he basically disputes the two major institutions of power in the world today: the nation-state and any institution of market capitalism
as a first premise: The world should not be in any way as it is now, very valuable when you are looking at the IMF and World Bank – completely illegitimate institutions of corporate fundamentalism that are imposing on poor countries a completely failed economic model.
firstly the alternatives that Chomsky posits are unbelievably vague and, at times, incoherent; and secondly, when you look at his philosophy on markets
alternatives are voluntaristic, anarchist communities. Firstly
how that could work except on a very small scale. he gives an example of anarchist communities that sprang up during the Spanish civil war
But they were crushed precisely because they were anarchists and unable to mount a proper defence. should they have an army to defend themselves? Chomsky said, “I’m not going to get into that. implausibility of these voluntaristic, anarchist communities in a world of 6 billion people with extremely complex urban societies can be organized in that way.
you have to acknowledge there will be some structure of power and that they should be a damn sight more democratic.
For example, he voted for Kerry rather than Bush. John Pilger, who refused to acknowledge any difference and basically said voting in America is pointless and you have to wait for the revolution.
He has used the word “bullshit” to describe the idea that markets in any way generate wealth. markets are a tool need to be extremely tightly regulated. They do things
like abuse workers’ rights or trash the environment. you need very strict, tight democratic regulations and strong trade unions within those regulations. they generate wealth. Chomsky denies that
And there’s another element of Chomsky’s thought which is very important which is his analysis of the media. I was initially skeptical of it but I think there is some truth in it.
MK: You write in the mainstream media.
MK: Do you feel pressure? Do you think if you said certain things your editors would mention something?
MK: It’s unspoken?
JH: Yes. What he would say is you internalize the norms and there are certain things that you don’t say. I think that is how it works; it doesn’t work as self-censorship
I think trusting one of the most important institutions in a free society – the media – to the benevolence of billionaires is pretty dodgy
MK: How else do you structure it though? You can’t have it under state control can you?
MK: He’s into independent non-corporate media though isn’t he? But that’s hard to get off the ground.
JH: The Guardian is a good example but he would say that is corrupted by the fact they have to take advertising from corporations
It is a manufacturing of a common sense that people do absorb. I’ve seen it most clearly on things like asylum.
Norman Finkelstein.
What he has done in exposing Joan Peters who is a fraud and liar was amazing. I think he is now doing the same thing with Alan Dershowitz. I think it is very valuable. I love what he says about Elie Wiesel. I hate the mystification of the Holocaust and the attempt to turn it into a kind of quasi-religious thing. I love – partly because Finkelstein has the unimpeachable moral authority of having two parents who survived the Holocaust – he can say this in a way that if other people said it you would instinctively be more suspicious of it. Elie Wiesel says things like “the Holocaust cannot be comprehended by human beings.” That is a ridiculous thing to say. It was one of the worst crimes of the 20th century. It was unbelievably evil but it is comprehensible. if you set it up as being incomprehensible you increase the chances of happening again
The American occupation has bought with it a program of extreme neo-liberalism – far more extreme than anything tried in any democratic country, just like the one imposed on Russia. When I interviewed Joseph Stiglitz about this he said “The way they are acting in Iraq suggests they think what they did in Russia after the fall of Communism was a great success,” when in fact it saw the country slide back towards fascism which is basically where it is under Putin
Islamism is a totalitarian movement. There’s another half to that equation. Totalitarian movements do not emerge in vacuums. The context for Nazism was the humiliation imposed by the Versailles treaty. the context for this psychopathic, totalitarian ideology is what has been done to the Arab world over the last 60 years
“It’s a psychopathic movement” – yes, that’s true but psychosis rarely occurs in a vacuum. The reason why this psychotic movement has developed is that for the last 60 years Western governments have systematically murdered all the liberals and democrats in those countries. When there was a profoundly democratic movement in Iran in the 1950’s what did we do? We installed a sub-fascist dictator because they wanted a stable access to oil.
look at Chechnya. Look at what happened in Beslan – murdering and torturing school children. look what’s happened with the Chechens over the last 40 years Chechnya was deported by Stalin to Siberia, half died half died on the way back. Soviet Union fell they wanted to be independent.
They weren’t allowed to be and they were further brutalized. And a third of the population of Chechnya has died since 1991. You look at aerial picture of Grozny and it looks like it’s been nuked.
Wednesday, June 09, 2010
NOAM CHOMSKY ON GAZA AND THE FLOTILLA
The background is important. Hamas was designated a major terrorist threat when it won a free election in January 2006. The U.S. and Israel sharply escalated their punishment of Palestinians, now for the crime of voting the wrong way.
The siege of Gaza, including a naval blockade, was a result. The siege intensified sharply in June 2007 after a civil war left Hamas in control of the territory.
What is commonly described as a Hamas military coup was in fact incited by the U.S. and Israel, in a crude attempt to overturn the elections that had brought Hamas to power.
Thus the invasion was sheer criminal aggression, and the same is true of Israel’s resorting to force against the flotilla.
The siege is savage
The Israeli journalist Amira Hass
Hass concludes: “The total separation of the Gaza Strip from the West Bank is one of the greatest achievements of Israeli politics,
The Freedom Flotilla defied that policy and so it must be crushed.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
CHOMSKY ON THE LOBBY
International Middle East Media Center report:
American Professor Noam Chomsky held a meeting on Friday with a senior official of the Lebanon-based Hezbollah party, and discussed several issues regarding the Middle East conflict, Israel and the United States policies.
...Chomsky met with Nabil Qaouk, a senior Hezbollah official in charge of the party in southern Lebanon.
He said that he fears that the Zionist-Christian movement and the Zionist Lobby in the United States are having bigger effects on U.S polices.
Dan Kelly May 24, 2010 at 10:35 pm
Maybe he is coming around. Chomsky endorsed Jeff Gates’ book, Guilt By Association, in which Gates clearly identifies the secretive “Israel First” alliance to take control of US political life. Through the media, in academic life, in popular culture and in politics, Gates argues that this treasonous group has taken control of US foreign policy, and has been able to deceive the public into waging war for the Zionist state. His website is Criminal State.
Before you know it, Chomsky will be working with the distinguished Dr. Alan Sabrosky, who has posted at Mondoweiss in the past, and has recently told his colleagues at the prestigious Army War College and Headquarters Marine Corps that “9/11 was definitely an Israeli/Mossad job. Period. No question.”
Jeff Gates is publishing at veteranstoday.com, and has come out swinging.
There are 5 million military
this will ultimately play out in the military, simply because it’s the only structure left that isn’t bought in this country
check out Veterans Today website today–first article is on Chomsky not being allowed entry–his planned host attributes
this to the US Israel Lobby’s machinations:
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/05/18/israel-bars-noam-chomsky-from-west-bank/
Gordon Duff is awesome. I especially like reading the comments section of his articles.
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Friday, May 21, 2010
IS NOAM CHOMSKY AN INTELLIGENCE ASSET
For example, a significant part of the domestic left and an even greater part of the international left think that Noam Chomsky is a Mossad or a CIA asset. This is because there are, in fact, many contradictions in Noam Chomsky's positions. Jeffrey Blankfort is perhaps the best of the domestic Chomsky contradiction reporters which provides the fodder for the "conspiracy mongers"
Here is the very latest "conspiracy theory", so it is hot off the press. Read this and tell me, is Chomsky a Mossad/CIA asset or no.
It starts with Ali Abunimah.
Abunimah is not well known in the US (except the campuses), certainly not in the US corporate controlled media apparatus, but he is a major and well known figure internationally. He is the founder of Electronic Intifada. Now, Ali Abunimah is the real deal. He is well respected. He is one of three young, media savvy, successful Palestinian activists see here, here, here. He cannot be, nor is he, dismissed out of hand.
In Ali Abunimah's latest blog post, he says,
I have a great deal of admiration and respect for Noam Chomsky, one of the foremost intellectuals of our time, whose work opened my eyes on a great many issues. But like many others, I have been increasingly baffled by the many inconsistencies in his views on Palestine...
"In his 17 May interview on Democracy Now he told Amy Goodman that his planned itinerary included a meeting with Salam Fayyad, the unelected US- and Israeli-backed "prime minister" of the Ramallah Palestinian Authority imposed after the US helped overthrow the Hamas-led 'national unity government' that came after the 2006 election. Chomsky told Goodman:
I was going to meet with the Prime Minister [Fayyad]. Unfortunately, I couldnt. But his office called me here in Amman this morning, and we had a long discussion.
He is pursuing policies, which, in my view, are quite sensible, policies of essentially developing facts on the ground. Its almost - I think its probably a conscious imitation of the early Zionist policies, establishing facts on the ground and hoping that the political forms that follow will be determined by them. And the policies sound to me like sensible and sound ones. The question, of course, is whether - the extent to which Israel and the United States, which is a determining factor - the extent to which they'll permit them to be implemented. But if implemented, and if, of course, Israel and the United States would terminate their systematic effort to separate Gaza from the West Bank, which is quite illegal, if that continues, yes, it could turn into a viable Palestinian state.
Really? Chomsky the great critic of US efforts to undermine democracy and impose its clients around the world is now effusively endorsing what is in effect a US-backed puppet regime?"...
"In his 17 May interview on Democracy Now he told Amy Goodman that his planned itinerary included a meeting with Salam Fayyad, the unelected US- and Israeli-backed "prime minister" of the Ramallah Palestinian Authority imposed after the US helped overthrow the Hamas-led 'national unity government' that came after the 2006 election. Chomsky told Goodman:
I was going to meet with the Prime Minister [Fayyad]. Unfortunately, I couldnt. But his office called me here in Amman this morning, and we had a long discussion.
He is pursuing policies, which, in my view, are quite sensible, policies of essentially developing facts on the ground. Its almost - I think its probably a conscious imitation of the early Zionist policies, establishing facts on the ground and hoping that the political forms that follow will be determined by them. And the policies sound to me like sensible and sound ones. The question, of course, is whether - the extent to which Israel and the United States, which is a determining factor - the extent to which they'll permit them to be implemented. But if implemented, and if, of course, Israel and the United States would terminate their systematic effort to separate Gaza from the West Bank, which is quite illegal, if that continues, yes, it could turn into a viable Palestinian state.
Really? Chomsky the great critic of US efforts to undermine democracy and impose its clients around the world is now effusively endorsing what is in effect a US-backed puppet regime?"...
Now for the conspiracy theory. Is the corporate controlled media in the US crafting Salam Fayyad as the new 'reasonable guy', the 'guy we can talk to', years of collaboration having worn out the old 'reasonable guy', Mahmoud Abbas.
Is Noam's endorsement of the new collaborator exactly what we'd expect from a Mossad/CIA asset who is working for those looking for the new guy to sell out the Palestinians. Was the action of Noam Chomsky being turned away at the Allenby Bridge in Amman, Jordan simply a CIA/Mossad operation? Another term used is left wing gatekeeper, and here, and here.
Hmm. I don't know. It's all quite plausible. Seriously, it is.
Maybe, instead, Noam Chomsky is Moses at the Jordan River (see the symmetry? Allenby Bridge, etc., quite clever, if I do say so myself).
Maybe Noam is saying:
Well, I don't know what will happen now. We've got some difficult days ahead. But it doesn't matter with me now. Because I've been to the mountaintop. And I don't mind. Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I'm not concerned about that now. I just want to do God's will. And He's allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I've looked over. And I've seen the promised land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the promised land. And I'm happy, tonight. I'm not worried about anything. I'm not fearing any man. Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord.
Maybe that's the conspiracy.
Monday, May 17, 2010
Transcript of President Barack Obama's Commencement Address at Hampton University
“a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments” warning that because of this “information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation. He further stated that because of all the information now available to Americans it “… is not only putting pressure on you; it's putting pressure on our country and on our democracy.”
COMMENTARY
The main problem with the “official” version of things is that they are nearly all lies
Unfortunately for the “official” version of things, like is happening today, is when the lies become so big and preposterous that even the most common of people begin seeing how stacked this game against them is, especially when millions are being thrown out of their jobs and homes while their government, banking and corporate “overlords” continue amassing huge fortunes. And when the common people begin to see the truth the “officials” begin to get very afraid, especially when one of their own gets tossed out of power…
elitists are all afraid now about “too much information” contesting against the “official” stories that are not being listened to any longer. And people are starting to “get it”, and when they start to “get it” they stop listening to the “official” lies and start turning to those who have been telling the truth
Sunday, May 16, 2010
THE ONLY DEMOCRACY IN THE MIDDLE EAST
Published on Sunday, May 16, 2010 by Haaretz.com
Noam Chomsky Denied Entry into Israel
Left-wing linguist, who was scheduled to speak at Bir Zeit University, told by Israeli inspectors at Allenby Bridge that a reason for the refusal would be sent to the American embassy.
What Makes Mainstream Media Mainstream
In the U.S., there was a counterpart. Woodrow Wilson was elected in 1916 on an anti-war platform. The U.S. was a very pacifist country. It has always been. People don’t want to go fight foreign wars. The country was very much opposed to the first World War and Wilson was, in fact, elected on an anti-war position. "Peace without victory" was the slogan. But he was intending to go to war. So the question was, how do you get the pacifist population to become raving anti-German lunatics so they want to go kill all the Germans? That requires propaganda. So they set up the first and really only major state propaganda agency in U.S. history. The Committee on Public Information it was called (nice Orwellian title), called also the Creel Commission. The guy who ran it was named Creel. The task of this commission was to propagandize the population into a jingoist hysteria. It worked incredibly well. Within a few months there was a raving war hysteria and the U.S. was able to go to war.
Hitler was impressed. He says in Mein Kampf, Germany lost the first World War because it lost the propaganda battle. American business community was also very impressed with the propaganda effort. They had a problem at that time. The country was becoming formally more democratic. A lot more people were able to vote and that sort of thing. The country was becoming wealthier and more people could participate and a lot of new immigrants were coming in, and so on.
They learned to control what people think. This huge public relations industry, which is a U.S. invention and a monstrous industry, came out of the first World War
Edward Bernays, out of the Creel Commission. He wrote a book, Propaganda, applying the lessons of the first World War. it is possible to "regiment the public mind every bit as much as an army regiments their bodies.
new techniques were developed used by the intelligent minorities. Bernays was an authentic Roosevelt/Kennedy liberal.
Another member of the Creel Commission was Walter Lippmann. The most respected figure in Us journalism.
He says there is a new art in democracy called manufacture of consent. That is his phrase. By manufacturing consent, you can overcome the fact that formally a lot of people have the right to vote. The founder of what’s called communications and academic political science is Harold Glasswell. His main achievement was a book, a study of propaganda.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
THE PROBLEM WITH CHOMSKY
Chomsky
- He has got the Middle East seriously wrong, and
- his message is ultimately deterministic and demoralizing.
- It only encourages self-righeous, complacent fatalism if everything is determined by structural forces that we are powerless to change.
- On Israel-Palestine he opposes BDS (the most effective tactic),
- the One-State solution (the most effective strategy), and thinks
- UNGAR 194 is no longer relevant so Palestinians should forego the Right of Return Worst of all his persistent denial of the significance of the lobby.
- I also wasn’t impressed by the fact that while for the past 4 years he has been denying that the lobby had anything to do with US belligerence against Iran, now that the war didn’t happen, he is admitting that the lobby indeed pushed for it, but uses that as an example of its powerlessness.
Tuesday, February 02, 2010
ZINN, CHOMSKY AND ZIONISM
dan e said on January 29th, 2010 at 12:04pm #
Zinn does deserve high praise for his work and is definitely worth reading. However.
Long before Zinn came to prominence I’d encountered most of the history he reports in the works of earlier writers like WEB Dubois, Herbert Aptheker, Philip and Eric Foner, Charles & Mary Beard and others. Also I notice Zinn associated himself closely with the “semi-progressive” strain in recent US “left” politics, people like Amy Goodman & the “Z” publishing empire.
In my mind, there’s a parallel between the Great Man roles of Zinn and Noam Chomsky. Both are undoubtedly great writers, persons of great achievement, major figures on the US Left. But in Chomsky’s case also, before he came along I’d encountered the main facts about the “Isreal” problem in works by other writers such as Ralph Schoenman, Ibrahim Abu-Lughod, Rabbi Elmer Berger, Israel Shahak, Lenni Brenner, Rashid Khalidi, Jeff Blankfort, Livia Rokach, Hilton Obenzinger, just to name a few.
Now if some Historian would come along and provide us with a comprehensive true history of the emergence of the Jewish Zionist power network as a major force in US politics and warmaking…
#
Deadbeat said on January 29th, 2010 at 12:53pm #
I have to second DanE commentary. Zinn stood for a lot of the right things as does Chomsky but on the question of Zionism there was silence and/or that ethnocentrism that limits both these men from confronting this problem.
In addition, Zinn on the “moving train” in 2004 decided to back the “Anybody But Bush” / support Democratic candidate “John Kerry” / diffuse the anti-war movement anti-Nadar tactic (ABB). This “strategy” was supported by the Z-Mag crowd primarily due to the fact that other members in the anti-war movement started to shine a light on the influence of Zionism on the War on Iraq. The Z-Mag crew preferred the “War for Oil” canard which has been completely discredited and only shows that the Z-Mag crew chose deception and lies over confronting the truth.
The consequence of Zinn’s support for the ABB strategy helped not only to weaken the anti-war movement but placed the Left in an extremely weaken position for the 2008 election cycle which opened the door for Obama. In addition, the weak and divided condition of the Left creates a vacuum that is now being filled by right-wing populism. The Left today is too divided and does not have a coherent strategy to offer a real challenge to the Capitalist crisis and the political domination of Zionism.
Dan mentions WEB DuBios, now here’s a man who didn’t compromise his principles on the moving train.
Thursday, December 31, 2009
CHOMSKY ON GAZA
Gaza Freedom March YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/user/GazaFreedomMarch#p/a/447EBA237BA53B1F/0/d_uHb92qGp4
Sunday, December 06, 2009
CHOMDKY NOTES, MONDOWEISS
major theme of Said’s writings. In the big constellation, Enlightenment/Rationalism/Liberalism/Democratic Values, a missing word and concept that should be understood to accompany the others is Imperialism.
"the unipolar moment," which started in 1989 with the end of Soviet Communism
other stopping points on the way to unchallenged U.S. hegemony.
"settler colonialism" that cleared North America of its indigenous peoples.
"We focus laser-like on the crimes of enemies, but crucially we make sure never to look at ourselves."
we might admit the imperative of dismantling a much larger wall "snaking its way through Palestinian territory." The right name for it is: the Annexation Wall. Its purpose is to take over valuable land and water resources;
Israel’s leading authorities recognized this early on as a violation of international law.
None of it would have been possible without
the United States as "its partner in crime."
On November 16, 1989, shortly after the Berlin Wall came down, there occurred an event of great importance in Latin America: the killing of six prominent Jesuit priests in El Salvador.
the order was given by authorities in El Salvador; and given the proximity of American advisers to that government at the time, it is hard to imagine the order being carried through without American knowledge and consent.
a larger design
pursued by the School of the Americas and other arms of U.S. policy–to suppress the Liberation Theology
in the wake of Vatican II. All this was happening in 1989, while the West was celebrating the dismantling of the Berlin Wall. It is still happening and we are still celebrating.
The U.S. ambassador in Honduras recently congratulated that country
in an election where both candidates were selected by Honduran business interests.
difficult fully to understand the Obama administration’s embrace of the de facto coup in Honduras.
the U.S. has separated itself from all of Latin America and from most of Europe as well, by our "brazen contempt" for real democracy.
Latin America was thus the proving ground for the first U.S. tests
the unipolar world.
invasion of Panama in December 1989.
Noriega
was punished for "dragging his feet in support of Reagan’s terrorist wars in Nicaragua."
the most recent Western attempt to create an international legal and moral institution for protection of human rights: the so-called Responsibility to Protect framework, developed in December 2001 (R2P for short).
there is always a question how impartially the standards are applied.
As soon as the norms were in place, a provision was voted to offer "subsequent authority,"
missions already undertaken. This was meant to cover the NATO bombing of Serbia retroactively
no appeal to R2P can be made by "protected persons"
this cuts out any apppeal by inhabitants of Gaza, who in the terms of this framework are "protected" by Israel.
Similarly, no appeal was possible under the R2P norms to protest the deaths that followed Clinton’s sanctions against Iraq.
1989: what to do with NATO?
The only logical response
was: to close down NATO. Instead, under Clinton the organization expanded eastward,
Recall Gaddis: "expansion is the path to security."
The use of violence goes hand in hand with the unilateral commitment to the opening of new and profitable markets.
double standard
response to the International Atomic Energy Agency’s call for Israel to join the Nonproliferation Treaty.
U.S. voted against
when the call
passed
the U.S. assured Israel
double standard
Obama
why he supported Mubarak who is an authoritarian leader.
replied, "I tend not to use labels for folks."
Obama
a caricature
"investment theory of party competition," outlined by Thomas Ferguson. The heads of the important banks and the brokerage houses preferred Obama to McCain. He would accomplish what they wanted more smoothly. They got what they paid for.
In the longer run, it is hard to see that Obama’s policies will improve the social conditions of black Americans; probably the reverse.
on Israel/Palestine
John Kerry
Kerry said: now for the first time, we have a partner we can negotiate with.
the proof
during the Gaza assault, there had been no unruly protests on the West Bank. Dissent was successfully controlled.
Effective surveillance by Palestinian forces trained and advised by Keith Dayton,
the general heading the American Task Force in Palestine. Dayton’s presence is an acknowledged fact, though the content of the training is unknown. Unacknowledged are CIA advisers in Palestine whose actions we know nothing about.
Obama at West Point
the world supported us when we first attacked Afghanistan.
how you define the world
If it includes the people of the world…"– then the reverse of supportive unanimity was indicated by a world Gallup Poll at the end of 2001, which predictably got little play in the American press.
"the unipolar moment," which started in 1989 with the end of Soviet Communism
other stopping points on the way to unchallenged U.S. hegemony.
"settler colonialism" that cleared North America of its indigenous peoples.
"We focus laser-like on the crimes of enemies, but crucially we make sure never to look at ourselves."
we might admit the imperative of dismantling a much larger wall "snaking its way through Palestinian territory." The right name for it is: the Annexation Wall. Its purpose is to take over valuable land and water resources;
Israel’s leading authorities recognized this early on as a violation of international law.
None of it would have been possible without
the United States as "its partner in crime."
On November 16, 1989, shortly after the Berlin Wall came down, there occurred an event of great importance in Latin America: the killing of six prominent Jesuit priests in El Salvador.
the order was given by authorities in El Salvador; and given the proximity of American advisers to that government at the time, it is hard to imagine the order being carried through without American knowledge and consent.
a larger design
pursued by the School of the Americas and other arms of U.S. policy–to suppress the Liberation Theology
in the wake of Vatican II. All this was happening in 1989, while the West was celebrating the dismantling of the Berlin Wall. It is still happening and we are still celebrating.
The U.S. ambassador in Honduras recently congratulated that country
in an election where both candidates were selected by Honduran business interests.
difficult fully to understand the Obama administration’s embrace of the de facto coup in Honduras.
the U.S. has separated itself from all of Latin America and from most of Europe as well, by our "brazen contempt" for real democracy.
Latin America was thus the proving ground for the first U.S. tests
the unipolar world.
invasion of Panama in December 1989.
Noriega
was punished for "dragging his feet in support of Reagan’s terrorist wars in Nicaragua."
the most recent Western attempt to create an international legal and moral institution for protection of human rights: the so-called Responsibility to Protect framework, developed in December 2001 (R2P for short).
there is always a question how impartially the standards are applied.
As soon as the norms were in place, a provision was voted to offer "subsequent authority,"
missions already undertaken. This was meant to cover the NATO bombing of Serbia retroactively
no appeal to R2P can be made by "protected persons"
this cuts out any apppeal by inhabitants of Gaza, who in the terms of this framework are "protected" by Israel.
Similarly, no appeal was possible under the R2P norms to protest the deaths that followed Clinton’s sanctions against Iraq.
1989: what to do with NATO?
The only logical response
was: to close down NATO. Instead, under Clinton the organization expanded eastward,
Recall Gaddis: "expansion is the path to security."
The use of violence goes hand in hand with the unilateral commitment to the opening of new and profitable markets.
double standard
response to the International Atomic Energy Agency’s call for Israel to join the Nonproliferation Treaty.
U.S. voted against
when the call
passed
the U.S. assured Israel
double standard
Obama
why he supported Mubarak who is an authoritarian leader.
replied, "I tend not to use labels for folks."
Obama
a caricature
"investment theory of party competition," outlined by Thomas Ferguson. The heads of the important banks and the brokerage houses preferred Obama to McCain. He would accomplish what they wanted more smoothly. They got what they paid for.
In the longer run, it is hard to see that Obama’s policies will improve the social conditions of black Americans; probably the reverse.
on Israel/Palestine
John Kerry
Kerry said: now for the first time, we have a partner we can negotiate with.
the proof
during the Gaza assault, there had been no unruly protests on the West Bank. Dissent was successfully controlled.
Effective surveillance by Palestinian forces trained and advised by Keith Dayton,
the general heading the American Task Force in Palestine. Dayton’s presence is an acknowledged fact, though the content of the training is unknown. Unacknowledged are CIA advisers in Palestine whose actions we know nothing about.
Obama at West Point
the world supported us when we first attacked Afghanistan.
how you define the world
If it includes the people of the world…"– then the reverse of supportive unanimity was indicated by a world Gallup Poll at the end of 2001, which predictably got little play in the American press.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
CHOMSKY: OBAMA BRAND
Esta sociedad está básicamente dirigida por las empresas. Formalmente es una democracia, pero en realidad es una sociedad dirigida por las empresas y sus negocios, y sus intereses se ven afectados por estos acontecimientos. Así que hubo presión para que hubiera un cambio en la Administración Bush. De hecho, algunos de las figuras más destructivas, brutales y antidemocráticas fueron removidas; Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, y otros. Se quedó Cheney como asistente de Bush y quien, básicamente, era la administración. Así que las políticas cambiaron y se movieron más hacia el centro.
No hay indicación alguna de que Obama va a cambiar estas políticas. De hecho en algunas instancias él ha tomado una posición más agresiva, como con Afganistán y Pakistán. Obama es una persona inteligente y estoy seguro de que lo que él dice ha sido preparado cuidadosamente por él y sus asesores, y expresa lo que él quiere. Pero en todas sus declaraciones ha sido deliberadamente impreciso.
La campaña electoral de Obama ganó un premio de la industria publicitaria por la mejor campaña de mercadeo de 2008. Le ganó a las computadoras Apple. Los altos ejecutivos de la industria fueron muy efusivos, literalmente dijeron que habían comercializado candidatos de la misma forma como se comercializa la mercancía por 30 años, desde los tiempos de Reagan, pero éste ha sido el más alto logro que hayan tenido. Esto tendrá gran efecto sobre los Directores Ejecutivos, la cultura corporativa adoptará este modelo para comercializar otras cosas. Esta campaña electoral fue una campaña de mercadeo.
Ellos están bien claros en que tienen que aludir ciertos asuntos, y se concentran sólo en consignas vacías que sirven para levantar el ánimo, lo que la prensa llama “sorving rhetoric”, como por ejemplo: "esperanza", "cambio", "cambio en el que puedes creer". Pero, si la gente cuestiona qué medidas tomará, tendrán que esforzarse bastante para poder entenderlas. A lo mejor se pueda encontrar algo en su página web. Pero estos no eran los temas de la campaña, y fue exitosa como campaña de mercadeo. De hecho, ya hay estudios que lo demuestran, y a la industria les encantó.
Se habla mucho del apoyo masivo de pequeños contribuyentes, pero en realidad fue mínimo. El apoyo económico fue en su mayoría dado por industrias financieras, bufetes de abogados que también son lobistas, y sus políticas por supuesto reflejarán esto. Ya se puede ver por su selección de funcionarios y gabinete de asesores. Es básicamente una administración de demócratas de centro, con la cual la gente está familiarizada, y que no se diferencia tanto del segundo periodo de Bush. Sólo se diferenciará en algunos asuntos.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)