On September 25, 2009 i had the rare privilege of interviewing the world renowned philosopher, linguist, political activist and author of over 100 books, Noam Chomsky, described by the NY Times as “The most important intellectual alive” at his office in Massachusetts, mere weeks before his 81st birthday. During our interview we covered a wide array of potent topics which will provide a great amount of knowledge and enjoyment to every listener. Enjoy!
في 25 سبتمبر 2009 كان لي شرف مقابلة نادرة من العالم الشهير الفيلسوف، لغوي، ناشط سياسي ومؤلف كتاب من الكتب أكثر من 100، نعوم تشومسكي، وصفت من قبل صحيفة نيويورك تايمز بأنه “على قيد الحياة والفكرية الأكثر أهمية” في مكتبه في ولاية ماساشوستس، أسابيع فقط قبل عيد ميلاده 81. خلال حوارنا غطينا مجموعة واسعة من المواضيع القوية التي ستوفر قدرا كبيرا من المعرفة والتمتع بها على كل
25 сентября 2009 года я имел редкую привилегию интервью всемирно известный философ, лингвист, политический деятель, автор более 100 книг, Ноам Хомский, описывается, как Нью-Йорк таймс “, наиболее важным интеллектуальным живых” в его офисе в Массачусетсе, Буквально через несколько недель, прежде чем его 81 день рождения. Во время нашей беседы мы рассмотрели широкий спектр мощных темы, которые обеспечат большой объем знаний и удовольствия для каждого слушателя. Наслаждайтесь!
Am 25. September 2009 hatte ich das seltene Privileg Befragung des weltberühmten Philosophen, Linguisten, politischer Aktivist und Autor von über 100 Bücher, Noam Chomsky, von der New York Times als “The wichtigsten lebenden Intellektuellen” bezeichnet in seinem Büro in Massachusetts, nur wenige Wochen vor seinem 81. Geburtstag. Bei unserem Interview, das wir deckten ein breites Spektrum an Themen, die potent eine große Menge an Wissen und Genuss für jeden Zuhörer zur Verfügung stellt. Viel Spaß! Episode_4-Chomsky.Okon.mp3
What follows is the transcript of a short Q&A conducted through e-mail in early 2009:
Marc Okon:
While reading one of your many unauthorized biographies, i saw a giant poster of
Bertrand Russell attached to your office door,
and was reminded of one of your old statements.
Your words were ” I do not believe in the cult of personality ” If this were true, how do you reconcile the poster? Do you not see the conflict?
CHOMSKY:
Why Bertrand Russell? A good question. I do respect his work, his activism, and many of the things he’s done in his life, though by no means everything. It’s on the wall, and larger than other pictures, but it’s not the only one, though it’s the only photograph of a person. Another is a painting that depicts the horrifying decade of the 80s in Central America: the angel of death standing over the martyred Archbishop Romero and the six leading Latin American intellectuals, Jesuit priests, whose brains were blown out, their housekeeper and her daughter too, framing the decade: 1980 and 1989. Our victims, along with hundreds of thousands of others. Another is a photo that a friend and I took in Iquique, Chile, a monument to the hundreds, maybe thousands, of men, women and children slaughtered there in December 1907, perhaps the most vicious of many labor massacres, this one at the hands of the Chilean servants of Britain.
For The image of Archbishop Romero lying in a pool of blood visit:
Q:
In order to Manufacture Consent there must be an infrastructure built to create & deliver the product.
The tools to Manufacture Enlightenment are now available Via the Internet.
As depicted in the Pulitzer Prize winning novel The Armies Of The Night by Norman Mailer you were a participant in a march on the Pentagon in protest of the Vietnam War.
Do you feel the Internet will have a positive effect on political and protest movements and if so, what should be the focus of these movements?
or
Will the Internet be co-opted by Corporate interests and become another tool of oppression?
A:
Mailer’s account was accurate, but that was a very minor element of my involvement in protest and resistance.
On the internet, either outcome is possible. It’s up to us to make the right choices and to encourage others to do so. One might say much the same about any technology: printing, for example.
Q:
It is well known you wrote your first article at age 10, regarding the spread of fascism following the fall of Barcelona.
It is highly unusual for a child to understand fascism, let alone write an article about it.
What was different about your upbringing which gave you the tools to excel so young?
&
Is it possible for all children to excel if given the proper guidance from their parents and teachers or are you just special?
A:
Some hesitation actually. I don’t think I have much to say about it. I’m sure there’s nothing special about me. The upbringing was surely part of it, but others with very similar upbringings responded very differently. So who knows? Humans are mysterious creatures.
Q:
“We Are Not At War With Islam”, this is what Obama said during his recent visit to Turkey. Do you think, as some suggest, this new approach towards the Islamic world will be an ”End of the Clash of Civilisations”?
A:
There was no beginning to the “Clash of Civilisations” so it cannot have an end. Simply consider the circumstances at the time when the doctrine was promulgated by Bernard Lewis and Samuel Huntington. The most populous Muslim state was Indonesia, a close US ally since 1965, when General Suharto carried out a murderous coup, killing hundreds of thousands of people and opening up the country’s rich resources to the industrial societies. He remained an honored friend though innumerable crimes at home and abroad, among them the invasion of East Timor, which came about as close to genocide as any event of the modern period. He remained “Our kind of guy,” as the Clinton administration declared in 1995, and maintained that status until he lost control and the US determined that his time was over. The most extreme fundamentalist Muslim state was Saudi Arabia, Washington’s oldest and most valued ally in the region. At the time Washington, was bringing to a bloody end its murderous wars in Central America, specifically targeting the Catholic Church. Its practitioners of “liberation theology” sought to bring the radical pacifist lessons of the Gospels to the peasant society that was suffering under the yoke of US-imposed tyrants. That was clearly unacceptable, and they became primary victims of Washington’s terrorist wars. One of the “talking points” of the famous School of the Americas is the proud boast that the US army “defeated liberation theology.” If we continue, we find familiar confrontations, but no “clash of civilizations” — a notion that was constructed at the end of the Cold War as a pretext for policies undertaken for other reasons, also familiar. Bush’s policies evoked enormous hostility in the Muslim world. Quite sensibly, Obama is trying to reduce the hostility, though there is no indication of a substantive change in policies or motives.
(other source)
This Q&A was NOT part of the Radio interview as some believe. It was a sampling of an e-mail interview conducted in early 2009.
Exhausted Noam Chomsky Just Going To Try And Enjoy The Day For Once…
LEXINGTON, MA—Describing himself as “terribly exhausted,” famed linguist and political dissident Noam Chomsky said Monday that he was taking a break from combating the hegemony of the American imperialist machine to try and take it easy for once.
“I just want to lie in a hammock and have a nice relaxing morning,” said the outspoken anarcho-syndicalist academic, who first came to public attention with his breakthrough 1957 book Syntactic Structures. “The systems of control designed to manufacture consent among a largely ignorant public will still be there for me to worry about tomorrow. Today, I’m just going to kick back and enjoy some much-needed Noam Time.”
“No fighting against institutional racism, no exposing the legacies of colonialist ideologies still persistent today, no standing up to the widespread dissemination of misinformation and state-sanctioned propaganda,” Chomsky added. “Just a nice, cool breeze through an open window on a warm spring day.”
Sources reported that the 81-year-old Chomsky, a vociferous, longtime critic of U.S. foreign policy and the political economy of the mass media, was planning to use Monday to tidy up around the house a bit, take a leisurely walk in the park, and possibly attend an afternoon showing of Date Night at the local megaplex.
Sitting down to a nice oatmeal breakfast, Chomsky picked up a copy of Time, a deceitful, pro-corporate publication that he said would normally infuriate him.
“Yes, this magazine may be nothing more than a subtle media tool intended to obfuscate the government’s violent agenda with comforting bromides, but I’m not going to let that get under my skin,” Chomsky said. “I mean, why should I? It’s absolutely beautiful outside. I should just go and enjoy myself and not think about any of this stuff.”
Added Chomsky, glancing back over at the periodical, “Even if it is just another way in which individuals are methodically fed untruths that slowly shape their perceptions of reality, dulling their ability to challenge and defy a government bent on carrying out its own selfish and destructive—no, no Noam, not today, none of that today.”
According to sources close to the thinker, Chomsky also considered taking time to “plop down on the couch in [his] boxers and watch TV,” but grew suddenly enraged when The Price Is Right came on, commodifying the lie of American consumer satisfaction in a pseudo- entertainment context.
“Just change the channel, just relax and switch to something that isn’t mindless pabulum for the masses,” said Chomsky, reaching for the remote control. “No need to get furious.”
Chomsky, who often defines himself as a libertarian socialist, then changed the channel to ESPN, taking a moment to acknowledge the role of professional sports as a “weapon of mass distraction,” keeping the American people occupied with trivial competitions so they do not focus on opposing the status quo with grassroots movements against foreign and domestic policies that ultimately harm them.
“Stupid NBA playoffs,” Chomsky said. “At least it’s better than that NCAA March Madness crap. A university is supposed to be a center of learning that questions the state’s crafted messaging, not an entertainment factory.”
Sources said Chomsky took what was supposed to be a refreshing drive in the countryside, only to find himself obsessing over the role petroleum plays in the economic and military policies that collude with multinational corporate powers.
After stopping at a roadside McDonald’s, Chomsky was unable to enjoy the Big Mac he purchased, due to the popular restaurant chain’s participation in selling “a bill of goods” to the American people, who consume the unhealthy fast food and thereby bolster the capitalist system rather than buying from local farmers in order to equalize the distribution of wealth and eat more nutritiously.
Chomsky also found the burger to be too salty.
“All right, all right,” the noted critic and philosopher said, “I’m going back home, writing one—just one—reasoned, scathing essay, and getting it out of my system. But then I’m definitely going back to the park to walk around and just enjoy the nice weather. I’m serious.”
“Because there’s got to be more to life than the way that wage slavery strips the individual of his or her inherent dignity and personal integrity,” Chomsky continued. “Right?”
The Hon Kevin Rudd MP
Minister for Foreign Affairs
Parliament House ACT 2600
Dear Minister
We write to express our concern about the plight of Julian Assange.
To date, no charges have been laid against Mr Assange by Swedish authorities.
Nonetheless, we understand that should he be sent to Sweden, he will be held on
remand, incommunicado. We note your comments last year about the need for Mr
Assange to receive appropriate consular support. We trust that this consular support is
being provided and will continue.
We are concerned that should Mr Assange be placed in Swedish custody, he will be
subject to the process of “temporary surrender”, enabling his removal to the United
States without the appropriate legal processes that accompany normal extradition
cases. We urge you to convey to the Swedish government Australia’s expectation that
Mr Assange will be provided with the same rights of appeal and review that any
standard extradition request would entail.
Any prosecution of Mr Assange in the United States will be on the basis of his
activities as a journalist and editor (Mr Assange’s status as such has been recently
confirmed by the High Court in England). Such a prosecution will be a serious assault
on freedom of speech and the need for an unfettered, independent media.
Further, the chances of Mr Assange receiving a fair trial in the United States appear
remote. A number of prominent political figures have called for him to be
assassinated, and the Vice-President has called him a “high-tech terrorist”. Given the
atmosphere of hostility in relation to Mr Assange, we hold serious concerns about his
safety once in US custody. We note that Mr Assange is an Australian citizen, whose
journalistic activities were undertaken entirely outside of US territory.
Mr Assange is entitled to the best endeavours of his government to ensure he is
treated fairly. He is entitled to expect that his government will not remain silent while
his liberty and safety are placed at risk by a government embarrassed by his
journalism. Australians also expect that their government will speak out against
efforts to silence the media and intimidate those who wish to hold governments to
account.
We ask that you convey clearly to the United States government Australia’s concerns
about any effort to manufacture charges against Mr Assange, or to use an unrelated
criminal investigation as the basis for what may effectively be rendition. We also urge
the government to publicly affirm that Mr Assange is welcome to return to Australia
once proceedings against him in Sweden are concluded, and that the government will
fully protect his rights as an Australian citizen once here.
We have copied this letter to your colleague, the Attorney-General.
Yours sincerely
The undersigned
Phillip Adams AO
Adam Bandt MP
Wendy Bacon
Greg Barns
Susan Benn
Senator Bob Brown
Dr Scott Burchill
Julian Burnside QC
Dr Leslie Cannold
Mike Carlton
Professor Noam Chomsky
David Collins
Lieutenant Colonel (ret) Lance Collins,
Australian Intelligence Corps
Avram Noam Chomsky (/ˈnoʊm ˈtʃɒmski/; born December 7, 1928) is an American linguist, philosopher, cognitive scientist, historian, and activist. He is an Institute Professor and Professor (Emeritus) in the Department of Linguistics & Philosophy at MIT, where he has worked for over 50 years.Chomsky has been described as the “father of modern linguistics” and a major figure of analytic philosophy. His work has influenced fields such as computer science, mathematics, and psychology.
Chomsky is credited as the creator or co-creator of the Chomsky hierarchy, the universal grammar theory, and the Chomsky–Schützenberger theorem.
Ideologically identifying with anarcho-syndicalism and libertarian socialism, Chomsky is known for his critiques of U.S. foreign policy and contemporary capitalism, and he has been described as a prominent cultural figure.His media criticism has included Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media (1988), co-written with Edward S. Herman, an analysis articulating the propaganda model theory for examining the media.
According to the Arts and Humanities Citation Index in 1992, Chomsky was cited as a source more often than any other living scholar from 1980 to 1992, and was the eighth most cited source overall. Chomsky is the author of over 150 books. Episode_4-Chomsky.Okon.mp3
Manhattan— The year 2010 ad.
First 9 minutes Sequence I
A couple (Man-Woman) wakes up to the news of a major building having
Just been blown up while preparing their morning meal.
Over the course of the next few weeks, 3 more Manhattan landmarks are
Also destroyed.
Next 25 minutes Sequence II
The couple in the first frame of the movie,
A Woman- professional photographer with National Geographic
&
A Man – The Mayor of NYC,
Engage in their career, trying to film, document &
Expose the truth of the events they and our viewing audience have witnessed.
This includes- The NYC Mayor Holding a Press conference, the U.S. president issuing a bounty on those responsible &
The resulting chaos that society experiences from such an historic event—
(The international response will be shown as being celebratory)
Next 7 minutes Sequence III ***
The main protagonist of our film appears- (He will inspire anger in most of the viewing audience)
He is spotted in this segment of the film from far above, as the camera slowly moves
In—in slow hypnotic motion– to reveal an elegant but worn man (think Clooney in Syriana)
{Special care will be taken with this shot}
He is in a non-descript coffee lounge reading the paper & drinking coffee.
There is no dialogue for 7 minutes as we follow our stranger upon leaving the coffee lounge as he runs errands, but
These errands will reveal themselves as vital by the end of the film.
Next 10 minutes Sequence IV
The stranger returns to his home to find his crew (our cast of characters or disciples if you will) engaged in various tasks.
We see these individuals working on a vast, advanced computer network with the pictures on the
Screen clearly visible.
These images show major religious landmarks (Vatican) as well as structures saluting humanities great glory (Mount Rushmore).
ARE THESES HIS NEXT TARGETS?
Next 13 minutes Sequence V ***
The mayor’s wife, our Enchanting photographer, takes center stage.
A dark room, occupied by our leading lady, shows her studying various
Photographs, which lead her to leave the studio as we follow her on a series of events.
< Specifically, the 3 times in the film when our leading lady and our protagonist are alone on screen with our audience. < Represented by *** >
Their Sequences will have a distinct audio track which will replace the basic audio dialogue track.
Specific visual tricks will be used to distort the sequence –colour, light-dimensions-
The musical soundtrack will be an original creation (Hopefully by Air- French composers of the Virgin Suicides soundtrack) to synchronize with the visuals and
Distortions.
Essentially
+
Turing these three sequences into free standing art house type mini-movies yet still
Maintain the integrity of our story.>>
This effect will be potent as the tone of the movie will change dramatically,
The sequence ends with our leading lady revealing to her husband, the information
Which will lead to our protagonists capture.
Next 10-15 minutes Sequence VI
Undecided…
Next 25 minutes Sequence VII
Our protagonist is viewed by a national TV audience on screen, being viewed themselves, by our internationally paying viewers.
He is giving a speech (last words) from an electric chair, surrounded by armed guards. (((Imagine hearing Saddam Hussein’s last words at his hanging))) or Osama Bin Laden***> should he be caught.
—This is the type of gravitas our protagonists speech must have—
The words of our chain bound terrorist express nothing but love for mankind-
He was on a mission to destroy tyranny-
He was out to cure injustice-
His actions were just-
He claims to be the messiah…
The electric chair goes off (10-15 seconds after the speech ends)
*
*
*
*
*
…6 minutes into the scene…***
A third and final artistic sequence begins with synchronized music, dazzling Quasi-anime effects and our
Protagonist, instead of feeling and showing pain from his electrocution –
The screen images will show the protagonist morphing into Christ and
Being crucified (implied—not graphic!) To uplifting music, vibrant violet colours & a sky full of angels & demons, fire & thunder— rising, till there is nothing but black…..
*Creating the impression that the returning messiah was again executed*
(The point of the sequence, besides artistic beauty & an intriguing story, is to INSULT the audience by making them realize they hated & may have killed the very person they were waiting for)
And create an internal dialogue in the viewer that their impression of evil is wrong
This is a major chill down your spine point of the movie
The screen fades for 60 seconds to reveal
Actual visuals from outer
Space, captured by NASA, creating a dreamy, surreal vibe in the viewer.
Some viewers may ponder heaven, atheists and others will
Revel only in the visual and mental beauty.
THEN
As the brightness of A SETTING SUN physically awakens the audience…
(((Dark screen imagery in a dark theatre suddenly changing to intense bright light will irritate & startle the eye)))
A 13 year old boy is seen sitting at his computer … staring at a screen depicting the very same NASA visual the audience just viewed…
No Dialogue – No music—just silence …
The Childs mother then slowly opens the door…….
Eerie music begins to play
She tells her SON its time for bed- she walks in – sits on the bed-
And tucks the child in—She reaches over to the Childs nite table and lifts up a box—
The awestruck audience sees it is a modern virtual reality computer game which the son used to create
The story the audience witnessed.
This is the second twist & spine tingling scene in the movie
It turns out that the 3 unique screen sequences *** were created by the Sons virtual reality computer fantasy game
&
Everything else was indeed the Parents & the world’s reality—
The mother says good night.
She walks out
Closes the door
The camera focuses on the distant moon, visible through the window of the child’s room.
Music begins to play.
As the End Credits roll the moon will morph into the sun,
Coinciding with the completion of the credits.
By the end, the sun will have set over the horizon Tweet
All civilized people, regardless of age or religious affiliation, encounter music in some form or another in their life.
Music, defined by me, represents any audio content that has the ability to be played on an electronic device.
When Shakespeare wrote the words ” Friends, Romans, lend me your ears ” he stumbled upon a concept far beyond his wildest comprehension.
Children, as well as adults, lend their ears when they listen to music.
What then is the effect?
It may be true that music is played and listened to for enjoyment, but the effect is far more pernicious.
When people ” lend their ears ” to a song, they are submitting to an invisible contract which would make the Devil blush.
Today, the music released by major corporations and disseminated through the airwaves, effectively act as a poisoning agent, causing the dumbing down of our culture and lowering of the general IQ of the public.
The power brokers know that an informed and engaged populace threaten their power.
I believe that there is a concerted effort to flood the media, in all forms, with material to enslave the population in a landmine of anti-intellectualism and submission.
I am no conspiracy theorist, but what other explanation is there?
If a newborn child is locked in a room, and told from day 1 that 2 + 2 = 5 , repeatedly for 20 years, can the child be blamed for failing math?
Adults, generally, are to busy to pay attention to the lyrics of today’s music-If they were to carefully examine the material, most would react with severe nausea.
Censorship is no answer.
What needs to happen to counter this tragedy is simple but not likely to happen.
Parents must be aware of the words and images their young ones absorb, in order to explain & clarify the meaning.
Sadly, newly minted parents have been raised with the 2 + 2 = 5 mentality, so my desire to see change is not likely, in the short term at least.
Maybe, with the advent of the Internet, quality music and entertainment will find a larger audience and supersede the revolting content now enjoyed by our fellow citizens.
Translate
يتأمل في الموسيقى
مارك اوكون
27 مايو 2009
كل الشعوب المتحضرة، بغض النظر عن العمر أو الانتماء الديني، واجهت بعض الموسيقى في شكل أو آخر في حياتهم.
والموسيقى، والتي حددها لي، يمثل أي محتوى الصوت الذي لديه القدرة على أن تقوم على جهاز الكتروني.
عندما كتب شكسبير عبارة “أصدقاء، والرومان، أقرضني أذنيك” انه عثر على مفهوم أبعد من فهم الاكثر وحشية له.
الأطفال، فضلا عن الكبار، تقديم آذانهم عندما يستمعون إلى الموسيقى.
ثم ما هو تأثير؟
قد يكون صحيحا أن لعبت الموسيقى واستمع الى للتمتع، ولكن النتيجة هي الخبيث أكثر بكثير.
عندما يكون الناس “تقديم آذانهم” لأغنية، فهي تقدم إلى عقد غير مرئية التي من شأنها أن تجعل استحى الشيطان.
اليوم، والموسيقى الصادرة عن الشركات الكبرى ونشرها عبر موجات الأثير، والتصرف على نحو فعال كعامل تسمم، مما تسبب في التسطيح من ثقافتنا وخفض من معدل الذكاء العام للجمهور.
وسماسرة السلطة، يعرفون ان الجماهير على علم واشتبكت تهدد سلطتهم.
وأعتقد أن هناك جهودا متضافرة لإغراق وسائل الإعلام، في جميع أشكاله، مع مادة لاستعباد السكان في انفجار لغم أرضي من الفكر والعلم وتقديم المضادة.
وأنا لا نظرية المؤامرة، ولكن ما تفسير آخر هناك؟
إذا تم تأمين طفل حديث الولادة في غرفة، وقال من يوم 1 أن 2 + 2 = 5، مرارا وتكرارا لمدة 20 عاما، يمكن ان ينسب الطفل لعدم الرياضيات؟
الكبار، عموما، هي مشغولة إلى إيلاء اهتمام خاص لكلمات اليوم الموسيقى إذا كانت لفحص المواد بعناية، سيكون رد فعل معظم مع الغثيان الشديد.
الرقابة ليست الجواب.
ما يجب أن يحدث لمواجهة هذه المأساة هي بسيطة ولكن ليس من المرجح أن يحدث.
يجب على الوالدين يكون على بينة من الكلمات والصور ذويهم استيعاب الشباب، من أجل شرح وتوضيح معنى.
للأسف، المسكوكة حديثا قد أثيرت مع الآباء 2 + 2 = 5 عقلية، لذلك رغبتي في رؤية التغيير ليس من المرجح، على المدى القصير على الأقل.
ربما، مع ظهور شبكة الإنترنت، ونوعية الموسيقى والترفيه في العثور على جمهور أكبر وتلغي مضمون مقززة يتمتع الآن من قبل مواطنينا.
Размышляя на музыку
Марк Окон
27 мая 2009
Все цивилизованные люди, независимо от возраста и религиозной принадлежности, сталкиваются с музыкой в той или иной форме в своей жизни.
Музыка, определяются мне, представляет собой любое аудио содержание, которое имеет возможность играть на электронном устройстве.
Когда Шекспир писал слова «Друзья, римляне, одолжите мне ваши уши”, он наткнулся на концепции далеко за его дикие понимания.
Дети, как и взрослые, придать своим ушам, когда они слушают музыку.
Что же эффект?
Это может быть верно, что музыка играла и слушать для удовольствия, но эффект гораздо более пагубным.
Когда народ “оказывать уши” с песней, они подчиняясь невидимым договор, который бы дьявол румянец.
Сегодня, музыка выпущен крупных корпораций и их распространение через эфир, эффективно действовать в качестве агента отравления, в результате чего dumbing до нашей культуры и снижение общего IQ населения.
Мощность брокеры знают, что информацию и заниматься населения ставят под угрозу их власти.
Я считаю, что есть согласованные усилия, чтобы затопить средства массовой информации, во всех формах, с материалом, чтобы поработить население мин анти-интеллектуализма и подчинения.
Я не теоретик заговора, но то, что другое объяснение есть?
Если новорожденный ребенок заперты в комнате, и сказал, от 1 дня, что 2 + 2 = 5, неоднократно в течение 20 лет, ребенок может быть обвинен за то, математике?
Взрослые, как правило, являются занят, чтобы обращать внимание на текст сегодняшней музыкальной Если они внимательно изучить материал, большинство из них реагируют с тяжелой тошнотой.
Цензура ответа нет.
Что нужно сделать, чтобы противостоять этой трагедии является простым, но вряд ли случится.
Родители должны знать слова и образы, и детеныши их поглощать, чтобы объяснить и прояснить смысл.
К сожалению, новоиспеченные родители были повышены с 2 + 2 = 5 менталитет, так что мое желание видеть изменения не всего, в краткосрочной перспективе, по крайней мере.
Возможно, с появлением Интернета, качество музыки и развлечений найдут более широкой аудитории и заменяют отвратительное содержание в настоящее время пользуются наши сограждане.
In order to understand the world in which we live and participate as citizens the accumulation of facts play a vital role, if not the most important. The interpretation of visual and audible stimuli is the means by which a person, young or old, derives a conclusion in which to base a decision or arrive at a point of view consistent with the philosophy such a person holds dear, even sacred. Low on the food chain creatures develop perceptions and behavior patterns based on genetic distinctual factors and humans too sometimes act or base decisions on inherent human characteristics. A healthy individual aspires to live an existence based on following a set of rules, not societal or cultural, but rather personal guidelines based on a collection of experiences. History has repeatedly proven that human beings overwhelmingly lust and pursue material treasure and power, not because it is inherent in their DNA, but instead behave according to the values of the community and society in which they reside. In order to acquire the desired luxuries of the material variety and mental metaphysical celebrity one must participate within the established framework proven to provide the participants with their reward. The American “framework” is consistent with the acquisition of physical and mental treasure and is partly responsible for the industrial and technological success the country has enjoyed – But, at what cost? A life lived in pursuit of perceived dream acquisition manufactured by elite interests to further their own grander treasure accumulation is nothing more than a National pyramid scheme. The purpose of life should not be entering wage-slavery in order to satisfy the impulses placed inside our mind by people and policies designed to exploit every aspect of our collective existence. When you attend a birthday party the end result is usually the ceremonial cake being cut into equal parts and distributed to those in attendence. Everyone gets an equal slice regardless of individual bank accounts or status. Assets of a Country – Land, water, food , clothing, medicine, education – like cake, should be split among the citizenry, without prejudice, with all participants contributing to the continued health of the system and each other. This will not cause a decrease in productive activity or motivation for creating new innovations, as some critics assert, but rather remove the destructive force of pitting the “haves” vs “the have nots” and take away the intoxicating, drug like sensation of owning and controlling people who have been dealt random misfortune or have less goodies or more scruples than they do. To be human is a choice, not a divine gift. Every man, woman and child deserve, at the very least, food, clothing, shelter, medical care and access to the enjoyment available to their fellow citizens. The urge to commit moral crime against their neighbor would virtually disappear, with the exception of the rare bad seed, and the day to day life of everyone would be filled with far more pleasurable pursuits that increase the well being of themselves, the culture, and community at large. There should never be a man with a gun standing by the only well saying ” If you want some water you must be my slave”. Water is for everyone, a fundamental right, the same as having a roof over your head, warmth on a cold winter’s night and food . Forcing people with muted threats of starvation and depravation, if they don’t create wealth for elite interests, and in return granted the ability to live and breathe is a moral crime of the highest caliber. Charity this is not! Civilized and evolved, yes!
من قبل
مارك اوكون
12.29.09
من أجل فهم العالم الذي نعيش فيه والمشاركة كمواطنين من تراكم الحقائق تلعب دورا حيويا، إن لم يكن أهم. تفسير المثيرات البصرية والمسموعة هي الوسائل التي يمكن بها للشخص، صغارا أو كبارا، تستمد نتيجة التي لإسناد أي قرار أو التوصل إلى وجهة نظر تتفق مع فلسفة هذا الشخص تعتز، حتى مقدس. منخفضة على المخلوقات السلسلة الغذائية وضع التصورات وأنماط السلوك استنادا إلى عوامل وراثية distinctual والبشر في بعض الأحيان أيضا التصرف أو اتخاذ القرارات على قاعدة خصائص الإنسانية المتأصلة. صحة الفرد يطمح ليحيا وجود أساس في أعقاب مجموعة من القواعد والمبادئ التوجيهية ليس اجتماعية أو ثقافية، ولكن شخصية وليس على أساس مجموعة من التجارب. وقد أثبت التاريخ مرارا وتكرارا أن البشر شهوة بأغلبية ساحقة والسعي كنز المادية والقوة، ليس لأنها متأصلة في الحمض النووي، ولكن بدلا من التصرف وفقا لقيم المجتمع، والمجتمع الذي يقيمون فيه. من أجل الحصول على الكماليات المطلوب من تنوع المواد والمشاهير الميتافيزيقي النفسية لا بد من المشاركة في إطار تأسيس ثبت لتزويد المشاركين مع أجرهم. الاميركية “اطارا” ينسجم مع اكتساب كنز البدنية والعقلية، وهي مسؤولة جزئيا عن نجاح الصناعية والتكنولوجية في البلاد تمتعت – ولكن، بأي ثمن؟ عاش حياة في السعي لتحقيق حلم اقتناء ينظر المصنعة من قبل مصالح النخبة لتعزيز الخاصة بها تراكم أعظم كنز هو ليس أكثر من مخطط الهرم الوطني. وينبغي أن الغرض من الحياة لا يمكن دخول الأجور العبودية من أجل إرضاء النزوات وضعت داخل عقولنا من قبل الناس وسياسات تهدف إلى استغلال كل جانب من جوانب وجودنا الجماعي. عند حضور حفل عيد ميلاد والنتيجة النهائية هي عادة الكعكة الاحتفالية التي قطعت الى اجزاء متساوية وتوزيعها على من هم في حضوره. كل شخص يحصل على شريحة متساوية بغض النظر عن الحسابات المصرفية الفردية أو الوضع. موجودات الدولة – الأرض والماء والغذاء والكساء والدواء والتعليم – مثل كعكة، ينبغي تقسيم بين المواطنين، دون المساس، مع جميع المشاركين المساهمين في متابعة الحالة الصحية للنظام وبعضها البعض. وهذا لن يؤدي إلى انخفاض في النشاط الإنتاجي أو الدافع لخلق ابتكارات جديدة، كما يؤكد بعض النقاد، ولكن بدلا من إزالة القوة التدميرية للتحريض “من يملكون” مقابل “لا يملكون” ويسلب التسمم، مثل المخدرات إحساس امتلاك والسيطرة على الناس الذين تم التعامل سوء الحظ عشوائي أو أقل أو أكثر من الأشياء الجيدة وازع من يقومون به. أن يكون الإنسان هو خيار، وليس هبة إلهية. كل رجل وامرأة وطفل يستحق، على الأقل، من الغذاء والكساء والمأوى والرعاية الطبية والوصول إلى التمتع المتاحة لمواطنيهم. والدافع لارتكاب جريمة أخلاقية ضد جارتهم تختفي تقريبا، باستثناء البذور السيئة نادرة، وسوف تملأ الحياة اليومية لكل فرد مع المساعي ممتعة أكثر بكثير والتي تزيد من رفاهية أنفسهم، والثقافة، و المجتمع ككل. وينبغي أن يكون هناك أبدا رجل مع بندقية الدائمة من قبل بشكل جيد فقط قائلا: “إذا كنت تريد بعض الماء يجب أن تكون عبدي”. المياه هي للجميع، حق أساسي، وهو نفس وجود سقف فوق رأسك، والدفء في ليل الشتاء البارد لوالمواد الغذائية. إجبار الناس مع التهديدات صامتة من الجوع والحرمان، إذا لم يكن لخلق الثروة لمصلحة النخبة، وفي المقابل منح القدرة على العيش والتنفس هو جريمة أخلاقية على أعلى المستويات. هذه ليست
По
Марк Окон
12.29.09
Для того чтобы понять мир, в котором мы живем, и участвовать в качестве граждан, накопление фактов играют жизненно важную роль, если не самым важным. Интерпретация визуальных и звуковых раздражителей является средством, с помощью которых человек, молодой или старый, получает заключение, в котором в основу решения или приходят на точку зрения в соответствии с философией такой человек дорожит, даже священным. Низкие существ пищевой цепи развивать восприятие и поведение, основанные на генетических факторов и distinctual люди тоже иногда действовать или основывать решения на присущие характеристики человека. Здоровый человек стремится жить существование основывается на следующих набор правил, а не социальные или культурные, а личные рекомендации, основанные на коллекции опытом. История неоднократно доказала, что человеческие существа чрезвычайно похоть и продолжать сокровищем материальных и власть, не потому, что это присуще в их ДНК, но вместо того, чтобы вести себя в соответствии со значениями общины и общества, в котором они проживают. Для того чтобы получить желаемый роскошь многообразия материального и духовного метафизическим знаменитости предстоит принять участие в установленных рамках доказано, предоставит участникам получают награду свою. Американский “рамки” согласуется с приобретением физического и психического сокровища и частично отвечает за промышленные и технологические успехи страны пользуется – Но какой ценой? Прожитой жизни в погоне за мечтой воспринимается приобретение производства элитных интересов для достижения своих собственных грандиозных сокровищ накопления не более чем национальной пирамиды. Цель жизни не должно быть ввода наемного рабства, чтобы удовлетворить импульсы помещается внутри нашего сознания людей и политики, направленной на использование всех аспектов нашего коллективного существования. Когда вы посещаете рождения конечный результат, как правило, торжественный торт резали на равные части и распространяется на тех, кто УЧАСТИИ. Каждый получает равную часть, независимо от отдельного банковского счета или статуса. Активы страны – земли, воды, пищи, одежды, медицины, образования – как торт, должна быть разделена между гражданами, без предрассудков, со всеми участниками, способствующими сохранению здоровья системы и друг от друга. Это не приведет к снижению производственной деятельности или мотивации для создания новых инноваций, так как некоторые критики утверждают, а удалить разрушительной силе точечной “имущих” против “неимущих” и убрать пьянящий наркотик, как ощущение обладания и контроль людей, которые были рассмотрены случайные несчастья или меньше лакомства или больше сомнений, чем они. Для человека есть выбор, а не божественный дар. Каждый мужчина, женщина и ребенок заслуживает, по крайней мере, питание, одежду, жилье, медицинское обслуживание и доступ к осуществлению доступными для своих сограждан. Стремление к совершению моральное преступление против своего соседа будет практически исчезают, за исключением редких плохих семян и повседневной жизни каждого человека будет заполнен гораздо более приятные занятия, которые увеличивают благосостояние себе, культуре и сообщества в целом. Там никогда не должен быть человек с ружьем, стоя у только и говорят: “Если вы хотите немного воды вы должны быть моим рабом”. Вода для всех, основных прав, так же, как имеющие крыши над головой, тепло на ночь холодной зимой и пищи. Принуждение людей с приглушенной угрозой голода и разврат, если они не создают богатства для элиты интересы, а взамен получили возможность жить и дышать является моральным преступлением на самом высоком уровне. Благотворительность это не так! Цивилизованным и развивались, да
Is the World Too Big to Fail? The Contours of Global Order
Noam Chomsky
TomDispatch, April 21, 2011
The democracy uprising in the Arab world has been a spectacular display of courage, dedication, and commitment by popular forces -- coinciding, fortuitously, with a remarkable uprising of tens of thousands in support of working people and democracy in Madison, Wisconsin, and other U.S. cities. If the trajectories of revolt in Cairo and Madison intersected, however, they were headed in opposite directions: in Cairo toward gaining elementary rights denied by the dictatorship, in Madison towards defending rights that had been won in long and hard struggles and are now under severe attack.
Each is a microcosm of tendencies in global society, following varied courses. There are sure to be far-reaching consequences of what is taking place both in the decaying industrial heartland of the richest and most powerful country in human history, and in what President Dwight Eisenhower called "the most strategically important area in the world" -- "a stupendous source of strategic power" and "probably the richest economic prize in the world in the field of foreign investment," in the words of the State Department in the 1940s, a prize that the U.S. intended to keep for itself and its allies in the unfolding New World Order of that day.
Despite all the changes since, there is every reason to suppose that today's policy-makers basically adhere to the judgment of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s influential advisor A.A. Berle that control of the incomparable energy reserves of the Middle East would yield "substantial control of the world." And correspondingly, that loss of control would threaten the project of global dominance that was clearly articulated during World War II, and that has been sustained in the face of major changes in world order since that day.
From the outset of the war in 1939, Washington anticipated that it would end with the U.S. in a position of overwhelming power. High-level State Department officials and foreign policy specialists met through the wartime years to lay out plans for the postwar world. They delineated a "Grand Area" that the U.S. was to dominate, including the Western hemisphere, the Far East, and the former British empire, with its Middle East energy resources. As Russia began to grind down Nazi armies after Stalingrad, Grand Area goals extended to as much of Eurasia as possible, at least its economic core in Western Europe. Within the Grand Area, the U.S. would maintain "unquestioned power," with "military and economic supremacy," while ensuring the "limitation of any exercise of sovereignty" by states that might interfere with its global designs. The careful wartime plans were soon implemented.
It was always recognized that Europe might choose to follow an independent course. NATO was partially intended to counter this threat. As soon as the official pretext for NATO dissolved in 1989, NATO was expanded to the East in violation of verbal pledges to Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. It has since become a U.S.-run intervention force, with far-ranging scope, spelled out by NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, who informed a NATO conference that "NATO troops have to guard pipelines that transport oil and gas that is directed for the West," and more generally to protect sea routes used by tankers and other "crucial infrastructure" of the energy system.
Grand Area doctrines clearly license military intervention at will. That conclusion was articulated clearly by the Clinton administration, which declared that the U.S. has the right to use military force to ensure "uninhibited access to key markets, energy supplies, and strategic resources," and must maintain huge military forces "forward deployed" in Europe and Asia "in order to shape people's opinions about us" and "to shape events that will affect our livelihood and our security."
The same principles governed the invasion of Iraq. As the U.S. failure to impose its will in Iraq was becoming unmistakable, the actual goals of the invasion could no longer be concealed behind pretty rhetoric. In November 2007, the White House issued a Declaration of Principles demanding that U.S. forces must remain indefinitely in Iraq and committing Iraq to privilege American investors. Two months later, President Bush informed Congress that he would reject legislation that might limit the permanent stationing of U.S. Armed Forces in Iraq or "United States control of the oil resources of Iraq" -- demands that the U.S. had to abandon shortly after in the face of Iraqi resistance.
In Tunisia and Egypt, the recent popular uprisings have won impressive victories, but as the Carnegie Endowment reported, while names have changed, the regimes remain: "A change in ruling elites and system of governance is still a distant goal." The report discusses internal barriers to democracy, but ignores the external ones, which as always are significant.
The U.S. and its Western allies are sure to do whatever they can to prevent authentic democracy in the Arab world. To understand why, it is only necessary to look at the studies of Arab opinion conducted by U.S. polling agencies. Though barely reported, they are certainly known to planners. They reveal that by overwhelming majorities, Arabs regard the U.S. and Israel as the major threats they face: the U.S. is so regarded by 90% of Egyptians, in the region generally by over 75%. Some Arabs regard Iran as a threat: 10%. Opposition to U.S. policy is so strong that a majority believes that security would be improved if Iran had nuclear weapons -- in Egypt, 80%. Other figures are similar. If public opinion were to influence policy, the U.S. not only would not control the region, but would be expelled from it, along with its allies, undermining fundamental principles of global dominance.
The Invisible Hand of Power
Support for democracy is the province of ideologists and propagandists. In the real world, elite dislike of democracy is the norm. The evidence is overwhelming that democracy is supported insofar as it contributes to social and economic objectives, a conclusion reluctantly conceded by the more serious scholarship.
Elite contempt for democracy was revealed dramatically in the reaction to the WikiLeaks exposures. Those that received most attention, with euphoric commentary, were cables reporting that Arabs support the U.S. stand on Iran. The reference was to the ruling dictators. The attitudes of the public were unmentioned. The guiding principle was articulated clearly by Carnegie Endowment Middle East specialist Marwan Muasher, formerly a high official of the Jordanian government: "There is nothing wrong, everything is under control." In short, if the dictators support us, what else could matter?
The Muasher doctrine is rational and venerable. To mention just one case that is highly relevant today, in internal discussion in 1958, president Eisenhower expressed concern about "the campaign of hatred" against us in the Arab world, not by governments, but by the people. The National Security Council (NSC) explained that there is a perception in the Arab world that the U.S. supports dictatorships and blocks democracy and development so as to ensure control over the resources of the region. Furthermore, the perception is basically accurate, the NSC concluded, and that is what we should be doing, relying on the Muasher doctrine. Pentagon studies conducted after 9/11 confirmed that the same holds today.
It is normal for the victors to consign history to the trash can, and for victims to take it seriously. Perhaps a few brief observations on this important matter may be useful. Today is not the first occasion when Egypt and the U.S. are facing similar problems, and moving in opposite directions. That was also true in the early nineteenth century.
Economic historians have argued that Egypt was well-placed to undertake rapid economic development at the same time that the U.S. was. Both had rich agriculture, including cotton, the fuel of the early industrial revolution -- though unlike Egypt, the U.S. had to develop cotton production and a work force by conquest, extermination, and slavery, with consequences that are evident right now in the reservations for the survivors and the prisons that have rapidly expanded since the Reagan years to house the superfluous population left by deindustrialization.
One fundamental difference was that the U.S. had gained independence and was therefore free to ignore the prescriptions of economic theory, delivered at the time by Adam Smith in terms rather like those preached to developing societies today. Smith urged the liberated colonies to produce primary products for export and to import superior British manufactures, and certainly not to attempt to monopolize crucial goods, particularly cotton. Any other path, Smith warned, "would retard instead of accelerating the further increase in the value of their annual produce, and would obstruct instead of promoting the progress of their country towards real wealth and greatness."
Having gained their independence, the colonies were free to ignore his advice and to follow England's course of independent state-guided development, with high tariffs to protect industry from British exports, first textiles, later steel and others, and to adopt numerous other devices to accelerate industrial development. The independent Republic also sought to gain a monopoly of cotton so as to "place all other nations at our feet," particularly the British enemy, as the Jacksonian presidents announced when conquering Texas and half of Mexico.
For Egypt, a comparable course was barred by British power. Lord Palmerston declared that "no ideas of fairness [toward Egypt] ought to stand in the way of such great and paramount interests” of Britain as preserving its economic and political hegemony, expressing his “hate” for the “ignorant barbarian” Muhammed Ali who dared to seek an independent course, and deploying Britain’s fleet and financial power to terminate Egypt’s quest for independence and economic development.
After World War II, when the U.S. displaced Britain as global hegemon, Washington adopted the same stand, making it clear that the U.S. would provide no aid to Egypt unless it adhered to the standard rules for the weak — which the U.S. continued to violate, imposing high tariffs to bar Egyptian cotton and causing a debilitating dollar shortage. The usual interpretation of market principles.
It is small wonder that the “campaign of hatred” against the U.S. that concerned Eisenhower was based on the recognition that the U.S. supports dictators and blocks democracy and development, as do its allies.
In Adam Smith’s defense, it should be added that he recognized what would happen if Britain followed the rules of sound economics, now called “neoliberalism.” He warned that if British manufacturers, merchants, and investors turned abroad, they might profit but England would suffer. But he felt that they would be guided by a home bias, so as if by an invisible hand England would be spared the ravages of economic rationality.
The passage is hard to miss. It is the one occurrence of the famous phrase “invisible hand” in The Wealth of Nations. The other leading founder of classical economics, David Ricardo, drew similar conclusions, hoping that home bias would lead men of property to “be satisfied with the low rate of profits in their own country, rather than seek a more advantageous employment for their wealth in foreign nations,” feelings that, he added, “I should be sorry to see weakened.” Their predictions aside, the instincts of the classical economists were sound.
The Iranian and Chinese “Threats”
The democracy uprising in the Arab world is sometimes compared to Eastern Europe in 1989, but on dubious grounds. In 1989, the democracy uprising was tolerated by the Russians, and supported by western power in accord with standard doctrine: it plainly conformed to economic and strategic objectives, and was therefore a noble achievement, greatly honored, unlike the struggles at the same time “to defend the people’s fundamental human rights” in Central America, in the words of the assassinated Archbishop of El Salvador, one of the hundreds of thousands of victims of the military forces armed and trained by Washington. There was no Gorbachev in the West throughout these horrendous years, and there is none today. And Western power remains hostile to democracy in the Arab world for good reasons.
Grand Area doctrines continue to apply to contemporary crises and confrontations. In Western policy-making circles and political commentary the Iranian threat is considered to pose the greatest danger to world order and hence must be the primary focus of U.S. foreign policy, with Europe trailing along politely.
What exactly is the Iranian threat? An authoritative answer is provided by the Pentagon and U.S. intelligence. Reporting on global security last year, they make it clear that the threat is not military. Iran’s military spending is “relatively low compared to the rest of the region,” they conclude. Its military doctrine is strictly “defensive, designed to slow an invasion and force a diplomatic solution to hostilities.” Iran has only “a limited capability to project force beyond its borders.” With regard to the nuclear option, “Iran’s nuclear program and its willingness to keep open the possibility of developing nuclear weapons is a central part of its deterrent strategy.” All quotes.
The brutal clerical regime is doubtless a threat to its own people, though it hardly outranks U.S. allies in that regard. But the threat lies elsewhere, and is ominous indeed. One element is Iran’s potential deterrent capacity, an illegitimate exercise of sovereignty that might interfere with U.S. freedom of action in the region. It is glaringly obvious why Iran would seek a deterrent capacity; a look at the military bases and nuclear forces in the region suffices to explain.
Seven years ago, Israeli military historian Martin van Creveld wrote that “The world has witnessed how the United States attacked Iraq for, as it turned out, no reason at all. Had the Iranians not tried to build nuclear weapons, they would be crazy,” particularly when they are under constant threat of attack in violation of the UN Charter. Whether they are doing so remains an open question, but perhaps so.
But Iran’s threat goes beyond deterrence. It is also seeking to expand its influence in neighboring countries, the Pentagon and U.S. intelligence emphasize, and in this way to “destabilize” the region (in the technical terms of foreign policy discourse). The U.S. invasion and military occupation of Iran’s neighbors is “stabilization.” Iran’s efforts to extend its influence to them are “destabilization,” hence plainly illegitimate.
Such usage is routine. Thus the prominent foreign policy analyst James Chace was properly using the term “stability” in its technical sense when he explained that in order to achieve “stability” in Chile it was necessary to “destabilize” the country (by overthrowing the elected government of Salvador Allende and installing the dictatorship of General Augusto Pinochet). Other concerns about Iran are equally interesting to explore, but perhaps this is enough to reveal the guiding principles and their status in imperial culture. As Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s planners emphasized at the dawn of the contemporary world system, the U.S. cannot tolerate “any exercise of sovereignty” that interferes with its global designs.
The U.S. and Europe are united in punishing Iran for its threat to stability, but it is useful to recall how isolated they are. The nonaligned countries have vigorously supported Iran’s right to enrich uranium. In the region, Arab public opinion even strongly favors Iranian nuclear weapons. The major regional power, Turkey, voted against the latest U.S.-initiated sanctions motion in the Security Council, along with Brazil, the most admired country of the South. Their disobedience led to sharp censure, not for the first time: Turkey had been bitterly condemned in 2003 when the government followed the will of 95% of the population and refused to participate in the invasion of Iraq, thus demonstrating its weak grasp of democracy, western-style.
After its Security Council misdeed last year, Turkey was warned by Obama’s top diplomat on European affairs, Philip Gordon, that it must “demonstrate its commitment to partnership with the West.” A scholar with the Council on Foreign Relations asked, “How do we keep the Turks in their lane?” — following orders like good democrats. Brazil’s Lula was admonished in a New York Times headline that his effort with Turkey to provide a solution to the uranium enrichment issue outside of the framework of U.S. power was a “Spot on Brazilian Leader’s Legacy.” In brief, do what we say, or else.
An interesting sidelight, effectively suppressed, is that the Iran-Turkey-Brazil deal was approved in advance by Obama, presumably on the assumption that it would fail, providing an ideological weapon against Iran. When it succeeded, the approval turned to censure, and Washington rammed through a Security Council resolution so weak that China readily signed — and is now chastised for living up to the letter of the resolution but not Washington’s unilateral directives — in the current issue of Foreign Affairs, for example.
While the U.S. can tolerate Turkish disobedience, though with dismay, China is harder to ignore. The press warns that “China’s investors and traders are now filling a vacuum in Iran as businesses from many other nations, especially in Europe, pull out,” and in particular, is expanding its dominant role in Iran’s energy industries. Washington is reacting with a touch of desperation. The State Department warned China that if it wants to be accepted in the international community — a technical term referring to the U.S. and whoever happens to agree with it — then it must not “skirt and evade international responsibilities, [which] are clear”: namely, follow U.S. orders. China is unlikely to be impressed.
There is also much concern about the growing Chinese military threat. A recent Pentagon study warned that China’s military budget is approaching “one-fifth of what the Pentagon spent to operate and carry out the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,” a fraction of the U.S. military budget, of course. China’s expansion of military forces might “deny the ability of American warships to operate in international waters off its coast,” the New York Times added.
Off the coast of China, that is; it has yet to be proposed that the U.S. should eliminate military forces that deny the Caribbean to Chinese warships. China’s lack of understanding of rules of international civility is illustrated further by its objections to plans for the advanced nuclear-powered aircraft carrier George Washington to join naval exercises a few miles off China’s coast, with alleged capacity to strike Beijing.
In contrast, the West understands that such U.S. operations are all undertaken to defend stability and its own security. The liberal New Republic expresses its concern that “China sent ten warships through international waters just off the Japanese island of Okinawa.” That is indeed a provocation — unlike the fact, unmentioned, that Washington has converted the island into a major military base in defiance of vehement protests by the people of Okinawa. That is not a provocation, on the standard principle that we own the world.
Deep-seated imperial doctrine aside, there is good reason for China’s neighbors to be concerned about its growing military and commercial power. And though Arab opinion supports an Iranian nuclear weapons program, we certainly should not do so. The foreign policy literature is full of proposals as to how to counter the threat. One obvious way is rarely discussed: work to establish a nuclear-weapons-free zone (NWFZ) in the region. The issue arose (again) at the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) conference at United Nations headquarters last May. Egypt, as chair of the 118 nations of the Non-Aligned Movement, called for negotiations on a Middle East NWFZ, as had been agreed by the West, including the U.S., at the 1995 review conference on the NPT.
International support is so overwhelming that Obama formally agreed. It is a fine idea, Washington informed the conference, but not now. Furthermore, the U.S. made clear that Israel must be exempted: no proposal can call for Israel’s nuclear program to be placed under the auspices of the International Atomic Energy Agency or for the release of information about “Israeli nuclear facilities and activities.” So much for this method of dealing with the Iranian nuclear threat.
Privatizing the Planet
While Grand Area doctrine still prevails, the capacity to implement it has declined. The peak of U.S. power was after World War II, when it had literally half the world’s wealth. But that naturally declined, as other industrial economies recovered from the devastation of the war and decolonization took its agonizing course. By the early 1970s, the U.S. share of global wealth had declined to about 25%, and the industrial world had become tripolar: North America, Europe, and East Asia (then Japan-based).
There was also a sharp change in the U.S. economy in the 1970s, towards financialization and export of production. A variety of factors converged to create a vicious cycle of radical concentration of wealth, primarily in the top fraction of 1% of the population — mostly CEOs, hedge-fund managers, and the like. That leads to the concentration of political power, hence state policies to increase economic concentration: fiscal policies, rules of corporate governance, deregulation, and much more. Meanwhile the costs of electoral campaigns skyrocketed, driving the parties into the pockets of concentrated capital, increasingly financial: the Republicans reflexively, the Democrats — by now what used to be moderate Republicans — not far behind.
Elections have become a charade, run by the public relations industry. After his 2008 victory, Obama won an award from the industry for the best marketing campaign of the year. Executives were euphoric. In the business press they explained that they had been marketing candidates like other commodities since Ronald Reagan, but 2008 was their greatest achievement and would change the style in corporate boardrooms. The 2012 election is expected to cost $2 billion, mostly in corporate funding. Small wonder that Obama is selecting business leaders for top positions. The public is angry and frustrated, but as long as the Muasher principle prevails, that doesn’t matter.
While wealth and power have narrowly concentrated, for most of the population real incomes have stagnated and people have been getting by with increased work hours, debt, and asset inflation, regularly destroyed by the financial crises that began as the regulatory apparatus was dismantled starting in the 1980s.
None of this is problematic for the very wealthy, who benefit from a government insurance policy called “too big to fail.” The banks and investment firms can make risky transactions, with rich rewards, and when the system inevitably crashes, they can run to the nanny state for a taxpayer bailout, clutching their copies of Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman.
That has been the regular process since the Reagan years, each crisis more extreme than the last — for the public population, that is. Right now, real unemployment is at Depression levels for much of the population, while Goldman Sachs, one of the main architects of the current crisis, is richer than ever. It has just quietly announced $17.5 billion in compensation for last year, with CEO Lloyd Blankfein receiving a $12.6 million bonus while his base salary more than triples.
It wouldn’t do to focus attention on such facts as these. Accordingly, propaganda must seek to blame others, in the past few months, public sector workers, their fat salaries, exorbitant pensions, and so on: all fantasy, on the model of Reaganite imagery of black mothers being driven in their limousines to pick up welfare checks — and other models that need not be mentioned. We all must tighten our belts; almost all, that is.
Teachers are a particularly good target, as part of the deliberate effort to destroy the public education system from kindergarten through the universities by privatization — again, good for the wealthy, but a disaster for the population, as well as the long-term health of the economy, but that is one of the externalities that is put to the side insofar as market principles prevail.
Another fine target, always, is immigrants. That has been true throughout U.S. history, even more so at times of economic crisis, exacerbated now by a sense that our country is being taken away from us: the white population will soon become a minority. One can understand the anger of aggrieved individuals, but the cruelty of the policy is shocking.
Who are the immigrants targeted? In Eastern Massachusetts, where I live, many are Mayans fleeing genocide in the Guatemalan highlands carried out by Reagan’s favorite killers. Others are Mexican victims of Clinton’s NAFTA, one of those rare government agreements that managed to harm working people in all three of the participating countries. As NAFTA was rammed through Congress over popular objection in 1994, Clinton also initiated the militarization of the U.S.-Mexican border, previously fairly open. It was understood that Mexican campesinos cannot compete with highly subsidized U.S. agribusiness, and that Mexican businesses would not survive competition with U.S. multinationals, which must be granted “national treatment” under the mislabeled free trade agreements, a privilege granted only to corporate persons, not those of flesh and blood. Not surprisingly, these measures led to a flood of desperate refugees, and to rising anti-immigrant hysteria by the victims of state-corporate policies at home.
Much the same appears to be happening in Europe, where racism is probably more rampant than in the U.S. One can only watch with wonder as Italy complains about the flow of refugees from Libya, the scene of the first post-World War I genocide, in the now-liberated East, at the hands of Italy’s Fascist government. Or when France, still today the main protector of the brutal dictatorships in its former colonies, manages to overlook its hideous atrocities in Africa, while French President Nicolas Sarkozy warns grimly of the “flood of immigrants” and Marine Le Pen objects that he is doing nothing to prevent it. I need not mention Belgium, which may win the prize for what Adam Smith called “the savage injustice of the Europeans.”
The rise of neo-fascist parties in much of Europe would be a frightening phenomenon even if we were not to recall what happened on the continent in the recent past. Just imagine the reaction if Jews were being expelled from France to misery and oppression, and then witness the non-reaction when that is happening to Roma, also victims of the Holocaust and Europe’s most brutalized population.
In Hungary, the neo-fascist party Jobbik gained 17% of the vote in national elections, perhaps unsurprising when three-quarters of the population feels that they are worse off than under Communist rule. We might be relieved that in Austria the ultra-right Jörg Haider won only 10% of the vote in 2008 — were it not for the fact that the new Freedom Party, outflanking him from the far right, won more than 17%. It is chilling to recall that, in 1928, the Nazis won less than 3% of the vote in Germany.
In England the British National Party and the English Defence League, on the ultra-racist right, are major forces. (What is happening in Holland you know all too well.) In Germany, Thilo Sarrazin’s lament that immigrants are destroying the country was a runaway best-seller, while Chancellor Angela Merkel, though condemning the book, declared that multiculturalism had “utterly failed”: the Turks imported to do the dirty work in Germany are failing to become blond and blue-eyed, true Aryans.
Those with a sense of irony may recall that Benjamin Franklin, one of the leading figures of the Enlightenment, warned that the newly liberated colonies should be wary of allowing Germans to immigrate, because they were too swarthy; Swedes as well. Into the twentieth century, ludicrous myths of Anglo-Saxon purity were common in the U.S., including among presidents and other leading figures. Racism in the literary culture has been a rank obscenity; far worse in practice, needless to say. It is much easier to eradicate polio than this horrifying plague, which regularly becomes more virulent in times of economic distress.
I do not want to end without mentioning another externality that is dismissed in market systems: the fate of the species. Systemic risk in the financial system can be remedied by the taxpayer, but no one will come to the rescue if the environment is destroyed. That it must be destroyed is close to an institutional imperative. Business leaders who are conducting propaganda campaigns to convince the population that anthropogenic global warming is a liberal hoax understand full well how grave is the threat, but they must maximize short-term profit and market share. If they don’t, someone else will.
This vicious cycle could well turn out to be lethal. To see how grave the danger is, simply have a look at the new Congress in the U.S., propelled into power by business funding and propaganda. Almost all are climate deniers. They have already begun to cut funding for measures that might mitigate environmental catastrophe. Worse, some are true believers; for example, the new head of a subcommittee on the environment who explained that global warming cannot be a problem because God promised Noah that there will not be another flood.
If such things were happening in some small and remote country, we might laugh. Not when they are happening in the richest and most powerful country in the world. And before we laugh, we might also bear in mind that the current economic crisis is traceable in no small measure to the fanatic faith in such dogmas as the efficient market hypothesis, and in general to what Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz, 15 years ago, called the “religion” that markets know best — which prevented the central bank and the economics profession from taking notice of an $8 trillion housing bubble that had no basis at all in economic fundamentals, and that devastated the economy when it burst.
All of this, and much more, can proceed as long as the Muashar doctrine prevails. As long as the general population is passive, apathetic, diverted to consumerism or hatred of the vulnerable, then the powerful can do as they please, and those who survive will be left to contemplate the outcome.
All civilized people, regardless of age or religious affiliation, encounter music in some form or another in their life.
Music, defined by me, represents any audio content that has the ability to be played on an electronic device.
When Shakespeare wrote the words ” Friends, Romans, lend me your ears ” he stumbled upon a concept far beyond his wildest comprehension.
Children, as well as adults, lend their ears when they listen to music.
What then is the effect?
It may be true that music is played and listened to for enjoyment, but the effect is far more pernicious.
When people ” lend their ears ” to a song, they are submitting to an invisible contract which would make the Devil blush.
Today, the music released by major corporations and disseminated through the airwaves, effectively act as a poisoning agent, causing the dumbing down of our culture and lowering of the general IQ of the public.
The power brokers know that an informed and engaged populace threaten their power.
I believe that there is a concerted effort to flood the media, in all forms, with material to enslave the population in a landmine of anti-intellectualism and submission.
I am no conspiracy theorist, but what other explanation is there?
If a newborn child is locked in a room, and told from day 1 that 2 + 2 = 5 , repeatedly for 20 years, can the child be blamed for failing math?
Adults, generally, are to busy to pay attention to the lyrics of todays music-If they were to carefully examine the material, most would react with severe nausea.
Censorship is no answer.
What needs to happen to counter this tragedy is simple but not likely to happen.
Parents must be aware of the words and images their young ones absorb, in order to explain & clarify the meaning.
Sadly, newly minted parents have been raised with the 2 + 2 = 5 mentality, so my desire to see change is not likely, in the short term at least.
Maybe, with the advent of the Internet, quality music and entertainment will find a larger audience and supercede the revolting content now enjoyed by our fellow citizens.
Pope Vows To Get Church Pedophilia Down To Acceptable Levels
VATICAN CITY—Calling the behavior shameful, sinful, and much more frequent than the Vatican was comfortable with, Pope Benedict XVI vowed this week to bring the widespread pedophilia within the Roman Catholic Church down to a more manageable level.
Addressing thousands gathered at St. Peter’s Square on Easter Sunday, the pontiff offered his “most humble apologies” to abuse victims, and pledged to reduce the total number of molestations by 60 percent over the next five years.
“This is absolutely unacceptable,” Pope Benedict said. “It seems a weakening of faith in God has prevented our priests from exercising moderation when sexually abusing helpless minors.”
“And let me remind our clergy of the holy vows they all took when they entered the priesthood,” he continued. “They should know that they’re only allowed one small child every other month.”
The pope said he was deeply disappointed to learn that the number of children sexually abused by priests was almost 10 times beyond the allowable limit clearly outlined in church doctrine. Admitting for the first time in public that the overindulgent touching of “tender, tender young flesh” had become a full-blown crisis, the Holy Father vowed to implement new reforms to bring the pedophilia rate back down to five children per 1,000 clergy.
“The truth is there will always be a little bit of molestation—it’s simply unavoidable,” Vatican spokesperson Rev. Federico Lombardi said. “But the fact that young boys have gotten much more attractive over the past few decades is no excuse for the blatant defiance of church limits that have been in place for centuries.”
“The majority of priests don’t want to molest kids at all,” he added. “But for those who do, we must make sure they’re doing it at a reasonable rate.”
Following the pope’s speech, the Vatican released a statement outlining its plan to reduce pedophilia. Starting next year, specially trained cardinals will make unannounced visits to inspect and observe random churches in order to ensure they are not going beyond diocese-wide molestation caps. The inspector-cardinals will grade each parish based on long, private interviews with altar boys in darkened church basements, and careful observation of priests’ sexual activity.
These senior officials will also have the authority to enforce harsh punishments for any clergy member violating his allotment of pedophilia.
“If a priest goes even one child over the limit, there will be hell to pay,” said Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops Giovanni Battista Re, explaining the Vatican’s new “Three Strikes, You’re Out” rule. “After the third offense, the offending priest will immediately be moved to another parish. This will give officials time to investigate the case, and will act as an effective deterrent since it usually takes months for priests to gain the trust of the new children.”
As a “goodwill measure,” Cardinal Re said all churches will also be required to display a sign next to the altar showing the number of days since the last molestation.
Criticism of the pope’s new plan has already begun to emerge from within the Catholic Church itself. Rev. Walter Moore, a pastor at St. Peter’s in Chicago, questioned the Vatican’s methodology in calculating the molestation rates, saying the church’s inconsistent definition of pedophilia may have skewed the numbers.
“Is it technically pedophilia if the child’s clothes are fully on the entire time? What if he’s asleep when it happens?” Moore said. “It’s time we had some clear guidance from Rome on this issue. For instance, the church counts it as one incident regardless of whether the child is molested multiple times by the same individual or by two priests at once. That’s just plain wrong.”
“Plus, if it’s supposed to be a special secret between the priest and the boy, is it even any of the church’s business in the first place?” he added. “Maybe Brandon is just trying to get attention.”
The Vatican would not release details of the pope’s upcoming world tour, in which he plans to clear up any confusion on the matter by personally demonstrating what constitutes molestation