Illegitimate Transfer of Inalienable European Rights via Convention(s) & Supranational Bodies Establishment of Sovereignty-Usurping Supranational Body Dictatorships Enduring Program of DEMOGRAPHICS WAR on Europeans Enduring Program of PSYCHOLOGICAL WAR on Europeans Enduring Program of European Displacement, Dismemberment, Dispossession, & Dissolution
No wars or conditions abroad (& no domestic or global economic pretexts) justify government policy facilitating the invasion of ancestral European homelands, the rape of European women, the destruction of European societies, & the genocide of Europeans.
U.S. RULING OLIGARCHY WAGES HYBRID WAR TO SALVAGE HEGEMONY [LINK | Article]
Who's preaching world democracy, democracy, democracy? —Who wants to make free people free?
Summary [all info contained is from above book online preview]
Jean B Lynch Book: France in Focus: Immigration Policies, Foreign Policy & US Relations
Info is from above source, but some of my own words in here (rather than direct extracts).
Lynch informs us that in the 1990s French govt began distancing from US policy in Iraq, when US & British capitalist serving governments began using military force on Iraq state (Saddam Hussein govt) to force compliance with 1991 Gulf War settlement.
France and other governments sought to lift international sanctions on Iraq, due to the 'deterioration of living conditions' imposed on the Iraqi inhabitants.
Comment: judging from the above interview of Madeleine Albright in 60 Minutes (an insert / not from book), the US-led economic sanctions were more than a 'deterioration' in conditions: the sanctions were lethal.
Jean B Lynch reports that the Clinton administration and the Bush administration were strongly opposed to lifting of international sanctions.
2002 France eventual backed US goal to reinstate UN weapons inspections and UN Resolution 1441 mandated Iraqi compliance with weapons inspections.
By early 2003, the Bush administration was making allegations of Iraq concealing weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in 'material breach' of UN Resolution 1441, Lynch reports, giving the US (and their British capitalist allies) the 'justification' to use military force.
Meanwhile, the French government and the Germans argued that Iraq was not in 'material breach' of UN Resolution 1441.
French preferred an inspections regime, which they saw as sufficient to 'constrain' the Saddam Hussein government. But, privately, some French officials were backing the US-Anglo capitalist pretext that Iraq was concealing WMD, Lynch indicates (minus the bit about US-Anglo capitalists).
US-French discord re Iraq early 2003. US admin called for regime change in Iraq, going beyond the UN Resolution 1441.
Judging by the Lynch reference to democracy etc: the US administration used the 'spreading democracy' pretext, which the Americans used in a series of hostile attacks on Middle Eastern states.
France and other governments, Lynch indicates, objected to these added regime change objectives, on the basis that 'sustainable reforms' could not be imposed by the west on Iraq and in other states.
US admin then had NATO provide Turkey with what it referred to as 'defensive systems' (but, I'm guessing these are really offensive equipment of war) and pulled US Balkan forces, replacing them with NATO member forces, freeing the US forces for conflict with Iraq.
The following objected in NAC (North Atlantic Council), which is described by Lynch as NATO's supreme political body:
France
Germany
Belgium
on the basis that granting the request (to militarise Turkey?) would:
de facto acknowledge Iraq had impeded UN weapons inspections (which was not proven)
AND THAT IT WOULD BE PRETEXT FOR WAR
according to Lynch.
Outcome: German and Belgian governments relent; France defers the aid to Turkey decision to another NATO bodyin which France is not a member, which results (late Feb 2003) in a decision to provide 'defensive assistance' (comment: ie military capabilities) to Turkey, according to Lynch.
The consequence was US criticism of France (and several other allies), who deemed (comment: what is ostensibly) the anti-war France and Germany as the 'old Europe' and the pro-war Europe as 'new' Europe (Sec. of Defence Donald Rumsfeld), according to Lynch.
Germany & France refuse to back US admin draft UN resolutionauthorising military force against Iraq.France and Russiaeach hold a veto and threaten to use same if draft resolution submitted, Lynch reports.
March 2003, Bush admin (comment: backed by its British capitalist illegal Iraq war co-conspirators, under Labour PM Tony Blair), decide to go to war in Iraq without passing of the proposed UN resolution. Opposed to this were: France, Germany, Turkey (indirectly).
The war hawks were: Britain, Italy, Poland, Spain.
April 2003 Iraq was [comment: illegally] invaded by US and British forces.
US, who illegally invaded and pillaged Iraq, sought almost complete forgiveness of Iraq foreign debt. Two principal governments to whom Iraq was indebted to were: France and Germany.
Germany wrote off 80% of Iraq foreign debt, in excess of the 50% write-off that France had backed, due to Iraq's enormous potential for wealth from petroleum resources (and that other, poorer, nations would have benefited more from debt reduction), Lynch reports.
As at the publication of the John B. Lynch book, the following was owed to capitalist Western states by Iraq:
- USA, $2 billion
- Germany, $2.4 billion
- France, $3 billion
French refused to take part in the US-led multinational occupation forces in Iraq as France did not approve of the basis on which the US launched war on Iraq from and did not wish to be associated with the occupation of Iraq; however, it France offered to train Iraqi police in France, according to Jean B. Lynch. http://www.abebooks.fr/France-Focus-Immigration-Policies-Foreign-Policy/1345667841/bd
COMMENT
Anyone who believes that the capitalists of (occupied) Germany and of France were seriously opposed to illegal invasion and war on Iraq is a moron.
The bet is that this was just for show, so as not to alienate their large Muslim populations and their various Arab trading partners and weapons customers or their strong unions and leftist 'peacenik' voters (but the Gulf Arab Wahhabi pals would have been good for an Iraqi invasion, so it certainly wouldn't have upset them).
French, German and US capitalists were owed billions by Iraq (in that order). So French and German capitalists would have more interest in Iraq and more reason to want control of Iraq, or at the very least, interests in common with the US.
Turkey would have also been protesting for show. Turkey is going fundamentalist/Wahhabi and it would have been opposed to the secular socialist Iraq government, is my guess. Plus, it's in the Gulf Oil Wahhabi camp that wants to bring down Syria and would be therefore opposed to Iran (and associated), so an attack on Iraq would have probably been fine with Turkey (must do some more reading ... I'm really slack).
" ... Iraq was a resource grab targeting Iraq’s oil, as well as a money making exercise for mercenary companies, arms manufacturers, mega-corporations like Halliburton and its subsidiaries, and the banking cartels, Syria is different. Syria produces oil, yes, but nowhere near the scale that Iraq does.
Syria’s closeness with Iran and Lebanon’s Hezbollah will obviously stand out as a reason why the US, Israel, the EU, and the GCC want Assad’s government gone. But factoring in the Ba’ath Party’s three objectives of secularism, socialism, and pan-Arab unification, we see more ideological reasons, as well as the motivation for the militias operating under the Al Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood umbrellas."
The forgiveness of national debt is something I don't fully understand, but I expect it is for an interest in the resources in the country, which they will exploit in future.
Why were the Italy, Spain and Poland capitalist representing governments so keen on an Iraq invasion? The Italian and Spanish capitalist are imperialists from way back, but how does cucked Poland fit into this, I wonder? Poland's been a poodle from way back in history, so maybe it's just more of the same poodling for capitalism?
Why are the Belgians backing the US? Whatever happened to 'neutral' little Belgium? Belgium needs some street rioting ... LOL
"Belgian Congo is often cited as one of the most brutal and exploitative colonial regimes in modern history" (Study.com). Belgum maintained x3 colonies: Belgian Congo (DR Congo), Ruanda-Urundi & some portion of China. Of the Belgian empire, about 98% was just one colony: the Congo. Considered as personal property of King Leopold II. Belgian colonisation supported by Western countries as Belgium was seen as a 'useful buffer' between colonial powers in Africa [wikipedia]. Congo yielded: ivory, rubber. Belgium appears to have had extensive attempts to colonise (or uninitiated plans to colonise) various locations across Africa, South America, Central America, Caribbbean, North America, Asia, Oceania and even in Europe.
All this colonialism and capitalism primarily benefits the capitalist elites, while the European masses get ripped off ... and flooded with invaders from capitalist colonial outposts. Not much of a deal for the European working class.
"The judges in the verdict said that that the United States, under the leadership of Bush, forged documentsto claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction."
"“Bush and Blair are found guilty under the same law that applied to the Nazis after the end of the World War II. So, they are international (war) criminals guilty of Nuremberg crimes against peace; and they should be prosecuted by any state in the world that gets a hold of them."
US Capitalist Empire has taken steps IN ADVANCE to ensure that no country dare prosecute the AMERICAN-ANGLO CAPITALIST WAR CRIMINALS (or their associates), as US Capitalist Empire has given itself permission to wage war against those that seek to bring US CAPITALIST WAR CRIMINALS to justice.
"A new law supposedly protecting U.S. servicemembers from the International Criminal Court shows that the Bush administration will stop at nothing in its campaign against the court.
U.S. President George Bush today signed into law the American Servicemembers Protection Act of 2002, which is intended to intimidate countries that ratify the treaty for the International Criminal Court (ICC). The new law authorizes the use of military force to liberate any American or citizen of a U.S.-allied country being held by the court, which is located in The Hague. This provision, dubbed the "Hague invasion clause," has caused a strong reaction from U.S. allies around the world, particularly in the Netherlands.
In addition, the law provides for the withdrawal of U.S. military assistance from countries ratifying the ICC treaty, and restricts U.S. participation in United Nations peacekeeping unless the United States obtains immunity from prosecution. At the same time, these provisions can be waived by the president on "national interest" grounds.
...
The law is part of a multi-pronged U.S. effort against the International Criminal Court. On May 6, in an unprecedented move, the Bush administration announced it was "renouncing" U.S. signature on the treaty. "
A former Australian army chief has warned Canberraagainst “blindly” following the United States in the American military adventures, a day after a long-awaited inquiry into Britain’s role in the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq blamed the UK for rushing to war.
“We... need to be careful of blindly going along with our senior strategic partners,” Peter Leahy, who was the chief of the Australian army from 2002 to 2008,said in an apparent reference to the US.
“I think as we look at other issues that are afoot at the moment, there are some thoughts to be given there — what decisions are we making?” he said, speaking on Thursday.
The former army chief, who is now a professor at Canberra University’s National Security Institute, added that “Frankly, some of the decisions the United States, our senior partner in our strategic alliance, have [sic] made over the last 20 or 30 years have been a bit crook.”
The Chilcot Inquiry, established in 2009 to investigateBritain’s most controversial military engagement since the end of the Second World War, published its 6,000-page report in 12 volumes on Wednesday, slamming former British Prime Minister Tony Blair over support for former US President George W. Bush in the 2003 Iraq war.
At the time, Blair presented the case for war with “a certainty which was not justified”based on “flawed” intelligence about Iraq’s supposed weapons of mass destruction (WMD), which was not challenged as it should have been, the report concluded.
Blair’s government sent 120,000 members of the British armed forces and civilians to Iraq, proving its role as Bush’s chief military ally. A total of 179 British personnel werekilled in the war.
In 2003, Australia also sent 2,000 troops to support the US and British forces in the invasion of Iraq, whose legal basis, according to the Chilcot Inquiry, was “far from satisfactory.”
According to Leahy, a review of the Australian involvement in the Iraq war released in 2004 also showed that Canberra relied on flawed advice in joining its senior allies.
“Let’s have a discussion, not an inquiry, around our relationship with the United States, how we decide to go to war and very importantly how we decide every day when we are at war to stay at war,” Leahy said.
Meanwhile, Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop, who at the time of the Iraq invasion was part of then-Prime Minister John Howard’s conservative government, defended the decision made by the government to send troops to Iraq, saying it was “based on… the best information that we had at the time.”
“The government takes responsibility for all decisions that a government makes and we take responsibility for this one,” she further said, describing the decision as “a bipartisan position up to a point.”
Blair himself has defended the British decision to follow in the US’s footsteps into Iraq following the publication of the Chilcot report.
"AN OBSTACLE TO EVERY SINGLE WESTERN OBJECTIVE IN THE MIDDLE EAST"
"OUR GOAL IS REGIME CHANGE"
"WE HAVE HAD SUCH GOALS BEFORE. WE SUCCEEDED IN THE SOVIET UNION, IN APARTHEID SOUTH AFRICA AND IN BELGRADE."
"I ASSUME [REGIME CHANGE] REMAINS OUR GOAL IN PLACES LIKE BURMA, IRAN, LIBYA, ZIMBABWE AND LIBERIA."
"LAWYERS AND PEACENIKS SHOULD NOT PREVENT US FROM SAYING WHAT WE REALLY WANT IN IRAQ"
"IF WE WERE TO BUILD UP THE KURDS AND THE SHIA AS PROXIES, WHAT ASSURANCES WOULD WE HAVE TO GIVE THEM THAT WE WOULD NOT LET THEM DOWN YET AGAIN?"
"ALL OF THESE ARE MUCH MORE IMPORTANT QUESTIONS THAN LEGALITY ..."
"WE CAN LOOK FOR A LEGAL BASIS ONCE WE HAVE DECIDED WHAT TO DO, AS WE DID IN KOSOVO."
"WE KNOW BUSH, AT THE END OF THE DAY, WILL BE BOTH INTELLIGENT AND RESPONSIBLE IF WE CAN HELP THE AMERICANS COME UP WITH A PERSUASIVE PLAN TO OUST THE WORLDS WORST TYRANT, THEN WE SHOULD DO SO. AND IF THE BEST MILITARY AND INTELLIGENCE ORGANS OF LONDON AND WASHINGTON FAIL TO PRODUCE A CONVINCING PLAN, THEN WE STICK TO CONTAINMENT."
John Sawers descendant of Norman invaders (12th C.)
former British Diplomat
former British Senior Civil Servant
Foreign & Commonwealth Office 1997 MI6 agent in Yemen & Syria
Political Officer, Damascus 1982
FCO Desk Officer, European Union Dept. 1984
Private Sec. to Minister of State 1986
FCO, Pretoria, Cape Town, South Africa 1988-1991
Head of European Union Presidency Planning Unit 1991
Principal Private Secretary to Douglas Hurd 1993:
- Bosnia War
- Middle East war
- European Union debate
International Fellow at Harvard University, USA, 1995-1998
British Embassy, Washington DC, headed Foreign & Defence Policy Team Foreign Affairs Adviser to PM Tony Blair 1999-2001
- Kosovo War
- Northern Ireland peace process
- Iraq sanctions policy Ambassador toEgypt 2001 - 2003 British Special Representatives to Baghdad (3 mths)
FCO, Director Gen. for Political Affairs 2003
wide scope, negotiations with: G8, EU and the UN
closely involved re policy on:
Iran
Iraq
Afghanistan
Balkans
British Permanent Representative to the United Nations 2007-2009
former Chief of MI6, Secret Intelligence Service 2009-2014
governor of the Ditchley Foundation, Anglo-US capitalist relations promo Ditchley Foundation est. 1958 by Sir David Wills, descendant of the tobacco importing family, W. D. & H. O. Wills (Bristol)
W.D. & H.O. Wills, est. 1786
one of founding companies of: Imperial Tobacco
on merger of W.D. & H.O. Wills & x7 other tobacco companies
key: William Wills, 1st Baron Winterstoke
businessman, Liberal politician
Julie Bishop defending the decision to enter into ILLEGAL WAR ON IRAQ, on a CONCOCTED basis, for the enrichment of US-ANGLO CAPITALISTS who destroyed and robbed the country, is appalling. But what else can the government do? It's not like they're going to admit to being war criminals and admit liability, are they? LOL It also sounds like Australia might want to address the issue of the constitution that permits a declaration of war without parliamentary backing.
"that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and long range missiles, and its continuing non-compliance with Security Council Resolutions, pose a threat to international peace and security"
... ummmmm, only there wasn't any
AGREED that Britain:
"should use all means necessary to ensure the disarmament of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction"
BRITISH POLITICIANS VOTE THAT:
British forces to invade Iraq in an ILLEGAL WAR the 'case' for which was manufactured by the US-Anglo Capitalist Empire
When this was happening I wasn't paying attention.
I can vaguely remember 2003. Think I was really, really depressed back then, thinking how sh*t my life was. LOL.
It actually wasn't as crap as I thought it was. It just seemed that way. Wish I could go back in time. Time's going way too fast for me.
Anyway, I don't think I turned on the TV that year, so I missed out on the war news. Not that I would have cared back then. It was so remote it may as well have been war on Mars.
I'm probably a bit more aware these days, but I'm probably as self involved as ever.
I'm shocked looking at this list of British MPs who voted for invasion of Iraq.
Look at how much power very, very ordinary and fallible everyday local politicians are granted, simply by being elected into positions of power by the electorate.
And just think about the potential for abuse that power and the importance, in that case, of accountability and transparency in government ... which is where WikiLeaks comes in.
'Mir Bez Tebya' Criminal Capitalist Dispossession & Destruction of Peoples Around the World
Муслим Магомаев - Мир без тебя - 1969 Muslim Magomayev - A World Without You - 1969
Мир без тебя (Э.Масиас - Л.Дербенев),
Мелодия 33ГД-0001229 (1969), Мелодия 33Д-27095 (1970).
A world without you (E.Masias - L.Derbenev)
Melody 33GD-0,001,229 (1969), Melody 33D-27095 (1970).
Mir bez tebya
lyrics
Muslim Magomayev - Mir bez tebya - 1969
Vse bylo nayavu, A kazhetsya -- prisnilos', I ya seychas prosnus', chtob snova ty byla… Skazala: «Ukhozhu!» I vse peremenilos' - Ushla i tselyy mir s soboy ty unesla.
Pripev: Izmenilos' vse vokrug, I vse nenuzhnym stalo vdrug. Solntse vstrechayu, yego ne lyubya. Den' provozhayu, ne lyubya. Mir ni k chemu mne, Mir ni k chemu mne, Gde net tebya.
Naverno by menya Razluka ne ubila - Kogda-nibud' ya smog zabyt', chto ty byla. Ne sprashivayu ya, Zachem ty razlyubila? Skazhi, zachem ves' mir s soboy ty unesla.
Pripev: Izmenilos' vse vokrug, I vse nenuzhnym stalo vdrug. Solntse vstrechayu -- yego ne lyubya. Den' provozhayu -- ne lyubya. Mir ni k chemu mne, Mir ni k chemu mne, Gde net tebya.
Bez tebya, Bez tebya, Dlya chego mne Mir ogromnyy. Bez tebya, Bez tebya, Dlya chego mne mir Bez tebya.
Showing translation for лирикс Муслим Магомаев - Мир без тебя - 1969
мир (mir)
мир (mir)
world, peace, universe, kingdom, quiet, pax
dünya (Azerbaijani)
עוֹלָם
(Hebrew -- 'olám')
world, eternity, universe, space, existence
similar to Aramaic & Arabic
Aramaic
-- language of the Arameans
-- region of ancient Aram
-- from Hebrew/Aramaic: to rise, be high, piled up, tall
-- ancient Aram = now Syria
-- the linguistic epicentre of Aramaic
-- language of Arameans who settled in region c. 3500 BC
Greeks named Aram 'Syria'
Greeks, at same time, called Assyria (Iraq) Syria
new Testament, written in Koine Greek, translates word 'Hebrew' as 'Aramaic'
-- native speakers of Aramaic settled in:
-- Babylonia
-- Assyria
-- ie Upper Mesopotamia
-- northern Iraq
-- north-east Syria
-- north-west Iran
-- south-eastern Anatolia (Turkey)
-- influx resulted in Neo-Assyrian Empire, 911 BC - 605 BC
-- adopted Akkadian influenced 'Imperial Aramaic' as lingua franca of empire
-- continued by Neo-Babylonian Empire & Medes
-- three empires operational bilingual (written)
-- Aramaic used along with Akkadian
-- Achaeamenid Empire, 539 BC - 323 BC, continued tradition
-- Aramaic gradually lingua franca of:
-- most western Asia
-- Arabian Peninsula
-- Anatolia
-- Caucasus
-- Egypt
-- written lingua franca of Parthian Empire (Iran)
-- Hadrian's Wall (Roman Britain) inscriptions in Aramaic
-- made by Assyrian & Aramean soldiers 2nd Century
-- from 600s CE to 1500s CE (Muslim conquests)
-- Arabic replaces Aramaic as lingua franca of Middle East
-- Aramaic remains: -- spoken, literary & liturgical language -- for local Christians & some Jews
-- Aramaic spoken by:
-- Assyrians (Iraq)
-- north-east Syria
-- south-west Anatolia (Turkey)
-- north-west Iran
-- Armenia (diaspora)
-- Georgia (diaspora)
-- Azerbaijan (diaspora)
-- southern Russia (diaspora) -- Mandaeans (originally Hebrew)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_language
Mandaeans -- Mandaeans (originally Hebrew) -- occupied Iran & Iraq regions -- Aramaic 'manda' means 'knowledge' (as does Greek 'gnosis') followers of Mandaeism, a Gnostic religion
Mandaic language = eastern dialect of Aramaic Illegal 2003 Iraq War: 90% Mandeans killed or fled
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandaeans
2007, The New York Times
then Swarthmore professor Nathaniel Deutsch professor of Jewish studies now: University of California Santa Cruz
"The United States didn’t set out to eradicate the Mandeans, one of the oldest, smallest and least understood of the many minorities in Iraq. This extinction in the making has simply been another unfortunate and entirely unintended consequence of our invasion of Iraq—though that will be of little comfort to the Mandeans, whose 2,000-year-old culture is in grave danger of disappearing ..."
Quakers go back to: Ulverston, Cumbria, (previously in Lancashire)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swarthmore_College
ILLEGAL
US CAPITALIST
2003 IRAQ WAR
90% Mandeans killed or fled
Therefore, this is an ethnic cleansing of Iraq Mandeans, which is a war crime
US Capitalist Empirevassal states are the assigneddepots for displaced Mandaeans (and over 150 varieties of others from around the globe, who are either displaced by Western capitalist wars of aggression, consequences of assaults such as regime change and installation of dictators, or simply kept in poverty by Western capitalist exploitation by financial/economic levers or means ... and European societies bear the costs of unbridled capitalist ruling class greed):
Sweden (c. 7,000)
Australia (c. 3,500 as of 2006)
UK (c. 1,000)
Canada (number not specified)
US Capitalist Empire takes: abt. 1,500
Sweden is No. 1 Dumping Ground Depot of the ruling capitalists, and Sweden is earmarked for imminent dissolution as ancestral home of the Swedes. It's Swedish suicide, brought to you by genocidal capitalism masking as 'Feminist Foreign Policy'.
Meanwhile, the European demographic composition and culture of the US Capitalist Empire vassal states is progressively and irreversibly altered and placed on a path of destruction.
All roads lead to displacement, divestment and destruction of Europeans.
So, that's two lots of cultures & peoples that have been dispossessed and assigned to the 'multicultural' defacement and destruction by way of capitalist greed globalisation scrap heap, as result of (a) uniform post WWII Western ruling elite policy and (b) as result of the illegal Iraq War 2003, in this instance, that was brought to us by Western capitalists.
What they're doing is criminal, but the Western liberal-left propagandist intelligentsia, media, NGOs, activists and rent-a-mob applaud capitalist greed orchestrated mass population transfer to European societies (and destruction thereof), as if genocide twice over was the milk of human kindness. Lying assh*les.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandaeans
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_language
Azerbajani, Muslim Magomayev was a popular singer in the Soviet Union.
Magomayev was known as the 'King of Songs' and the 'Soviet Sinatra'.
I found him while looking up Baku. So far, this is the song I like best. He's singing in Russian. English translation - here.
It probably doesn't translate well, but I like the overall sound.
... His comments post 9/11, when he described the US as a leading terrorist state drew hostile fire even from allies on the left.
He has the gloves back on, denouncing Western greed & hypocrisy.
Noam Chomsky:
We need not rehearse the reasons why Britain, and later the United States, have been determined to control the Gulf region.
It's enough to recall the observation of the State Department in 1945 that the resources of the region are a stupendous source of strategic power and one of the greatest material prizes in world history
Book: The City of God (410 CE) Sait Augustine (354-430) Latin Church Father b. North Africa Bishop of city of Hippo The City of God written by him following sack of Rome by Alaric & the Vandals Pagans blamed conversion of Roman empire to Christianity for sack of Vandals http://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/source/aug-city2.asp
[In respect of Chomsky book title]
Noam Chomsky:
That's plagiarised from Saint Augustine, who in The City of God has a story about Alexander. His forces capture a pirate, and there's an audience between the pirate and the emperor, and he asks the pirate, "How dare you molest the seas?"
And the pirate tells him, "I am a small man with a tiny boat, so they call me a pirate. You're an emperor with a vast navy and you molest the world, but they call you an emperor."
And that's a good allegory for the world and, in particular, for the contemporary world.
The pirates are the ones who were contemned and not the emperors.
Of course, the general population is attacked by both the emperors and the pirates.
Saint Augustine is not saying that the pirate is a nice fellow; he's just saying he's a small criminal as compared with a major criminal.
Interviewer:
So, who does control the world? Who are the emperors?
Noam Chomsky:
Overwhelmingly the United States since the Second World War, Britain before that, and concentrations of private power, which are enormous and tyrannical corporations closely linked to the powerful states.
It's a network of concentrated power with international institutions, like IMF and so on, which sometimes call themselves the 'Masters of the World'. It's a phrase that was in the Financial Times, a little ironically, but not wrong.
Actually, they call themselves the 'Masters of the Universe'. Adam Smith called them the 'Masters of the World'. Now they're called the 'Masters of the Universe'.
They didn't have space age in Smith's time.
Interviewer:
But don't you sometimes need big government to deal with big business, since there is a kind of balance between these large forces?
Noam Chomsky:
It's like saying that there's a balance between the members of the Board of Directors of General Motors.
Yes, there's some kind of a balance. But they're so closely interlinked and they're connected, that to first approximation they're the same thing.
Interviewer:
Now, did September 11th, do you think, mark a change in world politics?
Noam Chomsky:
It was a historic event. It was the first time in hundreds of years that the West, Europe, and its offshoots, have suffered the criminal atrocity that they constantly carry out against others, which is quite a change.
That's why there's such shock in the West.
This kind of thing we do to you, you don't do it to us.
It's like the reaction in England in the so-called Indian mutiny rebellion, in India. Tremendous shock.
[tape distortion]
... would use it as an opportunity to intensify repressive and somewhat violent actions, and that's just what's happened.
[skip]
Interviewer:
You make quite a lot in the book on the fact that there is freedom of expression in America. But what you do point to is something more insidious, because you suggest that there is actually -- although there may be freedom of expression -- there's a control of freedom of thought.
Now, how does that happen?
Noam Chomsky:
It was understood, back in the time of the First World War that it's becoming much more difficult to control people by force.
The popular struggles have led to the development of unions, the parliamentary Labour party, franchise extended and so on, and coercion is just not going to work by force. So, therefore, you have to control thought.
It's very striking that the contemporary systems of thought control, which are highly developed, very self-conscious, you know, leaders talk all about it. They come from England and the United States.
So the British Ministry of Information, which the reader of any Orwell knows what it was, that's from the First World War.
It was aimed primarily to convert a pacifist population into raving anti-German fanatics, and it worked. And it impressed people.
It impressed the business world. That's the origins of the modern public relations industry.
It impressed American intellectuals who developed the conception of what they call the 'manufacture of consent', control of thought.
It impressed Hitler, who blamed the German defeat on superior Anglo-American propaganda and vowed that next time Germany would be prepared.
And it has led in the United States primarily, and in England secondarily, to huge industries devoted to control of attitudes, because you cannot control people by force.
Interviewer:
But dissent has been growing since the 1960s in the Western world. I mean, people are far more sophisticated now. Even popular culture reflects the fact that anything from the X-Files to the film, The Insider, that the idea of people discussing things of trying to manipulate public opinion; I mean, that's highly developed now.
Noam Chomsky:
Sure. But when people were under the lash they knew about it, too.
People are so aware of it, that it has led to tremendous cynicism about almost anything.
I mean, nobody believes what government officials say, nobody believes what they read in the press, people don't believe professions. It's led to enormous cynicism and tremendous opposition. In fact, in my view, the more crucial things than the things you mentioned, are opposition to aggression.
Just take a look at the current war in Iraq and compare it with, say, the Vietnam War.
It's a comparison which is often made about the protest, but the comparison is completely false.
The opposition to the war in Iraq is far greater than it ever was to the war in Vietnam at any remotely comparable stage, and this is the first war, I think in European history, Europe and the United States -- the first one I can think of -- where there was massive protests before the war. It's never happened.
I mean, in the case of Vietnam War, there was no protest until years after the war.
Just in the last 30 or 40 years, in say the united States, the level of civilisation among the general public -- not intellectuals, that's a separate category, but among the general public -- it's advanced enormously.
Interviewer:
So, do you think that intellectuals are not sufficiently engaged? Do you think that they have become cynical?
Noam Chomsky
Intellectuals are a separate category.
Intellectuals are mostly servants of power.
I'm talking about the general public, not the intellectual world.
They remain pretty constant, I don't think they are subject to these changes -- except marginally, of course, to some extent.
But they are quite different and quite generally -- it goes right through history -- intellectuals have been servants of power.
Take, say, the First World War.
On all sides -- Germany, England, United States, France -- intellectuals were extremely enthusiastic about the war.
There were a few dissenters and the best known of them ended up in gaol, like Bertrand Russell, for example -- or, Eugene Debs, in the United States, or Rosa Luxemburg, in Germany.
Very small group of critics. Some of them best known in prison.
But most intellectuals were enthusiasts for their own country, and that's common and it remains common.
Intellectuals write history, so you have to be a little cautious about what they say about themselves. And it looks prettier when it's written in books.
EU-NATO IMPERIALISM ❌ 
