TRANSCRIPT - VIDEO - Noam Chomsky: You Can't Have Capitalist Democracy

TRANSCRIPT [Text emphasis added] Professor Noam Chomsky:  You Can't Have Capitalist Democracy. I started by saying that one of the relations between capitalism and democracy is contradiction. You can't have capitalist democracy, and the people who really sort of believe in markets (or at least pretend to understand them) - so if you read Milton Friedman and other philosophers of so-called libertarianism - they don't call for democracy they call for what they call 'freedom.' There is a very constrictive concept of freedom. It's not the freedom of a working person to control their work, their lives, and so on; it's their freedom to submit themselves to control by a higher authority. That's called 'freedom', but not 'democracy'. They don't like democracy and they're right; capitalism and democracy really are inconsistent. Actually, what's called libertarianism in the United States, is about as an extreme example of anti-libertarianism that you can imagine. They're in favour of private tyranny – the worst kind of tyranny. Tyranny by private, unaccountable, concentrations of wealth. When they say, “Well, we don't want government interference in the market”, they mean that. They mean - maybe they don't understand it, but if you think it through, it's pretty obvious – the kind of interference in the market they want blocked is the kind that would permit unconstrained tyranny on the part of totally unaccountable private tyrannies, which is what corporations are. It's worth bearing in mind how radically opposed this is to classical liberalism. They like to invoke, say, Adam Smith. But if you read Adam Smith, he said the opposite. He's famous for not, you know, the claim is that he was opposed to regulation – government regulation – interference in markets. That's not true. He was in favour of regulation, as he put it, when it benefits the working man. He was against interference when it benefited the masters. That's traditional classical liberalism. This, what's called 'libertarian' in the United States, which likes to invoke the history that you’ve concocted, is radically opposed to basic classical libertarian principles and it's kind of astonishing to me that a lot of young people - say, college students - are attracted by this kind of thing. I mean, you can, after all, read the classical text. So take, say, Adam Smith. Adam Smith, at the time – he's the icon, you know. He was considered to be a dangerous radical at the time, because he was pretty anti-capitalist in this pre-capitalist era that he was opposed to, and he condemned what he called the 'vile maxim of the masters of mankind': all for ourselves and nothing for anyone else. That's an abomination. Take the phrase 'invisible hand' – everybody's learnt that in high school or college – Adam Smith actually did use the term, rarely. But take a look how he used it. In Wealth of Nations, his major work, it's used once. And if you look at the context, it's an argument against what is now call neo-liberal globalisation and what he argued is this (in terms of England, of course): he said, suppose in England that the merchants and manufacturers invested abroad & imported from abroad; he said, well that would be profitable for them, but it would be harmful to the people of England. However, they will have enough of a commitment to their own country, to England (it's called a 'home bias', in the literature); they'll have enough of a 'home bias' so that, as if by an invisible hand, they'll keep to the less profitable actions and England will be saved from the ravages of what we call neo-liberal globalisation. That's the one use of the term in Wealth of Nations. In his other major work, Moral Sentiments, the term is also used once, and the context is this - remember, England is basically an agricultural country then - he says: suppose a landlord accumulates an enormous amount of land everyone else has to work for.  He says:  well, it won't turn out too badly, and the reason is that the landlord will be motivated by his natural sympathy for other people.  So he will make sure that the necessities of life and the goods available will be distributed equitably to the people on his land, and it will end up with a relatively equal and just distribution of wealth, “as if by an invisible hand”. That's his other use of the term. Just compare that with what you're taught in school, or what you read in the newspapers. And it goes across the board. Like, everybody probably has read the first paragraphs of Wealth of Nations, which talks about how wonderful it is that the butcher pursues his interests, and the baker pursues his interests, and we're all happy, so we should be in favour of a division of labour. Everybody's read that. How many people have read a couple of hundred pages into Wealth of Nations, where he has a bitter attack on division of labour for interesting reasons, and reasons that were standard in the Enlightenment in which he lived (very different from ours)? He says if you pursue division of labour, people will be directed to actions in which they'll complete the same mechanical actions over and over. They'll be de-skilled and that's the goal of management for over over 100 years: de-skill the workforce. He says that's what will happen if you pursue division of labour. He goes on to say, this will turn people into creatures as stupid and as ignorant as a human being can possibly be and, therefore, in any civilised society, the government will have to intervene to prevent any development like this. That's Adam Smith's view of division of labour. Next step – now, here's a research project.  Take the standard edition (scholarly edition) of Wealth of Nations produced by the University of Chicago Press – naturally, on the bicentennial – with a scholarly apparatus (you know, footnotes and everything else) – and take a look at the Index.  There's a scholarly index. Look up 'division of labour'. This part of the book is not referenced. You can't find it, unless you decided to read 700 pages; then you can find it. But that's his concept of the division of labour, and it continues like this – and I'm not extolling, you know, a lot of things that you can harshly criticise, like his advice to the colonies – but, nevertheless, it's a very different picture from what's called 'libertarianism' or 'capitalism' today. Capitalist democracy would self destruct - capitalism would self destruct – and that's why it hasn't been instituted. The masters understand that they cannot survive a capitalist economy – a laissez fair economy. Take a look at the history; it's pretty interesting. So the United States, when it was independent – so it could reject the rules of sound economics and develop. There were other countries that were poised for an industrial revolution and were given the same advice. Like Egypt and India. In fact, India already was the commercial and industrial centre of the world, moreso than England . Egypt was poised for an industrial revolution and it's not impossible that it might have developed as a rich, agrarian society. It had cotton – produced cotton. As I said, that's the main product (like oil today), and it didn't need slaves. It had peasants. It had a developmental government aimed that the industrial development. It could have taken off – just as India could have taken off. But they were not free to reject sound economics because they were ruled by British force. So they were forced to accept sound economics, and Egypt became Egypt, and the United States became the United States. India went through a century of de-development before it finally got independent. That's what happens when you apply laissez fair principles. In fact, that's essentially how the Third World and the First World divided. Take a look at the countries that developed. They are the countries who violated the principles. England, the United States, Germany, France, Netherlands. One country of the south. One country developed: Japan. The one country that wasn't colonised and was able to pursue the same course that the rich countries developed. I mentioned that in mid Nineteenth Century – 1846 - Britain was so far ahead of the rest of the world in industrial development that they did decide that laissez faire would be possible, so that moved to what's called a 'free trade era'. First of all, they imposed sharp constraints on it. They've cut off the Empire. India. India was not allowed. Others could not invest in India, their main possession; and India was not allowed to develop. And there were other restrictions. Pretty soon, British capitalists called the game off because they couldn't compete. By the 1920s, they couldn't compete with Japanese production so they literally closed off the Empire to Japanese exports. It's part of the background for the Pacific War of the 1940s. The United States did the same with a smaller empire in the Philippines. The Dutch did the same with Indonesia. All the imperial systems decided: no more free trade, we can't compete. So they closed off the empire and Japan had no markets, no resources, and they went to war. That's a large part of the background. The United States, in 1945, did move towards laissez fair. In fact it was an important conference (the united states was basically running the world at that point, for obvious reasons) – there was a hemispheric conference called by Washington in February 1945 in Mexico, where the western hemisphere was compelled to adopt an economic charter for the Americas, which banned any interference with market principles. The goal was, in the State Department reports, to oppose the new nationalism in Latin America, which is based on the idea that the people of a country should benefit from the country's resources. That's 'evil', we can't allow that; it's Western and US investors who have to benefit from the resources. So that was the economic charter of the Americas imposed on the countries of the southern hemisphere, with one exception – here. The United States did not follow those policies. Quite the contrary. As I mentioned, there was a massive development of a state based economy with an industrial policy – the kind that created the modern high-tech economy. You can see it right across the river. Take look at MIT, one of the main centres of this **** If you had a look at MIT in the 1950s (when I got there) it was surrounded by electronics-based high-tech firms, like Raytheon and iTech, and huge IT firms. Take a look at MIT today, take a look at the buildings, it's Novartis, Pfizer and so on. The reason's completely obvious: during the 50s and 60s, the cutting edge of the economy was electronics based, so the way to get the public to pay for it was to scream 'Russians!' and to get them to pay higher taxes for the Pentagon, and then the Pentagon would fund the research and development – like my own salary, for example (I shouldn't complain too much) – and, of course, private industry was around there like vultures to pick up the products and the research and to market. Well, since the 70s, the cutting edge of the economy has been moving towards be biology based, so funding – government funding – has shifted. Pentagon funding is declining. Funding from the NIH and other so-called health related government institutions is increasing, and the private corporations understand that. So, now, Novartis, genetic engineering firms and so on, are hanging around trying to pick up the research that you're paying for, so that they can market it and make profits. It's just transparent. It's in front of our eyes, and it takes a very effective educational system to prevent people from seeing it. It's virtually transparent. That's the way this really exists in capitalist democracy, folks. A final word about democracy then, before I have to leave. There's a major attack on democracy all the way through. But by now it's reached the point which is pretty remarkable. Take a look at one of the main topics in the mainstream political science (and we're not talking about radicals). Mainstream political science is comparing public attitudes with public policy. It's a fairly straight-forward – it's hard work but a straight-forward effort. We have the public policy so you can see it. There's extensive polling. Quite reliable generally and consistent in its results. It gives you a good sense of what public attitudes are, and the results of this are published in the major books and articles - with references, if you like. The results are very straight-forward. About 70% of the population – the lowest 70% on the income scale – are literally disenfranchised. Their opinions have no affect on policy. Their elected representatives don't pay any attention to them. That's one of the reasons why many of them don't bother voting: they're not going to pay attention to them anyway. You know, I've read the technical literature to understand it in other ways. As you move up the income scale, you get a little more influence on policy. When you get to the top (and contrary to the Occupy Movement, it's not 1% - it's more like one-tenth of 1%) - when you get to the top where the massive concentration of wealth is, they basically set policies. That's not democracy; that's plutocracy. And that's what we have accepted. The good thing about it is that it's changeable. It's not controlled by force. We are very free in that respect, thanks to victories over the centuries. It's not possible now for a corporation to do what Andrew Carnegie, the great pacifist, did in 1890. That gives a lot of options and you have to make use of them. I'm afraid I've got to leave. [17:35] APPLAUSE VIDEO - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98PSkGSk9kw&feature=youtu.be MIT = Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) private research university in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Founded 1861. --------------------- end --------------------- COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research. --------------------- video credits --------------------- TITLE: A PROGRESSIVE VOICE VIDEO: Leigha Cohen AUDIO: Leigha Cohen & Cynthia Smith VIDO & SOUND EDITING: Leigha Cohen COPYRIGHT: LEIGHA COHEN PRODUCTION 2014 WEBSITE: www. leighacohen.com ---------------------  COMMENT Good talk.   Also relevant to the US free trade agreements that are going down now. Thought I'd transcribe what was said. Nearing the end, I realised someone else may have transcribed this somewhere already. Never mind.  It's a good learning tool, focusing on every word.  Or it can be.  I hope.  LOL Missing word(s) where marked.  It's something of a drama playing audio at any volume level in this place right now, so filling the gaps will have to wait.  Think it was only the one word.  This took ages, but it's heaps easier now that I've figured how to minimise, position & hold my Writer window on top of the running video window, so I don't have to flip screens. *Part re interference in market they want blocked & tyranny reads kind of funny to me.  It's the interference they want blocked so they can get away with tyranny is what he's getting at, I think.  But the sentence seems confusing (to me). *I disagree with the last part, about there not being rule by force.  We are ruled by force & there's nothing we can do.  Look what happens to protesters.  When they're not beaten, imprisoned etc, martial law is imposed and they're beaten and imprisoned if they dare break curfew, I guess.

US Corporate Media - Big Power Serving Role in Obtaining Mass Consen By Transmission of Ideology & Propaganda As Entertainment

Beyond Manufacturing Consent By: Paul Street Thomson Reuters in Times Square, Manhattan, New York. Published 27 March 2015 The book Manufacturing Consent did not examine what is probably the biggest part of US corporate media’s contribution to the engineering of mass “consent.” I am still occasionally asked by readers and others what I think of Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky’s 1988 text Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. My answer is always the same: it is an indispensable, classic, and justly famous study of the United States corporate media’s role as propaganda organ for that nation’s imperial establishment. For many of us on the Left, Manufacturing Consent was a revelatory volume, one that significantly sharpened our grasp of how and why “mainstream” US media perform that function. The book was particularly enlightening for me on the critical role played by the (not so) “leftmost” liberal wings of that media – the New York Times especially – in setting the narrow imperial parameters of acceptable political and policy debate for the nation’s educated classes. Beyond the News Still, Herman and Chomsky did not pretend to give readers anything more than a modest and opening take on dominant US media’s inclusive power-serving role. The brilliant content analysis and “propaganda model” that Herman and Chomsky advanced in Manufacturing Consent focused on how that media reported and commented on matters of US “foreign policy” (US Empire). The same basic model and analysis can and should be adapted for and applied to US domestic policy and society as well (and indeed it has been in various writings since, including those of Herman and Chomsky). The leading capitalist US media corporations are naturally no less committed to advancing “homeland” oppression structures and ideologies than they are to hawking related imperial policies and propaganda. At the same time, Manufacturing Consent did not examine what is probably the biggest part of US corporate media’s contribution to the engineering of mass “consent.” That media’s function of transmitting ideology and propaganda in service to those atop the nation’s interrelated hierarchies of empire and inequality is hardly limited to the news. Equally if not more significant for that task are “entertainment” media. Far from restricting their hearts-and minds-influencing powers to the (Aldous) “Huxlean” tasks of mass diversion, distraction, and infantilization, US movies (like US television sit-coms and dramas and video games) are loaded with richly “Orwellian” political and ideological content. As US Court of Appeals Justice Bennett C. Clark explained in upholding the conviction of ten Hollywood screenwriters and directors who refused to “confess” current or past Communist Party membership in 1949, US motion pictures play “a critically important role” as “a potent medium of propaganda dissemination.” The same could be accurately said six-plus decades later about US television sit-coms, dramas, “reality shows,” talk shows, and even commercials, along with the movie industry, not to mention video games and much of book and magazine publishing. Manufacturing Idiocy and Cruelty But even this expansion of our understanding of the US mass media’s authoritarian role in (not-so) “democratic” America comes up short. Seen broadly its total many-sided and multiply delivered impact, that media’s mission is worse than merely the production of mass consent. The real goal is the construction of mass idiocy – the manufacture of idiots. Here I use the words “idiocy” and “idiot” in the original Greek and Athenian sense, one that refers not to stupidity but rather to childish selfishness and willful indifference to public affairs and concerns. As Wikipedia explains, “An idiot in Athenian democracy was someone who was characterized by self-centeredness and concerned almost exclusively with private – as opposed to public – affairs…Declining to take part in public life, such as democratic government of the polis (city state),…’idiots’ were seen as having bad judgment in public and political matters.” In US movies, television sit-coms, television dramas, television reality-shows, commercials, the state Lotteries, and video games, the ideal-type American is to no small degree an idiot in the classic Athenian sense: a person who cares about little more than his or her own well-being, affluence, personal consumption, individual status and accomplishments. This noble American idiot has no real concern for the fate of others. He or she is blissfully indifferent to the terrible social and environmental prices paid by fellow human and other sentient beings for the maintenance of currently reigning and interrelated oppressions structures (class, race, gender, ethnicity, nationality, anthropocentrism, Empire, and more) at home and abroad. A critical, vicious and pervasive theme in this ugly media culture is the notion that people who are poor, insecure, coerced, struggling, and otherwise pushed and kept down by those (officially invisible) oppression structures are the irresponsible, personally and culturally flawed creators of their own fate. The mass US media’s version of Athenian idiocy “can imagine,” in the words of Left cultural theorist Henry Giroux (who includes superb content analyses of US movies and non-news television shows in his prolific work on the authoritarian “culture of neoliberalism”), “public issues only as private concerns.” It works to “erase the social from the language of public life so as to reduce” questions of racial and socioeconomic disparity to “private issues of …individual character and cultural depravity. Consistent with “the central neoliberal tenet that all problems are private rather than social in nature,” it portrays the only barrier to equality and meaningful democratic participation “being a lack of principled self-help and moral responsibility” and bad personal choices. (Giroux). Government efforts to meaningfully address and ameliorate (not to mention abolish) sharp societal disparities of race, class, gender, ethnicity, nationality and the like are relentlessly portrayed as futile, counterproductive, naïve, megalomaniacal, dangerous, deluded, counter-productive, and “anti-American.” A type of public concern and engagement does, to be sure, appear and take on a favorable light in the corporate media culture. It takes the form of an often cruel, even sadistically violent response to those unworthy and evil Others who unforgivably fail to abide by the capitalist media’s malicious “neoliberal” cultural codes. The idiocy-manufacturing communications system isn’t opposed to government per se. It’s opposed to what the French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu called “the left hand of the state” – the parts of the public sector that serve the social and democratic needs of the non-affluent majority. It celebrates and otherwise advances the “right hand of the state” – the portions of government that serve the opulent minority, dole out punishment for the poor, and attack a shifting parade of “bad guys” those who resist or are perceived as nefariously resisting the supposedly benevolent US corporate and imperial order at home and abroad. Cops, prosecutors, and military personnel (including even a sociopathic sniper who is hailed for killing more than 150 Iraqis resisting the criminal invasion and occupation of their nation by the inherently noble US Empire) and commanders who fight and kill various “bad guys” (“anti-American” “insurgents” and “terrorists” and various crooks and radicals abroad and in the “homeland”) are the most common heroes and role models in this media; public defenders, other defense attorneys, civil libertarians, civil rights advocates, peace activists and the like are commonly presented as at best naïve and irritating “do-gooders” and at worst as nefarious coddlers and even agents of evil. Irrational Persuasion and Electronic ADDvertising This does not mean that the generation of idiocy in the contemporary sense of sheer stupidity is not also a central part of the “mainstream” media mission. Such idiocy is widely cultivated across the “homeland” media spectrum. Nowhere is this more clearly evident than in the constant barrage of rapid-fire advertisements that floods US media. As the US cultural critic Neil Postman noted thirty years ago, the modern US television commercial is the antithesis of the rational economic consideration that early Western champions of the profits system claimed to be the enlightened essence of capitalism. “Its principal theorists, even its most prominent practitioners,” Postman noted, “believed capitalism to be based on the idea that both buyer and seller are sufficiently mature, well-informed, and reasonable to engage in transactions of mutual self-interest.” Commercials make “hash” out of this faith. They are dedicated to persuading consumers with irrational claims, relying not on the serious presentation of evidence and logical argument but on suggestive emotionalism and evocative imagery The same techniques poison US electoral politics. Investment in openly deceptive and manipulative campaign commercials commonly determines success or failure in the nation’s ever more depressingly dumbed-down marketing and branding contests between business-beholden candidates. To make matters worse, the stupendous cost of this noxious commercialization of politics drives campaign expenses so high as to make candidates ever more absurdly dependent on big money corporate funders. Along the way, mass cognitive competence is assaulted by the numbing, high-speed ubiquity of commercials, which assault capacities for sustained mental focus and rational deliberation nearly sixteen minutes of every hour on cable television (with 44 percent of the individual ads now running for just fifteen seconds). A factor perhaps in the United States’ long-bemoaned epidemic of “Attention Deficit Disorder” (ADD)? Treetops and Grassroots Here is where a knowledgeable reader of the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Financial Times, the Wall Street Journal and critical US Left literature might interject that each of these and other major corporate media outlets produce a significant amount of, informative, high-quality and often candid reporting and commentary that Left thinkers and activists commonly cite to support their cases for radical and democratic change. The observation would be correct. Does this mean that the paranoid-style Tea Party FOX News right wing is right when it claims that “mainstream” media has a liberal and even Left bias? Hardly. To understand why Left truth-seekers who oppose the power structures that media supports can commonly find useful information in establishment news and commentary outlets, it is important to realize that the dominant media crafts two different versions of US policy, politics, society, “life” and current events for two different audiences. Following the work of the brilliant Australian propaganda critic Alex Carey (whose work helped inspire Herman and Chomsky to write Manufacturing Consent), we can call the first audience the “grassroots.” It comprises the general mass of working and lower-class citizens. As far as the business elites who own and manage the mass media and the corporations that pay for that media with advertising purchases are concerned, this “rabble” cannot be trusted with serious, candid, and forthright information. Its essential role in society is to keep quiet, work hard, be entertained (in richly propagandistic and ideological ways, we should remember), buy things, and generally do what they’re told. They are to leave key societal decisions to those that the leading 20th century US public intellectual and media-as-propaganda enthusiast Walter Lippman (coiner of the phrase “manufacture of consent,” as Herman and Chomsky noted) called “the responsible men.” That “intelligent,” benevolent, “expert,” and “responsible” elite – responsible, indeed, for such glorious accomplishments as the Great Depression, the Vietnam War, the invasion of Iraq, the Great Recession, global warming, and the rise of the Islamic State – needed, in Lippman’s view, to be protected from what he called “the trampling and roar of the bewildered herd” (quoted in N.Chomsky. Power Systems [2013], 81). The deluded mob, the sub-citizenry, the dangerous working class majority (the “proles” in George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty Four) is not the audience for elite organs like the Times, the Post, and the Journal. The second target group comprises the relevant political class of Americans from at most the upper fifth of society. This is who reads the Times, the Post, and the Journal. Call this audience (again following Carey) the “treetops”: the people who matter and who deserve and can be trusted with something more closely approximating the real story because their minds have been properly disciplined and flattered by superior salaries, significant workplace autonomy, and the advanced, “specialized” educational and professional certification. This segment includes such privileged and heavily indoctrinated persons as corporate managers, lawyers, public administrators, and (most) university professors. Since these super-citizens carry out key top-down societal tasks of supervision, discipline, training, demoralization, co-optation, and indoctrination, they cannot be too thoroughly misled about current events and policy without deleterious consequences for the smooth functioning of the dominant social and political order. They require adequate information and must not be overly influenced by the brutal and foolish propaganda generated for the multitude. At the same time, information and commentary for the relevant and respectable business and political classes and their managers and coordinators sometimes reflects a degree of reasoned debate among elites as to how best to run society in the interests of the privileged. That is why a radical thinker and activist can find much that is of use in such elite media organs as the New York, Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, the Financial Times and in various other treetops media. Such a thinker or activist would, indeed, be foolish not to consult these sources if they have the time and energy to do so. Paul Street’s latest book is They Rule: The 1% v. Democracy (Paradigm) http://www.telesurtv.net/english/opinion/Beyond-Manufacturing-Consent-20150327-0024.html US corporate media’s biggest contribution to the engineering of mass “consent.” US corporate media function of transmitting ideology and propaganda in service to .. interrelated hierarchies of empire. LOOK-UPS Alexander Edward Carey (1922 –1987) Geraldton WA sheep farmer Australian writer & social psychologist lecturer UNSW research = industrial psychology, industrial relations, & psychology of nationalism & propaganda founding members of Australian Humanist Society in 1960 prominent in protest movement against Australian participation in Vietnam War Carey pioneered the study of corporate propaganda Chomsky:  real importance of Carey's work ...  to bring some of [the history of corporate propaganda] to public attention John Pilger:  has called Carey "a second Orwell in his prophesies" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Carey Paul Street American journalist, author & political commentator "Street is a Marxist whose leading influences beyond Marx include Gerrard Winstanley, Edward Palmer Thompson, Eric Hobsbawm, Rosa Luxembourg, Noam Chomsky, and John Pilger. Street is an outspoken critic of pseudo-populism, which is usually engineered with the help of mass media, especially as it perpetuates corporatism and imperialism." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Street_%28journalist%29 Thought I'd really enjoy this article, but I haven't for some reason.  Could just be tired.  Woke up really early.  Tired, but can't sleep.  Not really focused. Might come back to this.  Some interesting points here.  Not so much into the bits about blissful indifference to oppressions structures.  Found that rather off-putting.  Not everybody buys a ticket on his Marxist trip.

NOAM CHOMSKY - ARGENTINA & LATIN AMERICA

Buenos Aires cap. Argentina 2nd largest metro area in South America, after Greater São Paulo, Brasil 25°C, time: Sat 9:26 am NOAM CHOMSKY Professor Noam Chomsky talks to the Herald yesterday By Fermín Koop & Tomás Brockenshire Herald Staff Noam Chomsky says Argentina ‘has taken the lead in Latin America on human rights’ An intellectual with a rock star following, Noam Chomsky has taken time out from a speaking tour to return to Argentina after a 25-year absence, prompting barely-concealed enthusiasm from students, academics, political activists and fellow intellectuals. Speaking to the Herald before he gave his keynote address at the International Forum for Emancipation and Equality yesterday, Chomsky recognized Argentina’s regional leadership on human rights but questioned the lack of progress in the investigation into the bombings of the AMIA Jewish community centre in 1994 and the Israeli Embassy in 1992. http://www.buenosairesherald.com/article/184213/%E2%80%98the-state-has-been-incapable-of-investigating-amia-embassy-attacks%E2%80%99 ---------------------------------- Last 500 years LatAm under control + domination of external powers very small, extremely rich, mostly white elite Last 150 years, mostly USA domination & control Chomsky (mentioned re Cuba) Private capital in the US usually controls [foreign] policy. Only briefly skimmed a part of this.  Will have to come back to this when I'm more focused. Looks good reading.  Chomsky's always good value.

Totalitarian Evil Empire, USA

TOTALITARIAN EVIL EMPIRE ASSANGE & MANNING SUPPORTER SURVEILLANCE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION / SEC STATE CLINTON - DODGED F.O.I VICE News ran the Hillary Clinton by-passes FOI story.   Here Is the State Department’s First 'Official' Release of a Hillary Clinton Email https://news.vice.com/article/here-is-the-state-departments-first-official-release-of-a-hillary-clinton-email Maybe VICE are going to back the Republicans this election?  Or maybe that evil old bat isn't going to be a popular candidate with anybody, if she's running for office. Check out what a loathsome individual this woman is: Hillary Clinton:   "We came, we saw, he died ... [laughter]" Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research. CBS exposes Hillary Clinton's lies:  'sniper fire' Bosnia Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research.  NOAM CHOMSKY - NATO Bombing Serbia Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research. Nobody deserves to die like Gaddafi did, and the US has no right to bomb sovereign European or African nations. Only a sick and twisted individual would lie and find brutal murder amusing. Of course, a sick and twisted USA also 'excuses' itself and gives itself the right to commit genocide (see Chomsky video above). Anyway, Killary's been using private e-mail for State business, which is a US federal law no-no, because State business needs to be archived on government servers to enable public access. Hillary Clinton has a pattern of lying & denying public scrutiny: I had also informed Hillary that the Douglas impeachment files were available for public inspection in the committee offices. She later removed the Douglas files without my permission and carried them to the offices of the impeachment inquiry staff-where they were no longer accessible to the public. [Jerry Zeifman] VICE Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research. Among the private e-mails is a communication concerning a DoJ subpoena issued to Twitter -- yep, Twitter, for f*ck's sake (lol) -- concerning information about Assange and 'certain individuals' who support Assange and Manning. On the basis of Hillary Clinton's history of unethical conduct in relation to matters of State and public interest, as disclosed by Jerry Zeifman, Hillary Clinton's use of private e-mail in relation to the Manning and Assange matters sure smacks of something dirty going on in the US State Department. That aside, that the US State Department is harassing people on social media and encroaching on their lives (wherever they may be), irrespective of their right to privacy, freedom of expression, and a right to political freedom, demonstrates beyond any doubt that the United States really is an Evil Empire. Everything they claim to represent - 'freedom', 'democracy', 'the people' and the rest of propaganda for the gullible - is, of course, an outright lie. United States is an evil, totalitarian, empire run by criminals. Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research. Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research. FLASHBACK: Hillary Clinton Fired From Watergate Investigation For ‘Lying, Unethical Behavior’ Excerpted from EO-History: The now-retired general counsel and chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee, who supervised Hillary when she worked on the Watergate investigation, says Hillary’s history of lies and unethical behavior goes back farther – and goes much deeper – than anyone realizes. Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised the work of 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the committee. Hillary got a job working on the investigation at the behest of her former law professor, Burke Marshall, who was also Sen. Ted Kennedy’s chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair. When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation – one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman’s 17-year career. Why? “Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said in an interview last week. “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.” How could a 27-year-old House staff member do all that? She couldn’t do it by herself, but Zeifman said she was one of several individuals – including Marshall, special counsel John Doar and senior associate special counsel (and future Clinton White House Counsel) Bernard Nussbaum – who engaged in a seemingly implausible scheme to deny Richard Nixon the right to counsel during the investigation. Why would they want to do that? Because, according to Zeifman, they feared putting Watergate break-in mastermind E. Howard Hunt on the stand to be cross-examined by counsel to the president. Hunt, Zeifman said, had the goods on nefarious activities in the Kennedy Administration that would have made Watergate look like a day at the beach – including Kennedy’s purported complicity in the attempted assassination of Fidel Castro. [...]  Zeifman says that Hillary, along with Marshall, Nussbaum and Doar, was determined to gain enough votes on the Judiciary Committee to change House rules and deny counsel to Nixon. And in order to pull this off, Zeifman says Hillary wrote a fraudulent legal brief, and confiscated public documents to hide her deception. EXTRACT ONLY - FULL AT SOURCE http://patdollard.com/2013/05/flashback-hillary-clinton-fired-from-watergate-investigation-for-lying-unethical-behavior-conspiracy-to-violate-the-constitution/ No way known can anybody expect to get justice in USA - ever. "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana It may help you to remember this bit of history regarding Hillary Rodham Clinton.... Of course, Nixon’s resignation rendered the entire issue moot, ending Hillary’s career on the Judiciary Committee staff in a most undistinguished manner. Zeifman says he was urged by top committee members to keep a diary of everything that was happening. He did so, and still has the diary if anyone wants to check the veracity of his story. Certainly, he could not have known in 1974 that diary entries about a young lawyer named Hillary Rodham would be of interest to anyone 34 years later. But they show that the pattern of lies, deceit, fabrications and unethical behavior was established long ago – long before the Bosnia lie, and indeed, even before cattle futures, Travelgate and Whitewater – for the woman who is still asking us to make her president of the United States. EXTRACT ONLY - FULL AT SOURCE http://www.eohistory.info/2013/hillaryHistory.htm Source:  sodahead.com Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research. VIDEO LINKS Hillary Clinton:  "We came, we saw, he died ... [laughter]" https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=FmIRYvJQeHM CBS exposes Hillary Clinton Bosnia 'sniper fire' lies https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8BfNqhV5hg4 NOAM CHOMSKY - NATO Bombing Serbia https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=oiMD7BghkVo

Netanyahu - AIPAC 2015

Netanyahu AIPAC PC 2015 Monday Morning Session https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=u_s7Vnb35eI --------------------------------- SUMMARY [PARTIAL] Founding editor of Times of Israel, David Horowitz Anti-Israel & Anti-Semitic surge in Europe and all parts of world. Reinforced importance of sovereign homeland for Jewish ppl. Global leadership in focus: Pro-Israel champions:  = share the stage = 1) Jose Maria Aznar, Spain 1996-2004 Friends of Israel initiative founder 2) John Baird Canada, former FM / Consistently voted against anti-Israel resolutions in UN = solo afterwards = 3) Milos Zeman, President of Czech republic --------------------------------- >Jose Maria Aznar, Spain 1996-2004 / Friends of Israel initiative founder Trying to de-legitimise state of Israel cannot be accepted There are some that think appeasement is better, to escape reality is better, or fear to confront enemies is better. JMA believes the reality is: Israel is the only democracy that exists between Morocco & Afghanistan. It is the only western world that exists in the Middle East. Is not a country. It is the only western world in the Middle East. Israel has no fear to confront & has good allies and good friends to support them in the future. [skip] >John Baird, Canada, former FM / Consistently voted against anti-Israel resolutions in UN [skip] >Milos Zeman, President of Czech republic First European head of state to address the conference, passionate Israel ally, a public supporter of its defence against terror, and among the first to rise against the tide of anti-Semitism. Says: Czech republic is the best friend of Israel in all of Europe AIPAC Zeman Now we face future: Growing wave international terrorism: Islamic terrorism. Need 2 steps to fight growing wave. Step 1: Solidarity: Ich bin ein Berliner [JFK quote] / we must all say "I am a Jew". Then says: jamin yehudi" (?) - [Hebrew] >> Ani Yehudi = "I am a Jew" But says: this is not enough. Follow up = yours is ours persuasion re victimisation Our society is too hedonistic, too concession oriented. There is cowardliness & appeasement. Step 2 - proposes: = systematic & coordinated fight against basis of Islamic terrorism. Cover org. = Muslim Brotherhood Chief of al-Qaeda is member of Muslim Brotherhood Chief of Taliban " " Ramas ? Hezbollah " " al-Nusra etc. coordinated action of international community, if possible, under umbrella of Security Council. AIPAC Zeman: superpowers have many conflicts, but one common enemy: Islamic terrorism. eg  Looking @ Map of Islamic Caliphate 2020, one might say idea of a madman. But Hitler madman, occupied Europe Edit:  Think he also said it was three-way strategy:  (1) drones (2) rangers ?  (3) intelligence work - but no boots on ground.  Strategy with no ground battle & territory take-over sounds like bullsh*t ineffective to me. No war can be won w/out ground. Met twice with Chief of Mossad. Mossad is single most efficient intelligence service in world. If we are not willing to be future victims of Islamic terrorism, we must remember this sentence ... Never again we shall march, like a sheep to the slaughter. Never again. AIPAC Milos Zeman, President of #Czech republic, presentation concluded. --------------------------------- Samantha Power - academic, author, diplomat United States Ambassador to the United Nations .............................. Further on:  Samantha Power Samantha Power Yale began career: Yugoslav Wars as a journalist HR bandwagon 1998-02 Obama Nat Sec Comm HR assistant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samantha_Power Not all bad :)  ... called then Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton “a monster” / resigned http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/07/obama-aide-apologizes-for-calling-clinton-a-monster/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=1 Samantha Power >married law professor Cass Sunstein - 2008 Sunstein = lawyer, Obama admin. Prior: US Dept of Justice .............................. [ Partial summary ] US will not allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon; period. [Samantha Power] Obama stressing funding to Israel commitment made - larger than any other - as show of commitment to Israel. There will never be a sunset on America's commitment to Israel's security. Never. If diplomacy does not work to prevent Iran nuke arms; Power has basically declared war on Iran (without saying so directly). Now focus of speech = anti-Semitism > US pushing countries to address developing hate crime legislation UNGA resolution that Zionism is a form of racism: > Abomination of anti-Semitism has been given the appearance of sanction. All countries need to be held to anti-Semitism pledges US opposed EVERY resolution at UN US opposed human rights violations of Israel resolution Power: Considers UN resolutions 'anti-Semitic' (?) Says North Korea not getting resolutions [ >> But Norks not bombing Gaza ] International Criminal Court supposedly undermines negotiations by making Israel choose between peace & security. Western European & others group US secured membership for Israel (& another group secured for Israel). US therefore also gets Israel on-board in Western European groups, presumably by applying their influence. USA is designated arm for confronting 'anti Israel bias' Kind of like a champion or enforcer? LOL Power is dredging up US support for Israel as far back as 1967. Now turned to praising Israel re global humanitarian crisis. Treated equally at the UN is US role. Equally? Got to be kidding? Israel has US votes & all of US allies' votes in UN. [ I'm sorry, but this is bullsh*t just not right about UN anti Israel bias. US always votes with Israel and US allies always vote with US (effectively with Israel), so anti Israel bias is simply not the case from my observation (see Chomsky video - talk at the UN, for enlightenment on how US and Israel have a pattern of blocking UN resolutions.] Hypocrisy about human rights, commitments & values to make world more just & more secure ... (never mind Palestine?) Focus on *pluralistic society* Zionism repeatedly endorsed by congress etc. Friendship is USA national commitment / Kennedy Samantha Power is done. --------------------------------- AIPAC - Bob Cohen, President Honoured to be joined by President of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu [applause] Danger of nuclear armed Iran not just to Israel, but to entire world. Welcome to Washington [16,000 ppl @ AIPAC] Sarah Netanyahu also introduced/greeted. Two great democracies celebration. Stand w ppl of Israel in quest to stop Iran. Stand w ppl of Israel in their quest for peace. We stand with ppl of Israel in their quest for a brighter future. Welcomes Bibi. Big applause. Bibi giving lively waves. --------------------------------- AIPAC - Benjamin Netanyahu Wow, 16,000 ppl! Any from Cali? Florida? NY? Colorado .. not so many etc [Key areas of Israeli support appear to be: California, NY, Florida & Texas, judging by applause.] You are here to tell the world that reports of demise of Israeli US relations, not only premature; they're just wrong. Alliance is stronger than ever. B/c of you & millions like you [in US] will get stronger in the coming years. Thanks AIPAC Thanks democrats & republicans for steadfast support of Israel, year in and year out. Have Israel profound gratitude. 1967 Benjamin Netanyahu got a Czech rifle Thanks Czechs for support Also: former PM Spain + FM John Baird Canada True champs Baird is such an ass-kisser [I said that] Thanking various ambassadors, incl. UN ambassador & Ron Dermer, Is. Amb. to US Dermer knows how to take the heat. [ Bet he's not as good as Lavrov!!! ] Acknowledges Sarah Netanyahu, proud to have her at his side always. Greetings from Jerusalem, eternal undivided capital. #Netanyahu speaking in Congress tomorrow!!!!! Silence ... then, eventually, applause Uh-oh. Bibi. Give him a break, AIPAC. Speech not intended to diss Obama Has respect Appreciates security, intel co-op etc. Deeply grateful. Not intending to2 inject Israel into American partisan debate. Both dems & reps. worked together fm both sides to strengthen Israel Israel made by USA a first official strategic partner last year. Working together has made Israel stronger. Working together has made 'our alliance' stronger. Israel should always remain a BIPARTISAN ISSUE. Purpose of address to Congress: to speak up threat to survival of Israel Iran foremost state sponsor of terrorism in world [ Bibi told a fib. That is America! LOL ] Imagine Iran with nukes. Wants to annihilate Israel. Must not let nukes happen. Moral obligation to speak up in face of danger while there is still time to avert. For 2,000 years Bibi ppl homeless, etc Could hot speak. Could not defend. NO MORE! Those days are over. [loud applause] Sovereign state of Israel, we defend ourselves & able to defend ourselves, we ally with one another (important to USA) against common Focusing on the strong defending themselves & in so doing creating basis of broader alliance (ie depiction, not as needy) Focus on strength / mutual strength & alliance / mutually beneficial / fighting for common civilisation, is the gist. Israel & US agree Iran should not have nukes. Disagree on how to prevent this developing. Disagreement natural. Important differences. US one of the largest. Israel one of the smallest. Israel in world's most dangerous neighbourhood. Israeli leaders worry about the *survival* of their country. Middle East a dangerous place, in contrast to USA safety. 1948 Gurion was US opposed, but declared independence 1967 Israel did act alone to defend self 1981 Begin, nuke reactor Iraq (?)  [think it should be 'Iran', but not sure] 1972 - Sharon - Operation Wrath of God .. mentioned Share the same dreams: pray, hope & aspire for same better world. Liberty, equality, justice, ..., compassion Descending into Medieval barbarism ... Israel's Christian community growing and thriving; the only one such community in Middle East. Women in region repressed, enslaved & raped. Israel: chief justices, pilots etc. In dark, savage & desperate ME Israel is a beacon of light, humanity & hope Considers US family Disagreements etc .. but must remember 'we are family', sharing common destiny People applauding but not going crazy or anything. Think that's a bit unfair. At least he wasn't laying it on like Power. That concludes the AIPAC morning program. Boy, that was fun. Thanks BiBi! COMMENT Just a rough take of what I saw of the presentation at AIPAC.  Excuse any typos.  Too tired to bother. A link to the video is available for those that wish to watch it. Was going to say I enjoyed 'watching' it, but I didn't have visuals the whole time, as I was mainly focused on keying in what was said and flicking from screen to screen. Difficult for me to believe that a war can be won by the above method:  ie droning extremists & using intelligence services (presumably to find them or whatever they do). I'd read somewhere that no war can be won without boots on ground. Infantry is your most important part of the military.  That's my understanding, anyway. So ... one would think that the only possible way to win is: (a) regime change / obtaining cooperative leadership. (b) boots on ground. (c) complete & instant annihilation - atomic etc. In terms of religious extremists that are all over the shop disrupting a large region, it's doubtful a change of leadership would make a difference and it's highly improbable that they're going for an atomic blitz solution in the Middle East.   So all that's left is boots on ground, even though there's only talk of drones right now. But, hey, what would I know.  It doesn't look like there's much cover in the Middle East (all barren looking), so maybe drones are effective over there. Oh, I forgot to mention.  Thought Samantha Power was laying on the 'we stand by you' performance really thickly.  Don't quite know what the deal is with that.  It was a virtual grovel session to AIPAC.  The Democrats must really want to win the next election. Too tired to add further at the moment.  * A picture of Israeli strength, determination and independence.  Citing previous achievements.  Not sure if he's hinting Israel may well take on Iran with or without the US, or if it was just a part of the strong-ally pitch.