Blog Archives

Noam Chomsky: Democracy Is a Threat to Any Power System

To mark The Nation’s 150th anniversary, John Nichols was joined in conversation by the eminent radical intellectual Noam Chomsky at the Tucson Festival of Books in Arizona on March 15. Discussing issues ranging from media accountability and voter participation, to money in politics and income inequality, Chomsky offered insight into the greatest challenges of our time.

“The race towards disaster is being carried out with almost euphoric intensity,” said Chomsky. Chomsky maintains that meaningful change requires a democratic awakening. “Democracy is a threat to any power system,” he said.

Advertisements

Noam Chomsky: US, Terrorism, (2015)

Noam Chomsky 2015 Videos 2015 Noam chomsky conference 2015 noam chomsky debate 2015 noam chomsky conversation 2015 noam chomsky interview
Noam Chomsky: America (US) is The Biggest Terrorist in the world (2015) https://youtu.be/272vNvH0-jc
Noam Chomsky: “The Emerging New World Order (NWO) : its roots, our legacy” (2015)
https://youtu.be/6ccNt4Dzyfg
Noam Chomsky 2015 on Communism, Revolutionary Violence, the American Left and Zizek (2015)
https://youtu.be/SPsCWhb7zW4
Noam Chomsky 2015 in new conversation with Jonathan Freedland (2015)
https://youtu.be/iPI__zs88EU

“The Emerging, New, World Order, its roots, our legacy”


Noam Chomsky: Conference “The Emerging New World Order system (NWO) : its roots, our legacy” (2015)
https://youtu.be/6ccNt4Dzyfg
Noam Chomsky 2015 : USA Terrorism NWO propaganda (2015)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=272vN…
Noam Chomsky, Free Market Fantasies, Capitalism, In The Real World 2015
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pE12m…
Noam Chomsky 2015 on Communism, Revolutionary Violence, the American Left and Zizek (2015)
http://adf.ly/1IKTNe
Noam Chomsky 2015 in conversation with Jonathan Freedland (2015)
http://adf.ly/1IKTQE

Noam Chomsky 2015 Israel and Palestine [FULL] (2015)
http://adf.ly/1IKTXy

Chomsky: Why the Rest of the World No Longer Wants to be Like U.S.

By Noam Chomsky / AlterNet  November 5, 2013

Many countries in the world see the U.S. as the single greatest external threat to their societies.

During the latest episode of the Washington farce that has astonished a bemused world, a Chinese commentator wrote that if the United States cannot be a responsible member of the world system, perhaps the world should become “de-Americanized” — and separate itself from the rogue state that is the reigning military power but is losing credibility in other domains.

The Washington debacle’s immediate source was the sharp shift to the right among the political class. In the past, the U.S. has sometimes been described sardonically — but not inaccurately — as a one-party state: the business party, with two factions called Democrats and Republicans.

That is no longer true. The U.S. is still a one-party state, the business party. But it only has one faction: moderate Republicans, now called New Democrats (as the U.S. Congressional coalition styles itself).

There is still a Republican organization, but it long ago abandoned any pretense of being a normal parliamentary party. Conservative commentator Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute describes today’s Republicans as “a radical insurgency — ideologically extreme, scornful of facts and compromise, dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition”: a serious danger to the society.

The party is in lock-step service to the very rich and the corporate sector. Since votes cannot be obtained on that platform, the party has been compelled to mobilize sectors of the society that are extremist by world standards. Crazy is the new norm among Tea Party members and a host of others beyond the mainstream.

The Republican establishment and its business sponsors had expected to use them as a battering ram in the neoliberal assault against the population — to privatize, to deregulate and to limit government, while retaining those parts that serve wealth and power, like the military.

The Republican establishment has had some success, but now finds that it can no longer control its base, much to its dismay. The impact on American society thus becomes even more severe. A case in point: the virulent reaction against the Affordable Care Act and the near-shutdown of the government.

The Chinese commentator’s observation is not entirely novel. In 1999, political analyst Samuel P. Huntington warned that for much of the world, the U.S. is “becoming the rogue superpower,” seen as “the single greatest external threat to their societies.”

A few months into the Bush term, Robert Jervis, president of the American Political Science Association, warned that “In the eyes of much of the world, in fact, the prime rogue state today is the United States.” Both Huntington and Jervis warned that such a course is unwise. The consequences for the U.S. could be harmful.

In the latest issue of Foreign Affairs, the leading establishment journal, David Kaye reviews one aspect of Washington’s departure from the world: rejection of multilateral treaties “as if it were sport.”

He explains that some treaties are rejected outright, as when the U.S. Senate “voted against the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in 2012 and the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) in 1999.”

Others are dismissed by inaction, including “such subjects as labor, economic and cultural rights, endangered species, pollution, armed conflict, peacekeeping, nuclear weapons, the law of the sea, and discrimination against women.”

Rejection of international obligations “has grown so entrenched,” Kaye writes, “that foreign governments no longer expect Washington’s ratification or its full participation in the institutions treaties create. The world is moving on; laws get made elsewhere, with limited (if any) American involvement.”

While not new, the practice has indeed become more entrenched in recent years, along with quiet acceptance at home of the doctrine that the U.S. has every right to act as a rogue state.

To take a typical example, a few weeks ago U.S. special operations forces snatched a suspect, Abu Anas al-Libi, from the streets of the Libyan capital Tripoli, bringing him to a naval vessel for interrogation without counsel or rights. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry informed the press that the actions are legal because they comply with American law, eliciting no particular comment.

Principles are valid only if they are universal. Reactions would be a bit different, needless to say, if Cuban special forces kidnapped the prominent terrorist Luis Posada Carriles in Miami, bringing him to Cuba for interrogation and trial in accordance with Cuban law.

Such actions are restricted to rogue states. More accurately, to the one rogue state that is powerful enough to act with impunity: in recent years, to carry out aggression at will, to terrorize large regions of the world with drone attacks, and much else.

And to defy the world in other ways, for example by persisting in its embargo against Cuba despite the long-term opposition of the entire world, apart from Israel, which voted with its protector when the United Nations again condemned the embargo (188-2) in October.

Whatever the world may think, U.S. actions are legitimate because we say so. The principle was enunciated by the eminent statesman Dean Acheson in 1962, when he instructed the American Society of International Law that no legal issue arises when the United States responds to a challenge to its “power, position, and prestige.”

Cuba committed that crime when it beat back a U.S. invasion and then had the audacity to survive an assault designed to bring “the terrors of the earth” to Cuba, in the words of Kennedy adviser and historian Arthur Schlesinger.

When the U.S. gained independence, it sought to join the international community of the day. That is why the Declaration of Independence opens by expressing concern for the “decent respect to the opinions of mankind.”

A crucial element was evolution from a disorderly confederacy to a unified “treaty-worthy nation,” in diplomatic historian Eliga H. Gould’s phrase, that observed the conventions of the European order. By achieving this status, the new nation also gained the right to act as it wished internally.

It could thus proceed to rid itself of the indigenous population and to expand slavery, an institution so “odious” that it could not be tolerated in England, as the distinguished jurist William Murray, Earl of Mansfield, ruled in 1772. Evolving English law was a factor impelling the slave-owning society to escape its reach.

Becoming a treaty-worthy nation thus conferred multiple advantages: foreign recognition, and the freedom to act at home without interference. Hegemonic power offers the opportunity to become a rogue state, freely defying international law and norms, while facing increased resistance abroad and contributing to its own decline through self-inflicted wounds.

In the name of anti-communism we were fooled to accept the ultimate evil

Everybody on this planet knows very well that since WWII the US governments has managed to acquire the longest criminal record in the history of mankind.

Only the insane, the emotionally constipated and the long term victims of exactly the manufacturing of consent policies that Chomsky talk about in this interview wouldn’t see that. The American nation managed to go from a rather popular country to a widely hated country because of what US foreign-policy, the CIA-methods and the NSA-practices had developed into, in just a decade after the WWII.

They managed this primarily by saving, protecting, inheriting and developing the Nazi-policies, methods and tactics into American foreign policies and intelligence service’s methods and by justifying their existence through continuous bogus roomers and lies about non-existing threats, and through false-flag attacks. The infamous universal justification for aggression is the security of the nation and the safety of the citizens doctrines. Doctrines that only US, Israel and a couple of the former colonial powers in EU have the right to practice.

The whole post-war world had become pro-American and both in Asia, the Arab world and in Latin America people looked at the American Dream life-style that Hollywood, the American car industry, McDonald’s and Walt Disney promoted, and they deliberately connected these newly advertised, displayed and spread values and liberties as the modern democratic world’s step into a new era of freedom.

The USSR, the nation that actually fought the Nazis fiercely throughout the war and that had defeated them, had in the western world already been pictured and presented as the new cruel dictatorial state, “the threat to the free world”. So from then on everyone could easily compare what they had learned was trustworthy, adequate reports of facts, and what news they spread about the USSR and about America’s own rising pseudo-democratic, imperialistic super-power.

Although most thinking people in the world understands the difference between the American citizens and the American government, by now the world’s citizens sympathies are primarily on the side of the victims of America and Israel. And I have a strong reason to suspect that as long as young American’s continue to, quite non-critically, buy their government’s crap and really believe that they will implement democracy in this way, the further the generalization of American citizens will escalate and fewer and fewer will care about the lives of those who doesn’t care about ours.

The last 40 years of hate that American government policy and the different CIA-operations around the world, has provoked and brought upon themselves and the American people, is really NOT because people outside America “envy” their freedom or their “way of life”. Something that American officials and presidents always explains it with but they could never present a single survey that supported those highly ethnocentric assumptions. According to all American presidents since Johnson, it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that USA have developed the most aggressive and lethal, globally spread, neo-colonial policies and legalized state-terror that one can find since the Nazis and the WWII.

Watch movies from other parts of the world from the 50’s and 60’s and see that from the Arab-world to the both Arctic regions and almost everything in between, apart from the USSR influenced parts people adored and copied American film industry, fashion and life-style. This, until the true backside of this coin became obvious through the Vietnam war and people could therefore see the lies and the fake promises of this new hypocritical super power.

It was two particular events that turned a big part of the citizens of the world against USA before the Vietnam war. The USA/UK-promoted Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories and the USA/UK interests in Iran and the toppling of the democratically elected leader Mohammad Mossadegh. These both events helped the Islamic fundamentalist movements more than anything else had since its birth in 622 AD. Those two world events was the first indications and shocking evidences of a new real imperialistic terror-state rising in the post-war world.

Hitler’s war crimes, crimes against humanity and dictatorial excuses for ruthlessness and terror, was USA’s expressed reasons when they, first after two years of Nazi-rule in Europe, joined WWII. So it wasn’t at all “to save Europe” or to “fight for Justice and Democracy”. It was to not miss the geopolitical grab-and-scramble meal between England and the Soviet Union after the war. Roosevelt saw the chance to display himself and the USA as the saviors of Europe. This false assumption is what still color the view on USA to many Europeans. Except those who saw what USA was really after.

The August 14, 1941 Atlantic Charter established a vision for a post-World War II world, despite the fact the United States had yet to enter the War. The participants hoped in vain that the Soviet Union, having been invaded in June by her previous ally Nazi Germany, would adhere as well. In brief, the eight points were:

1. no territorial gains sought by the United States or the United Kingdom;
2. territorial adjustments must conform to the people involved;
3. the right to self-determination of peoples;
4. trade barriers lowered;
5. postwar disarmament;
6. freedom from want and fear;
7. freedom of the seas;
8. an association of nations.

Yeah, that worked out well! Actually, as a lip-service manuscript it still works out, for those who want to defend anything USA do today outside their borders and condemn anything the dissidents of US policies point at.

Nowadays, when we know about all the false-flag-operations, the proxy wars, the dehumanizing propaganda and the torture in American or American led detention and correctional facilities, it definitely looks like if they entered the war to slap the former “terror-experts” on their fingers, take-over their “terror-gurus” and their methods, tactics and rhetorical excuses for cruelty based on their pseudo-history and racist-logic.

Through the several thousands of Nazi and Fascist war criminals that the US army saved from the hands of the Red Army in the end of the war, they developed and established CIA, NSA and further developed FBI. To support that paradigm the EU was formed on Nazi-policies and by Nazis. Five years before Mr Holtstein became the first head of the EU, he was still in Spandau prison for war crimes.

Those who still refuse and deny to see this in the light of International Law, UN-conventions, the fundamental democratic principles and pure humanity, are as guilty to the atrocities of today as the Nuremberg Trials found the German citizens to be, who lived close to the 23 main extermination camps or any of the 1200 sub-camps. The citizens themselves claiming that they “didn’t know” or “couldn’t believe the roomers” still were taken by armed escort to the extermination camps to see the hills and piles of dead bodies.

The interviewer here, as well as the absolute majority of the western main stream media’s broadcasters, news anchors and “experts”, have hypocrisy ear-plugs on and most of them are victims of this kind of programming. The tops of the hierarchies in media are very aware of where exactly these policies are leading and they gain a lot by paving the way for such policies. “A hypocrite is one who condemn other peoples crimes, but refuses to look at his own crimes” says Noam Chomsky in this interview, and nothing could be more profoundly true nowadays and no other frequent,  behaviour could manifest the racist-ideology’s rise so well as the western mass media’s tolerance and obvious promotion of clearly dehumanizing and misanthropic sentiments in the world.

Kosmas Loumakis

Athens 3-6-2015

Articles further explaining these issues 

2457231081_abb1b2b620b

NATO’s Nazi version of Freedom is Organized Evil against Humanity

warning-new-tradition-in-processA

Hypocrisy is called Democracy in the West since WWII – Because it’s Tradition

__________________________________________________________

Noam Chomsky: “The Emerging, New, World Order, its roots, our legacy” (2015)

Noam Chomsky 2015 Videos 2015 Noam chomsky conference 2015 noam chomsky debate 2015 noam chomsky conversation 2015 noam chomsky interview
Noam Chomsky: Conference “The Emerging New World Order system (NWO) : its roots, our legacy” (2015)
https://youtu.be/6ccNt4Dzyfg
Noam Chomsky 2015 : USA Terrorism NWO propaganda (2015)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=272vN…
Noam Chomsky, Free Market Fantasies, Capitalism, In The Real World 2015
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pE12m…
Noam Chomsky 2015 on Communism, Revolutionary Violence, the American Left and Zizek (2015)
http://adf.ly/1IKTNe
Noam Chomsky 2015 in conversation with Jonathan Freedland (2015)
http://adf.ly/1IKTQE

Noam Chomsky 2015 Israel and Palestine [FULL] (2015)
http://adf.ly/1IKTXy

Noam Chomsky – 10 strategier för manipulation som används av media.

ATHENIANVOICE July 7, 2011

Var bara tvungen att ‘återposta’ denna efter de tre åren som gått sedan jag först lade upp den… Av ganska självklara alendningar tror jag…

Välkänd kritiker och ständige MIT lingvisten Noam Chomsky, en av de klassiska rösterna från intellektuell oliktänkande under det senaste decenniet, har sammanställt en lista över de tio vanligaste och mest verkningsfulla strategierna som tillgriper “dolda” agendor för att etablera en manipulering av befolkningen genom media.

Historiskt sett har medierna visat sig vara mycket effektiva för att skapa opinionsbildning. Tack vare mediernas paraphernalia och propaganda, har det skapats eller förstörts sociala rörelser, det ha rättfärdigats krig, skapats finanskriser och drivits på några andra ideologiska strömningar, och även gett fenomenet av medier som producenter av verklighet i den kollektiva psyket.

Men hur man ska upptäcka de vanligaste strategierna för att förstå dessa psykosociala verktyg som vi, säkerligen deltar i? Lyckligtvis har Chomsky  fått i uppdrag att syntetisera och exponera dessa metoder, en del mer uppenbara och mer sofistikerade, men tydligen alla lika effektiva, och ur en viss synvinkel,  förnedrande. Uppmuntra dumhet, främja en känsla av skuld, främja distraktion, eller konstruera konstgjorda problem och sedan magiskt, lösa dem, är bara några av dessa taktiker.

1. STRATEGIN OM  DISTRAKTION

Det primära inslaget av social kontroll är strategin om distraktion som är till för att avleda allmänhetens uppmärksamhet från viktiga frågor och förändringar bestäms av en politisk och en ekonomisk elit, med tekniken översvämning eller översvämning av kontinuerliga distraktioner och obetydlig information. Distraktionsstrategin är också viktig för att förhindra allmänhetens intresse för den grundläggande kunskapen inom områdena vetenskap, ekonomi, psykologi, neurobiologi och cybernetik. “Att hålla allmänhetens uppmärksamhet avledd från verkliga sociala problem, förtrollad av frågor utan någon verklig betydelse. Håll allmänheten upptagen, upptagen, upptagen, ingen tid att tänka, tillbaka till gården och de andra djuren” (citat från text i Tysta vapen för Ljudlösa Krig).

2. SKAPA PROBLEM, SEDAN ERBJUDA LÖSNINGAR

Denna metod kallas också “problem-reaktion-lösning. “Det skapar ett problem, en “situation” som avses orsaka reaktioner i publiken, så detta är den viktigaste av de åtgärder som du vill acceptera. Till exempel: låt det utvecklas och intensifieras våld i städer, eller arrangera för blodiga attacker så att allmänheten är den som söker säkerhet i lagstiftning och regler på bekostnad av frihet. Eller: skapa en ekonomisk kris för acceptans, som ett nödvändigt ont, nedmontering av sociala rättigheter och nedmontering av offentliga sektorn.

3. DEN GRADVISA STRATEGIN

Acceptans till en oacceptabel nivå, bara tillämpa den gradvis, droppa idén flera år i rad. Det är hur de radikalt nya socioekonomiska förhållanden (nyliberalismen) infördes under 1980 och 1990: den minimala staten, privatisering, otrygghet, flexibilitet, massarbetslöshet, löner och garantera inte en anständig inkomst, så många förändringar som hade lett till en revolutionen om de hade tillämpats med en gång.

4. STRATEGIN ATT SKJUTA UPP

Ett annat sätt att acceptera ett impopulärt beslut är att presentera det som “smärtsamt och nödvändigt”, så att den vinner allmänhetens acceptans vid tidpunkten för en framtida tillämpning. Det är lättare att acceptera ett framtida offer än omedelbar slakt. Först, eftersom insatsen inte görs omedelbart. Sedan, eftersom allmänheten, massorna, alltid har en tendens att naivt förvänta sig att “allt kommer att bli bättre i morgon” och att offret som krävs kan undvikas. Detta ger allmänheten mer tid att vänja sig vid tanken på att förändras och acceptera det med resignering när det är dags.

5. GÅ TILL ALLMÄNHETEN SOM TILL ETT LITET BARN

Den mesta reklamen riktad till allmänheten använder tal, argument, människors och framförallt barns intonation, ofta nära svagheten, som om betraktaren var ett litet barn eller en sinnesslö. Ju hårdare man försöker lura betraktaren på det han ser, desto mer tenderar man att anta en infantiliserande ton. Varför? “Om man går till en person som om den var 12 år eller mindre, då, på grund av förslag, tenderar hon med en viss sannolikhet mot ett svar eller en reaktion som också saknar ett kritiskt sinne som hos en person som är 12 år eller yngre (se Tysta vapen för Ljudlösa Krig).”

6. ANVÄND DEN KÄNSLOMÄSSIGA SIDAN MER ÄN REFLEKTIONEN

Att använda sig av den känslomässiga aspekten är en klassisk teknik för att orsaka en kortslutning på en rationell analys, och slutligen på den enskildes kritiska medvetande. Vidare, användningen av emotionella register för att öppna dörren till det omedvetna för implantation eller ympning av idéer, önskningar, rädslor och ångest, tvång, eller inducera beteenden …

7. HÅLLA ALLMÄNHETEN I OKUNNIGHET OCH MEDELMÅTTA

Göra så att allmänheten inte kan förstå den teknik och metoder som används för att kontrollera och förslava. “Kvaliteten på utbildningen som ges till de lägre sociala klasserna måste vara så fattig och medioker som möjligt så att gapet av okunskap det planlägger mellan de lägre klasserna och överklassen är och förblir omöjligt att uppnå för de lägre klasserna (Se Tysta vapen för Ljudlösa Krig).”

8. ATT UPPMUNTRA ALLMÄNHETEN ATT VARA NÖJD MED MEDELMÅTTA

Främja allmänheten att tro att det är faktum att det är trendigt att vara dum, vulgär och obildad …

9. SJÄLVANKLAGELSER STÄRKER

Att låta enskilda få skulden för sin olycka, på grund av fel på deras intelligens, deras förmågor, eller deras insatser. Så istället för att göra uppror mot det ekonomiska systemet, känner de enskilda otillräcklighet och skuld, vilket skapar en depression, en vars effekter är att hämma verksamhet. Och, utan handling, finns det ingen revolution!

10. LÄR KÄNNA INDIVIDER BÄTTRE ÄN DE KÄNNER SIG SJÄLVA

Under de senaste 50 åren har utvecklingen av påskyndad vetenskap genererat en växande klyfta mellan allmänhetens kunskaper och hos de som ägs och drivs av den dominerande eliten. Tack vare biologi, neurobiologi och tillämpad psykologi, har “systemet” haft en sofistikerad förståelse om människan, både fysiskt och psykiskt. Systemet har blivit bättre bekant med den vanliga människan, mer än han känner sig själv. Detta innebär att, i de flesta fall, utövar systemet större kontroll och stor makt över individer, större än individernas egna.

%d bloggers like this: