The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Noam Chomsky Archive
American Power Under Challenge
Masters of Mankind (Part 1)
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
shutterstock_92020817

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

[This piece, the first of two parts, is excerpted from Noam Chomsky’s new book, Who Rules the World? (Metropolitan Books). Part 2 will be posted on Tuesday morning.]

When we ask “Who rules the world?” we commonly adopt the standard convention that the actors in world affairs are states, primarily the great powers, and we consider their decisions and the relations among them. That is not wrong. But we would do well to keep in mind that this level of abstraction can also be highly misleading.

States of course have complex internal structures, and the choices and decisions of the political leadership are heavily influenced by internal concentrations of power, while the general population is often marginalized. That is true even for the more democratic societies, and obviously for others. We cannot gain a realistic understanding of who rules the world while ignoring the “masters of mankind,” as Adam Smith called them: in his day, the merchants and manufacturers of England; in ours, multinational conglomerates, huge financial institutions, retail empires, and the like. Still following Smith, it is also wise to attend to the “vile maxim” to which the “masters of mankind” are dedicated: “All for ourselves and nothing for other people” — a doctrine known otherwise as bitter and incessant class war, often one-sided, much to the detriment of the people of the home country and the world.

In the contemporary global order, the institutions of the masters hold enormous power, not only in the international arena but also within their home states, on which they rely to protect their power and to provide economic support by a wide variety of means. When we consider the role of the masters of mankind, we turn to such state policy priorities of the moment as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, one of the investor-rights agreements mislabeled “free-trade agreements” in propaganda and commentary. They are negotiated in secret, apart from the hundreds of corporate lawyers and lobbyists writing the crucial details. The intention is to have them adopted in good Stalinist style with “fast track” procedures designed to block discussion and allow only the choice of yes or no (hence yes). The designers regularly do quite well, not surprisingly. People are incidental, with the consequences one might anticipate.

The Second Superpower

The neoliberal programs of the past generation have concentrated wealth and power in far fewer hands while undermining functioning democracy, but they have aroused opposition as well, most prominently in Latin America but also in the centers of global power. The European Union (EU), one of the more promising developments of the post-World War II period, has been tottering because of the harsh effect of the policies of austerity during recession, condemned even by the economists of the International Monetary Fund (if not the IMF’s political actors). Democracy has been undermined as decision making shifted to the Brussels bureaucracy, with the northern banks casting their shadow over their proceedings.

Mainstream parties have been rapidly losing members to left and to right. The executive director of the Paris-based research group EuropaNova attributes the general disenchantment to “a mood of angry impotence as the real power to shape events largely shifted from national political leaders [who, in principle at least, are subject to democratic politics] to the market, the institutions of the European Union and corporations,” quite in accord with neoliberal doctrine. Very similar processes are under way in the United States, for somewhat similar reasons, a matter of significance and concern not just for the country but, because of U.S. power, for the world.

The rising opposition to the neoliberal assault highlights another crucial aspect of the standard convention: it sets aside the public, which often fails to accept the approved role of “spectators” (rather than “participants”) assigned to it in liberal democratic theory. Such disobedience has always been of concern to the dominant classes. Just keeping to American history, George Washington regarded the common people who formed the militias that he was to command as “an exceedingly dirty and nasty people [evincing] an unaccountable kind of stupidity in the lower class of these people.”

In Violent Politics, his masterful review of insurgencies from “the American insurgency” to contemporary Afghanistan and Iraq, William Polk concludes that General Washington “was so anxious to sideline [the fighters he despised] that he came close to losing the Revolution.” Indeed, he “might have actually done so” had France not massively intervened and “saved the Revolution,” which until then had been won by guerrillas — whom we would now call “terrorists” — while Washington’s British-style army “was defeated time after time and almost lost the war.”

A common feature of successful insurgencies, Polk records, is that once popular support dissolves after victory, the leadership suppresses the “dirty and nasty people” who actually won the war with guerrilla tactics and terror, for fear that they might challenge class privilege. The elites’ contempt for “the lower class of these people” has taken various forms throughout the years. In recent times one expression of this contempt is the call for passivity and obedience (“moderation in democracy”) by liberal internationalists reacting to the dangerous democratizing effects of the popular movements of the 1960s.

Sometimes states do choose to follow public opinion, eliciting much fury in centers of power. One dramatic case was in 2003, when the Bush administration called on Turkey to join its invasion of Iraq. Ninety-five percent of Turks opposed that course of action and, to the amazement and horror of Washington, the Turkish government adhered to their views. Turkey was bitterly condemned for this departure from responsible behavior. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, designated by the press as the “idealist-in-chief” of the administration, berated the Turkish military for permitting the malfeasance of the government and demanded an apology. Unperturbed by these and innumerable other illustrations of our fabled “yearning for democracy,” respectable commentary continued to laud President George W. Bush for his dedication to “democracy promotion,” or sometimes criticized him for his naïveté in thinking that an outside power could impose its democratic yearnings on others.

The Turkish public was not alone. Global opposition to U.S.-UK aggression was overwhelming. Support for Washington’s war plans scarcely reached 10% almost anywhere, according to international polls. Opposition sparked huge worldwide protests, in the United States as well, probably the first time in history that imperial aggression was strongly protested even before it was officially launched. On the front page of the New York Times, journalist Patrick Tyler reported that “there may still be two superpowers on the planet: the United States and world public opinion.”

Unprecedented protest in the United States was a manifestation of the opposition to aggression that began decades earlier in the condemnation of the U.S. wars in Indochina, reaching a scale that was substantial and influential, even if far too late. By 1967, when the antiwar movement was becoming a significant force, military historian and Vietnam specialist Bernard Fall warned that “Vietnam as a cultural and historic entity… is threatened with extinction… [as] the countryside literally dies under the blows of the largest military machine ever unleashed on an area of this size.”

But the antiwar movement did become a force that could not be ignored. Nor could it be ignored when Ronald Reagan came into office determined to launch an assault on Central America. His administration mimicked closely the steps John F. Kennedy had taken 20 years earlier in launching the war against South Vietnam, but had to back off because of the kind of vigorous public protest that had been lacking in the early 1960s. The assault was awful enough. The victims have yet to recover. But what happened to South Vietnam and later all of Indochina, where “the second superpower” imposed its impediments only much later in the conflict, was incomparably worse.

It is often argued that the enormous public opposition to the invasion of Iraq had no effect. That seems incorrect to me. Again, the invasion was horrifying enough, and its aftermath is utterly grotesque. Nevertheless, it could have been far worse. Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and the rest of Bush’s top officials could never even contemplate the sort of measures that President Kennedy and President Lyndon Johnson adopted 40 years earlier largely without protest.

Western Power Under Pressure

There is far more to say, of course, about the factors in determining state policy that are put to the side when we adopt the standard convention that states are the actors in international affairs. But with such nontrivial caveats as these, let us nevertheless adopt the convention, at least as a first approximation to reality. Then the question of who rules the world leads at once to such concerns as China’s rise to power and its challenge to the United States and “world order,” the new cold war simmering in eastern Europe, the Global War on Terror, American hegemony and American decline, and a range of similar considerations.

The challenges faced by Western power at the outset of 2016 are usefully summarized within the conventional framework by Gideon Rachman, chief foreign-affairs columnist for the London Financial Times. He begins by reviewing the Western picture of world order: “Ever since the end of the Cold War, the overwhelming power of the U.S. military has been the central fact of international politics.” This is particularly crucial in three regions: East Asia, where “the U.S. Navy has become used to treating the Pacific as an ‘American lake’”; Europe, where NATO — meaning the United States, which “accounts for a staggering three-quarters of NATO’s military spending” — “guarantees the territorial integrity of its member states”; and the Middle East, where giant U.S. naval and air bases “exist to reassure friends and to intimidate rivals.”

The problem of world order today, Rachman continues, is that “these security orders are now under challenge in all three regions” because of Russian intervention in Ukraine and Syria, and because of China turning its nearby seas from an American lake to “clearly contested water.” The fundamental question of international relations, then, is whether the United States should “accept that other major powers should have some kind of zone of influence in their neighborhoods.” Rachman thinks it should, for reasons of “diffusion of economic power around the world — combined with simple common sense.”

There are, to be sure, ways of looking at the world from different standpoints. But let us keep to these three regions, surely critically important ones.

The Challenges Today: East Asia

Beginning with the “American lake,” some eyebrows might be raised over the report in mid-December 2015 that “an American B-52 bomber on a routine mission over the South China Sea unintentionally flew within two nautical miles of an artificial island built by China, senior defense officials said, exacerbating a hotly divisive issue for Washington and Beijing.” Those familiar with the grim record of the 70 years of the nuclear weapons era will be all too aware that this is the kind of incident that has often come perilously close to igniting terminal nuclear war. One need not be a supporter of China’s provocative and aggressive actions in the South China Sea to notice that the incident did not involve a Chinese nuclear-capable bomber in the Caribbean, or off the coast of California, where China has no pretensions of establishing a “Chinese lake.” Luckily for the world.

Chinese leaders understand very well that their country’s maritime trade routes are ringed with hostile powers from Japan through the Malacca Straits and beyond, backed by overwhelming U.S. military force. Accordingly, China is proceeding to expand westward with extensive investments and careful moves toward integration. In part, these developments are within the framework of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which includes the Central Asian states and Russia, and soon India and Pakistan with Iran as one of the observers — a status that was denied to the United States, which was also called on to close all military bases in the region . China is constructing a modernized version of the old silk roads, with the intent not only of integrating the region under Chinese influence, but also of reaching Europe and the Middle Eastern oil-producing regions. It is pouring huge sums into creating an integrated Asian energy and commercial system, with extensive high-speed rail lines and pipelines.

One element of the program is a highway through some of the world’s tallest mountains to the new Chinese-developed port of Gwadar in Pakistan, which will protect oil shipments from potential U.S. interference. The program may also, China and Pakistan hope, spur industrial development in Pakistan, which the United States has not undertaken despite massive military aid, and might also provide an incentive for Pakistan to clamp down on domestic terrorism, a serious issue for China in western Xinjiang Province. Gwadar will be part of China’s “string of pearls,” bases being constructed in the Indian Ocean for commercial purposes but potentially also for military use, with the expectation that China might someday be able to project power as far as the Persian Gulf for the first time in the modern era.

All of these moves remain immune to Washington’s overwhelming military power, short of annihilation by nuclear war, which would destroy the United States as well.

In 2015, China also established the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), with itself as the main shareholder. Fifty-six nations participated in the opening in Beijing in June, including U.S. allies Australia, Britain, and others which joined in defiance of Washington’s wishes. The United States and Japan were absent. Some analysts believe that the new bank might turn out to be a competitor to the Bretton Woods institutions (the IMF and the World Bank), in which the United States holds veto power. There are also some expectations that the SCO might eventually become a counterpart to NATO.

The Challenges Today: Eastern Europe

Turning to the second region, Eastern Europe, there is a crisis brewing at the NATO-Russian border. It is no small matter. In his illuminating and judicious scholarly study of the region, Frontline Ukraine: Crisis in the Borderlands, Richard Sakwa writes — all too plausibly — that the “Russo-Georgian war of August 2008 was in effect the first of the ‘wars to stop NATO enlargement’; the Ukraine crisis of 2014 is the second. It is not clear whether humanity would survive a third.”

The West sees NATO enlargement as benign. Not surprisingly, Russia, along with much of the Global South, has a different opinion, as do some prominent Western voices. George Kennan warned early on that NATO enlargement is a “tragic mistake,” and he was joined by senior American statesmen in an open letter to the White House describing it as a “policy error of historic proportions.”

The present crisis has its origins in 1991, with the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union. There were then two contrasting visions of a new security system and political economy in Eurasia. In Sakwa’s words, one vision was of a “‘Wider Europe,’ with the EU at its heart but increasingly coterminous with the Euro-Atlantic security and political community; and on the other side there [was] the idea of ‘Greater Europe,’ a vision of a continental Europe, stretching from Lisbon to Vladivostok, that has multiple centers, including Brussels, Moscow and Ankara, but with a common purpose in overcoming the divisions that have traditionally plagued the continent.”

Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev was the major proponent of Greater Europe, a concept that also had European roots in Gaullism and other initiatives. However, as Russia collapsed under the devastating market reforms of the 1990s, the vision faded, only to be renewed as Russia began to recover and seek a place on the world stage under Vladimir Putin who, along with his associate Dmitry Medvedev, has repeatedly “called for the geopolitical unification of all of ‘Greater Europe’ from Lisbon to Vladivostok, to create a genuine ‘strategic partnership.’”

These initiatives were “greeted with polite contempt,” Sakwa writes, regarded as “little more than a cover for the establishment of a ‘Greater Russia’ by stealth” and an effort to “drive a wedge” between North America and Western Europe. Such concerns trace back to earlier Cold War fears that Europe might become a “third force” independent of both the great and minor superpowers and moving toward closer links to the latter (as can be seen in Willy Brandt’s Ostpolitik and other initiatives).

The Western response to Russia’s collapse was triumphalist. It was hailed as signaling “the end of history,” the final victory of Western capitalist democracy, almost as if Russia were being instructed to revert to its pre-World War I status as a virtual economic colony of the West. NATO enlargement began at once, in violation of verbal assurances to Gorbachev that NATO forces would not move “one inch to the east” after he agreed that a unified Germany could become a NATO member — a remarkable concession, in the light of history. That discussion kept to East Germany. The possibility that NATO might expand beyond Germany was not discussed with Gorbachev, even if privately considered.

Soon, NATO did begin to move beyond, right to the borders of Russia. The general mission of NATO was officially changed to a mandate to protect “crucial infrastructure” of the global energy system, sea lanes and pipelines, giving it a global area of operations. Furthermore, under a crucial Western revision of the now widely heralded doctrine of “responsibility to protect,” sharply different from the official U.N. version, NATO may now also serve as an intervention force under U.S. command.

Of particular concern to Russia are plans to expand NATO to Ukraine. These plans were articulated explicitly at the Bucharest NATO summit of April 2008, when Georgia and Ukraine were promised eventual membership in NATO. The wording was unambiguous: “NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO.” With the “Orange Revolution” victory of pro-Western candidates in Ukraine in 2004, State Department representative Daniel Fried rushed there and “emphasized U.S. support for Ukraine’s NATO and Euro-Atlantic aspirations,” as a WikiLeaks report revealed.

Russia’s concerns are easily understandable. They are outlined by international relations scholar John Mearsheimer in the leading U.S. establishment journal, Foreign Affairs. He writes that “the taproot of the current crisis [over Ukraine] is NATO expansion and Washington’s commitment to move Ukraine out of Moscow’s orbit and integrate it into the West,” which Putin viewed as “a direct threat to Russia’s core interests.”

“Who can blame him?” Mearsheimer asks, pointing out that “Washington may not like Moscow’s position, but it should understand the logic behind it.” That should not be too difficult. After all, as everyone knows, “The United States does not tolerate distant great powers deploying military forces anywhere in the Western hemisphere, much less on its borders.”

In fact, the U.S. stand is far stronger. It does not tolerate what is officially called “successful defiance” of the Monroe Doctrine of 1823, which declared (but could not yet implement) U.S. control of the hemisphere. And a small country that carries out such successful defiance may be subjected to “the terrors of the earth” and a crushing embargo — as happened to Cuba. We need not ask how the United States would have reacted had the countries of Latin America joined the Warsaw Pact, with plans for Mexico and Canada to join as well. The merest hint of the first tentative steps in that direction would have been “terminated with extreme prejudice,” to adopt CIA lingo.

As in the case of China, one does not have to regard Putin’s moves and motives favorably to understand the logic behind them, nor to grasp the importance of understanding that logic instead of issuing imprecations against it. As in the case of China, a great deal is at stake, reaching as far — literally — as questions of survival.

The Challenges Today: The Islamic World

Let us turn to the third region of major concern, the (largely) Islamic world, also the scene of the Global War on Terror (GWOT) that George W. Bush declared in 2001 after the 9/11 terrorist attack. To be more accurate, re-declared. The GWOT was declared by the Reagan administration when it took office, with fevered rhetoric about a “plague spread by depraved opponents of civilization itself” (as Reagan put it) and a “return to barbarism in the modern age” (the words of George Shultz, his secretary of state). The original GWOT has been quietly removed from history. It very quickly turned into a murderous and destructive terrorist war afflicting Central America, southern Africa, and the Middle East, with grim repercussions to the present, even leading to condemnation of the United States by the World Court (which Washington dismissed). In any event, it is not the right story for history, so it is gone.

The success of the Bush-Obama version of GWOT can readily be evaluated on direct inspection. When the war was declared, the terrorist targets were confined to a small corner of tribal Afghanistan. They were protected by Afghans, who mostly disliked or despised them, under the tribal code of hospitality — which baffled Americans when poor peasants refused “to turn over Osama bin Laden for the, to them, astronomical sum of $25 million.”

There are good reasons to believe that a well-constructed police action, or even serious diplomatic negotiations with the Taliban, might have placed those suspected of the 9/11 crimes in American hands for trial and sentencing. But such options were off the table. Instead, the reflexive choice was large-scale violence — not with the goal of overthrowing the Taliban (that came later) but to make clear U.S. contempt for tentative Taliban offers of the possible extradition of bin Laden. How serious these offers were we do not know, since the possibility of exploring them was never entertained. Or perhaps the United States was just intent on “trying to show its muscle, score a victory and scare everyone in the world. They don’t care about the suffering of the Afghans or how many people we will lose.”

That was the judgment of the highly respected anti-Taliban leader Abdul Haq, one of the many oppositionists who condemned the American bombing campaign launched in October 2001 as “a big setback” for their efforts to overthrow the Taliban from within, a goal they considered within their reach. His judgment is confirmed by Richard A. Clarke, who was chairman of the Counterterrorism Security Group at the White House under President George W. Bush when the plans to attack Afghanistan were made. As Clarke describes the meeting, when informed that the attack would violate international law, “the President yelled in the narrow conference room, ‘I don’t care what the international lawyers say, we are going to kick some ass.’” The attack was also bitterly opposed by the major aid organizations working in Afghanistan, who warned that millions were on the verge of starvation and that the consequences might be horrendous.

The consequences for poor Afghanistan years later need hardly be reviewed.

The next target of the sledgehammer was Iraq. The U.S.-UK invasion, utterly without credible pretext, is the major crime of the twenty-first century. The invasion led to the death of hundreds of thousands of people in a country where the civilian society had already been devastated by American and British sanctions that were regarded as “genocidal” by the two distinguished international diplomats who administered them, and resigned in protest for this reason. The invasion also generated millions of refugees, largely destroyed the country, and instigated a sectarian conflict that is now tearing apart Iraq and the entire region. It is an astonishing fact about our intellectual and moral culture that in informed and enlightened circles it can be called, blandly, “the liberation of Iraq.”

Pentagon and British Ministry of Defense polls found that only 3% of Iraqis regarded the U.S. security role in their neighborhood as legitimate, less than 1% believed that “coalition” (U.S.-UK) forces were good for their security, 80% opposed the presence of coalition forces in the country, and a majority supported attacks on coalition troops. Afghanistan has been destroyed beyond the possibility of reliable polling, but there are indications that something similar may be true there as well. Particularly in Iraq the United States suffered a severe defeat, abandoning its official war aims, and leaving the country under the influence of the sole victor, Iran.

The sledgehammer was also wielded elsewhere, notably in Libya, where the three traditional imperial powers (Britain, France, and the United States) procured Security Council resolution 1973 and instantly violated it, becoming the air force of the rebels. The effect was to undercut the possibility of a peaceful, negotiated settlement; sharply increase casualties (by at least a factor of 10, according to political scientist Alan Kuperman); leave Libya in ruins, in the hands of warring militias; and, more recently, to provide the Islamic State with a base that it can use to spread terror beyond. Quite sensible diplomatic proposals by the African Union, accepted in principle by Libya’s Muammar Qaddafi, were ignored by the imperial triumvirate, as Africa specialist Alex de Waal reviews. A huge flow of weapons and jihadis has spread terror and violence from West Africa (now the champion for terrorist murders) to the Levant, while the NATO attack also sent a flood of refugees from Africa to Europe.

Yet another triumph of “humanitarian intervention,” and, as the long and often ghastly record reveals, not an unusual one, going back to its modern origins four centuries ago.

Noam Chomsky is institute professor emeritus in the Department of Linguistics and Philosophy at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. ATomDispatch regular, among his recent books are Hegemony or Survival andFailed States . This essay, the first of two parts, is excerpted from his new book, Who Rules the World? (Metropolitan Books, 2016). His website iswww.chomsky.info.

(Republished from TomDispatch by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: American Military, Russia 
Hide 52 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Hbm says:

    Reminder that Noam “It’s the US Empire not the Jews” Chomsky recently endorsed Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump.

    • Replies: @Lemurmaniac
    , @Yevardian
    , @Biff
  2. @Hbm

    You’ve got to be kidding me!

    what an unprincipled sellout.

    • Replies: @Leftist conservative
  3. Yevardian says:
    @Hbm

    Do you have a source on that?
    I’m pretty certain Chomsky would have endorsed Jill Stein. Chomsky wrote on the disaster that was NAFTA as it was happening, I doubt he would ever have endorsed Clinton.

    • Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond
  4. Esquire says:
    “I knew Chomsky was not to be trusted, that he was not authentic, when he said he didn’t care who killed Kennedy. or, presumably, other famous assassination victims. When you consider how much explosive truth would be revealed to the public just by the facts known, without any reference to theory, that Chomsky would be so dismissive of such a monumental possibility, made no sense.”

    ESQUIRE: Would you lump the recent assassination, it was that you know, of Osama binLaden with your historical references? Perhaps suppression of the ‘explosive truths and the facts known’ was the real goal. Or was there no room at Guantanamo for someone who mattered as opposed to a bunch of hapless grunts and foot soldiers?

  5. Greg Bacon says: • Website

    Real power is that which can bring a country like the USA to its knees within a week or so, like the power wielded by the Federal Reserve which can severely retract the money supply, crash the markets and have tens of millions of people thrown out of work.

  6. Reading Noam is like listening to scratchy old 33 rpm LPs from the sixties. Same old songs. Thanks, Unz Reader, for that bit of nostalgia.

  7. Rehmat says:

    Dr. Chomsky hasn’t said anything new except circling around the ’500 pound guerilla in the room’ without mentioning its name.

    The United States as a world military and economic power is a myth created by Hollywood (I know it’s anti-Semitism to mention that it’s run by modern-day Shylocks). The myth was created how the US saved the world from Hitler and Nazis. As my British colleague used say: “When the Americans entered WWII, the German lion was already badly wounded by England.”

    Since WWII, the US military has only attacked 6th rated military-countries or no conventional military at all like Afghanistan, and still failed to achieve “Mission Accomplished” in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, etc. On economic front, the US is heavily indebted to Chinese and Arab money, and its filthy hands behind the WB and IMF that helps Washington to freeze other nations’ account like $150 billion Iranian assets.

    China is the rising power in Asia and Iran in the Middle East – South Africa in Africa and Brazil in Latin America.

    No one expect Chomsky to admit like Gen. David Petraeus that America is hated for its blind support for the Zionist entity – and being bankrupted for waging endless war for the, as the French Jewish ambassador to UK said, “Little Sh*t State”.

    Lately, Dr. Chomsky has entered a new field, ‘world energy’. In 2013, he criticized the policies of Israel’s favorite Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper. “It means taking every drop of hydrocarbon out of the ground, whether it’s shale gas in New Brunswick or tar sands in Alberta and trying to destroy the environment as fast as possible, with barely a question raised about what the world will look like as a result,” said Chomsky.

    https://rehmat1.com/2013/11/02/chomsky-slams-canadian-pm/

    • Replies: @Jus' Sayin'...
    , @guest
  8. Agent76 says:

    This should help give clarity to the American Empire. September 17, 2014 US Pursues *134** Wars Around the World

    The US is now involved in *134* wars or none, depending on your definition of war …The White House spent much of last week trying to figure out if the word “war” was the right one to describe its military actions against the Islamic State.

    http://www.thedailybell.com/news-analysis/35654/US-Pursues-134-Wars-Around-the-World/

    December 24, 2013 The Worldwide Network of US Military Bases The Global Deployment of US Military Personnel

    The US Military has bases in *63* countries. Brand new military bases have been built since September 11, 2001 in seven countries. In total, there are 255,065 US military personnel deployed Worldwide. These facilities include a total of 845,441 different buildings and equipments. The underlying land surface is of the order of *30* million acres. According to Gelman, who examined 2005 official Pentagon data, the US is thought to own a total of *737* bases in foreign lands. Adding to the bases inside U.S. territory, the total land area occupied by US military bases domestically within the US and internationally is of the order of *2,202,735 hectares*, which makes the *Pentagon* one of the largest landowners worldwide!

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-worldwide-network-of-us-military-bases/5564

  9. Agent76 says:

    December 7, 2015 *FEAR* of Terrorism Is Much More Dangerous than Actual Terrorism

    Fear of Terrorism Can Kill You …Fear of terrorism can kill you: A new study has found that long-term exposure to the threat of terrorism can elevate people’s resting heart rates and increase their risk of dying.

    http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/12/fear-terrorism-much-dangerous-actual-terrorism.html

  10. Durruti says:

    Chomsky is a Misdirection Agent.

    He does his best in “American Power Under Challenge,” to cover up the Pink Elephant in the room.

    He obstructs, as best he can, and -working for the man- (as we say in Brooklyn), fails to provide the actual evidence (the finger prints – the DNA), of “Who Runs the World.” Perhaps a clear and accurate answer is in his book. I’ll never know, as I prefer the fiction of Le Carré, to that of Chomsky.

    If my criticism of Chomsky is unwarrented, someone who has read his book need – but to quote the portion which identifies the Rothschilds and other Oligarchs, as the controllers of America, and the New World Order. It is humans (or inhumans), who control the planet, not concrete and steel housings of institutions, or Nations that no longer exist.

    Chomsky finds it necessary to savage the Kennedys, centering his criticisms on the Martyred, Assassinated former, (and Last Constitutional), President of the United States, John Fitzgerald Kennedy. I will not enter into a detailed defense of the Kennedys, unless I am invited to do so by Ron Unz, and his crew at this wonderful website.

    Indeed, the defamation of Thomas Jefferson, (the writer of the Declaration of Independence, and the motivator of the Bill of Rights), and the Kennedys (who led the last effort to maintain an independent and constitutional American Republic), is a required betrayal, for all those who seek to publicly Preach History. The Kennedys (as with their forefathers, Pearse and Connoly), suffered the fate of Heroes. They were assassinated-murdered for some reason.

    By way of Analogy:

    Those who love, in 2016, to criticize Leon Trotsky, always fail to provide, (they fail to even attempt), an explanation for his assassination in 1940. To label people in the 1980-1990s – and even in the 2000s, as ‘Trotskyites,’ is just so much scurrilous a historical slander. Trotsky was guilty of retreating from his early analysis of (critique) of the Bolsheviks’ totalitarian direction, but there was some reason for his being eliminated just as the opening moves of the official Second Half of the World War. And, to this date, no one has provided, or even attempted to explain a reason (other than his faithful followers, who insist his murder was intended to prevent a World Revolution from ending the endless cycle of a World At War, and exploitation of human by human).

    Could they have been correct? Ron Unz? When you take a few moments from your Senatorial campaign, do you care to weigh in on this, or invite someone else to do so. Think of the fun we could have. But I digress!

    Trotsky, Chomsky, Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Duponts, Casino owner Trump, Homocidal Terrorist H. Clinton, Zionists, anti-semites (those who hate Arabs, specially Palestinians), how our history has fallen. What will the Aliens think of us?

    What will our children think of us? If they are capable of observing, thinking?

    The VISION is what counts. There is no more Marxism Lemonism worship. No more Dictatorship of the Proletariat being offered to replace assassinated Democratic Republics. No more featured Victory of the International Working Class, which happily apportions its share of imperialist profits.

    It is not Right or Left that matter, but Right or Wrong. The Moral over the ism.

    The VISION.

    Our Yellow Brick Road.

    For the Democratic Republics, those we will save, and those we will Forge!

    Durruti

  11. Leftist conservative [AKA "Make Unz.com Great Again"] says: • Website
    @Lemurmaniac

    chomsky has had a lot of great insights in his time, but he ignores large portions of reality because he cannot explain them plausibly without alienating his young liberal audience. In fact, all authors and well known bloggers and pundits do the same–they play to their audience, careful not to offend them.

    • Replies: @Lemurmaniac
  12. stickman says:

    Chomsky is a carefully chosen and scripted Judas Goat. His mission is not to falsely lead (to update H.L. Mencken) the boobtoob noose addicted great overwashed. Rather Chomsky does his bit for the Rothschild-Zionist international by way of intellectual appeals to those who have been educated beyond any possible true discernment or basic common sense. His arguments own most American liberals with advanced degrees from hyper-specializing institutions of narrowly focussed “higher” learning. Thus he controls for his masters a major proportion of “informed” public discourse whose informational intake leans towards the NYT and the WaPo.

    A few takes from his dissembling essay: He describes the history and projection of the EU as “promising”. We are meant to swallow that whole. Promising to and for whom? It is there as a centralizing agency aimed at reducing nationstates to mere de jure appendages of the looming bankster schemed and controlled New World Order.

    Chomsky cites the “northern banks” as one of the major players in the takedown of European nations and culture. But who OWNS those northern banks. They are not under operative control of Nordic or Germanic individuals, but rather have long been under the goldfingers and their debt based Babylonian magic money schemes.

    Where Chomsky automatically loses ALL discerning and common sense infused individuals is when he parrots the mainscream false narrative of Bin Laden in his cave and 19 Arabs with boxcutters as “those responsible for 911″.

    Finally, Noamsky attempts to mislead us once again, even after hinting that the major colonialist powers, Britain, France and the U$ puppet regimes, were themselves primarily responsible for the destruction of Libya and the murder of Gadhaffi. All deeply informed delvers full well realize that with the institution of a gold-backed Dinar and the intended creation of an interest-free money system for ALL of Africa, the Libyan leader threatened the very basis of the Rothschild empire: Usury. The result: Killary chortling and cackling at the news of Gadhaffi’s demise: ” We saw, we came, he died.”

    Chomsky is indeed a Judas Goat. A special place in Hell awaits him.

  13. Remember that Noam is an unabashed ashkenazi zionist… All this talk is redirection.

    Everyone with open eyes and attentive ears know the ashkenazi rule the world..

  14. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Noam Chomsky is on record as advising a vote for Hillary Clinton in “swing states” as the preferred “lesser evil” candidate. And for Chomsky in all previous elections, the lesser evil candidate invariably turns out to be the Democratic Party candidate. As usual, Chomsky does not explain exactly how he determines who is the lesser evil, except to assert there are significant differences between the two parties that warrant a vote for Clinton. What are these differences We do not know.

  15. @Rehmat

    “When the Americans entered WWII, the German lion was already badly wounded by England.”

    More accurately: “When the Americans entered WWII, the German lion was already fatally wounded by Russia.”

    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
  16. bondo says:

    a shepherd who leads his sheep astray

  17. Svigor says:

    Sounds like Noam is a Trump supporter, no?

    Reminder that Noam “It’s the US Empire not the Jews” Chomsky recently endorsed Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump.

    Aw, say it ain’t so, Noam!

    Blood will tell? Keeping the borders open more important than stopping the aggressive wars?

    Say it ain’t so, Noam.

    Behavior>Words.

    in ours, multinational conglomerates, huge financial institutions, retail empires, and the like.

    Mass media comes first in terms of influence.

    The European Union (EU), one of the more promising developments of the post-World War II period, has been tottering because of the harsh effect of the policies of austerity during recession, condemned even by the economists of the International Monetary Fund (if not the IMF’s political actors). Democracy has been undermined as decision making shifted to the Brussels bureaucracy, with the northern banks casting their shadow over their proceedings.

    Centralization of power always works this way. This is its only real “promise.”

    Global opposition to U.S.-UK aggression was overwhelming. Support for Washington’s war plans scarcely reached 10% almost anywhere, according to international polls. Opposition sparked huge worldwide protests, in the United States as well, probably the first time in history that imperial aggression was strongly protested even before it was officially launched. On the front page of the New York Times, journalist Patrick Tyler reported that “there may still be two superpowers on the planet: the United States and world public opinion.”

    I doubt that the opposition to Iraq Attaq II was anywhere as strong as it was among White Nationalists. I frequently read and posted at Stormfront at the time, and all WNs opposed IA2. Lots of liberals were snookered by that war.

    As for Central America, maybe things could have been different, if the Soviets had kept their noses out.

  18. Biff says:
    @Hbm

    Chomsky endorsing the Queen of Chaos? I doubt that rumor.

  19. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:

    Noam Chomsky is in fact voting for Hillary Clinton because…just recently in Common Dreams….He called Donald Trump and his White supporters Hitler and his brownshirts.

    My hope is that during the Presidential debates, Donald Trump says to Hillary Clinton:”If I am elected POTUS…I am going to indict Hillary Clinton for War Crimes in Serbia….Libya….Eygpt….and the Eastern Ukraine.”

    Noam Chomsky is horrible on immigration. However, the Alt Right should pay very close attention to what Noam Chomsky has written on anarcho-syndicalism and labor.

    The great failure of the Alt Right is it seems to so enamoured of land owning Oligarchs in Franco’s Spain, Chile and pe-Venezuela Chavez era.

    Richard Spencer

    Here is my question to you:does your Alt Right-Neo-Ceasar -Radical-Cool Hipster get the Divine Right to exterminate the likes of Bill Blizzard and his Coal Mining Army when they rebel against the Coal Mining Company Oligarchs in West Virginia?

    Noam Chomsky has written about the Utica-Mohawk Valley Plan…I am very familiar with this part of NYS. If anybody who posts on Unz Review has more information about the Greedy Big Business 1930s-40s union busting labor strategy for Central New York State…could you please post some information about historical documents about the Utica-Mohawk Valley Plan….

    • Replies: @Jean Cocteausten
  20. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Jews are a disease that mimics the human form.
    The Christians are too stupid to see this.
    Sports, politics and religion are the pursuits of the dumb and ignorant.
    When you see the people who are at these events you will at once notice that all of them are stupid looking. If you cannot discern this you too are stupid as you look.
    NATURE DOES NOT LIE.

  21. The Afghan crime was a deliberate act of terrorism by Bush and his owners.

    “Afghanistan’s deputy prime minister, Haji Abdul Kabir, told reporters that the Taliban would require evidence that Bin Laden was behind the September 11 terrorist attacks in the US.

    “If the Taliban is given evidence that Osama bin Laden is involved” and the bombing campaign stopped, “we would be ready to hand him over to a third country”, Mr Kabir added.”

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5

  22. Chomsky invokes mass sentiment when it suits him and ignores it when it doesn’t. I remember that “hardly anybody” wanted war with Iraq in 2003. But I also know that “hardly anybody” wants open borders in 2016. For that matter, “hardly anybody” cared about European Jews in the 1930s. Sometimes the masses know what’s good for them, and sometimes they don’t.

  23. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:
    @Durruti

    Noam Chomsky is at his best when he savages JFK(and AI research).

    When I read the JFK iconography-worshipping the following image is immediately conjured up in my mind:Middle-Age-White Guys who wish they could have wore Jackie O’s pink sequin gown at the JFK Camelot Inagural Ball-then, after that, proclaim that JFK is grater than Jesus Christ!!!!

    There is some really sick s…t going on here with the JFK worshipping.

  24. @War for Blair Mountain

    Blizzard and his bunch were pawns of the Central Competitive Field. They had a documented pact with the UMWA that Logan and Mingo had to be unionized in order to eliminate their cost advantage. The CCF agreed to the checkoff system by which miners in the Midwest financed strikes in West Virginia. All it got them was a bunch of bloodshed and blown up tipples. When Roosevelt forced in the union it lasted about 15 years and then John L sold out the whole industry by rolling over on mechanization. There’s your glorious Battle of Blair Mountain.

  25. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:
    @Jean Cocteausten

    Mayor Testerman

    You support Feudalism…I oppose it. This was the fundamental reason for the revolt of the West Virginia Coal Miners in the Southern Part of the state.

    If I had the conspiratorial proclivities of a 9/11 Truther..well, I think you to be that repellant spoiled skank Anne Coulter defending the career of her labor agent Father Phillip Coulter.

    The violence at Blair Mountain could have been avoided very easily:treat the West Virginia Coal Miners as if they were living breathing human beings-which they most definitely were.

    The passage of the 1965 Immigration Reform Act and post-1965 Immigration Policy should, and must be seem, as a violent attempt to re-impose Feudalism upon The Historic Native Born White American Working Class.

    • Replies: @Jean Cocteausten
  26. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    I mean even if it [US GOVERNMENT COMPLICITY IN THE 9/11 ATTACKS] were true, which is extremely unlikely, who cares? I mean it doesn’t have any significance.” -Noam Chomsky

    This is the man whose judgement we are to take seriously?

    LOL

  27. @War for Blair Mountain

    Feudalism is a word I heard my father use many times in relation to the company towns he grew up in — largely after the union came in.

    The whole Sid Hatfield, Miners’ Army business makes a great story, but the UMWA did little for the miner but collect union dues. John L made his bundle by bleeding the industry dry and then retired to his mansion in Washington DC. Go to Logan County now and see what a paradise it is.

  28. Yawn…tedium…Chomsky…all the same.

    I would rather go to the dentist than read anything by Chomsky…

  29. @Jus' Sayin'...

    You are correct of course but Rehmat only wrote what his British friend (wrongly) believed. It is drummed into them from early childhood to ensure they’ll cling to the monarchy and sign up to be used as cannon fodder as required. It works too.

    This article also appears in the Guardian but the comments differ considerably. ;0)

  30. Karl says:

    >> I would rather go to the dentist than read anything by Chomsky

    when was the last time Ron Unz published a guy who has EVER correctly predicted a future event?

    iSteve seems to be the only one who’s even close?

  31. guest says:
    @Rehmat

    I mostly agree with what you say, except Hiroshima wasn’t a Hollywood invention . That was real. The thing about U.S. postwar power is that it’s all designed to fight armies exactly like it, but had a shortage of such armies to fight. The nuclear arsenal was designed not to fight. The intelligence arm was hopelessly incompetent. If it had fought its unconventional opponents like it fought the Indians or the Filipinos it wouldn’t have lost. But that was politically unacceptable.

  32. guest says:
    @Durruti

    Trotsky a critic of Bolshevik totalitarianism? Trotsky, the architect of War Socialism, a man from whose perspective Stalin is a rightist, an advocate of perpetual global revolution. Who could be more totalitarian?

  33. JPFounder says: • Website

    So, how do you fix this? By voting for nice people in the next election? By massive protests that teach the powerful a lesson? Or just wait around for the messiah?

    What, exactly, is this democracy that Chomsky wants? Is it a party of nice people that dominates the legislature – see Wikipedia. Nonsense. Democracy is people power and until the people can get the power through a viable institution, these crimes will continue forever. In Democracy, the people vote for policy. In Republics, people vote for people, a system that is inherently corrupt.

    There are three forms of government: dictatorship, republican and democratic. The best form of government is a mix of all three (which does not exist anywhere in the world, to my knowledge). Switzerland has a strong republican/democratic mix (a very weak or non-existent president), and the US has a strong dictator/republican government – virtually no democracy. Most governments claiming to be democracies actually contain very strong Presidents and legislatures with no “people” power whatsoever. Real democracy does not exist. If you want all this to stop, real democracy needs to be developed and become competitive against the established powers in the elections. Then create the institutions in government that allow for direct oversight by the people.

    • Replies: @RobinG
  34. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:
    @Jean Cocteausten

    The mechanization of coal mining in the 1950s is very serious topic for discussion…but not relevant to the Battle for Blair Mountain. The Battle for Blair Mountain and the events that triggered it are reducible to one issue and one issue only:The revolt of Southern West Virginia Coal Miners against Feudalism and Feudal Oligarchs in West Virginia.

    Mayor C.C. Testerman was part of the West Virginia Coal Mining Oligarch’s Death Squad extermination system against very desperate Southern West Virginia Coal Miners.

    The fact that you would use C.C. Testerman as a handle makes it very clear where you and your father’s sympathies are:with the Coal Mining Company Death Squads.

    Larger issue:The passage of the 1965 Immigration Reform Act and post-1965 Immigration Policy gave US Oligarchs another chance to get revenge on Native Born White American Unionized Labor. Low wage labor policy is driving the Native Born White American Working Class back into the serf class and at the same reducing them to a violently persecuted racial minority in post-white “America”.

  35. @guest

    I agree with you about Trotsky.
    The terminology was “Военный Коммунизм”,
    Military Communism.

  36. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:
    @Karl

    Noam Chomsky did predict the rise of someone like Trump who would appeal to millions of White Males six years ago.

    Steve Sailer spends way too much time analyzing sports statistics when he should be become a scholar of Native Born White American Working Class History of which Noam Chomsky knows way more about…which enables Noam Chomsky to dishonestly misrepresent Native Born White American Working Class History when the need arises.

  37. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:
    @War for Blair Mountain

    To follow up….Steve Sailer and John Derbyshire have the mad-calibrator’s obsession with statistical prediction..but this in and of itself has no connection with deep broad general frameworks of scientific explanation. Noam Chomsky excells at comming up with simple yet deep explanatory frameworks.

    I write this as somone who considers himself the mortal enemy of Noam Chomsky because of his hyper-(((((((ethnic))))) demand that the Native Born White American Majority commit demographic suicide within the borders of the US.

  38. Durruti says:
    @guest

    Guest,

    You missed the part of my Missive where I wrote, “Trotsky was guilty of retreating from his early analysis of (critique) of the Bolsheviks’ totalitarian direction,”

    This is well documented in Isaac Deutscher’s 3 volume Biography of Trotsky.

    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjTrdPr08_MAhWFmR4KHUpfBqUQFggcMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FIsaac_Deutscher&usg=AFQjCNFYeEUsAEHhU06pkCQ9toxGZ9WmuA&sig2=_3Dyr0kuutPgIrI4Ca1Gow&bvm=bv.121658157,d.dmo

    You have not committed a crime. Not a crime. Trotsky’s advocacy of “War Communism” was as totalitarian an advocacy, and totally unworkable economic plan, as has been attempted.

    The mere mention of Lev Bronstein sets old time CPers (apologists for Djugashvili), off. You can bank on it.

    Trotsky’s book, “Permanent Revolution,” advocates, as do some Marxists, skipping over the Democratic stage (of revolution), and heading to the really good stuff, such as the ‘Dictatorship of the Proletariat.’ Dictatorship of the Proletariat, is, of course, the Dictatorship of wealthy Oligarchs who rule over the workers, and just about everyone else within their reach.

    On the other hand, some, like myself, (and Durruti, and other Anarchists, and classic Republicans), are quite content to pause at the “Democratic Stage” of the Revolution, and consolidate the People’s Power. And, thusly, enjoy our Democratic Republic.

    Thomas Jefferson, and other revolutionists advocated the policy of Permanent Revolution, as a practice of continual renewal and revival of our Revolution and its ideals, in order to keep it fresh and functional.

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal… governments are instituted among men, deriving their powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles…”

    The above is a portion of the Declaration of Independence, written by Thomas Jefferson.

    AND:

    Thomas Jefferson favored the continual renewal of the American Revolution by each new generation creating a new constitution (and, thereby, a new constitutional government). This process would empower the new generations and serve to revive the quality of government in a process of Permanent Revolution. Jefferson wrote:

    “Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right. It may be said that the succeeding generation exercising in fact the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law had been expressly limited to 19 years only.”

    Jefferson further explained his approach to the next generation in his letter to James Madison:

    “I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self evident, ‘that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living’:”

    “Then I say the earth belongs to each of these generations, during it’s course, fully, and in their own right. The 2d. Generation receives it clear of the debts and incumberances of the 1st. The 3d of the 2d. and so on. For if the 1st. Could charge it with a debt, then the earth would belong to the dead and not the living generation.”

    I’ll end here, as the morning coffee is wearing off.

    Yours,

    Durruti

    PS, I am not actually Durruti, as he is long dead. Email me any time.

  39. There is a lot of material here to think about, but some of it is frankly potty. The biggest delusion appears to be a strong faith in the magic of diplomacy to create the world that the author would like to see. Examples:

    1. The Taliban were almost willing to capture and extradite Osama bin Laden
    2. Afghans had almost defeated the Taliban until we came along
    3. The Libyan civil war could have been resolved by diplomacy

    It is not that Chomsky’s view of the world order is without merit; its problem is that it is heavily distorted by his own wishful thinking. This weakens what would otherwise be a profound critique of our pointless foreign wars.

  40. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:
    @War for Blair Mountain

    Actually, going by John Sayles Movie “Matewan”..Cabel Testerman was one of the good guys.

    There was a Movement within the UMWA in the 1950s to oppose the mechanization of mining. I don’t think John L Lewis’s motives were malignant toward his fellow Mine Workers.

    In the mid-90′s the West Virgnia Coal Mining Companies began making noise about bringing in Ukranian Coal Miners. There was an immediate negative response by the West Virginia Coal Miners to this idea.

    The larger point-moral to this story is this:it would have been much better to develop Appalchia’s youth for careers in the STEM field in reponse to mechanization than to import the youth of China…India..Korean…Pakistan and develop Asia’s youth population for careers in the STEM Field of occupations. And I have always felt that the Alt Rights most lethal blow to the greedy race-replacement enthusiasts was harping on this debating point like a pit bull…for it really exposes in broad daylight the intense racial hatred of….the ((((likes)))) of Noam Chomsky towards the people of Appalachia.

    Now you all know why I have this intense hatred of IQ psychometric jibber jabber for it lets the treasonous greedy cheating types and the Asian Fifth Column off the very sharp deeply impaled hook.

    Noam Chomsky is very evil because he wants to deny the very great benefit of a severe labor scarcity….high real wage…to The Historic Native Born White American Working Class in places such as West Virginia. Occupy Wall Street is evil for the same reason.

    Anyhow, thanks for your response to my response

  41. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:
    @War for Blair Mountain

    I meant the above response to be directed towards commenter C.C. Testerman.

    Correction:I meant to wrote:”The Alt Right should harp on this point”…which it never even contemplates in the Alt Rights never ending effort to be haircut fashionable-trendy in its enthusiasm for claiming that IQ tests “scientifically” demonstrate that East Asian “Americans” are on average more intelligent than the great children of West Virginia Coal Miners nearly a hundred years ago.

    F the Alt Right!!!!

  42. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:
    @James N. Kennett

    J Kennett

    Your comments are without any merit because you don’t even understand Noam Chomsky’s basic point-the one he has been making for years:Democratic-Republican Party Foreign Policy advisors-experts have 0 interest in diplomacy and peace in general..their intentions are always very malignant. Generally speaking Diplomacy is what separates us from escalation to massive societal instability in the ME….10…..9….8….7….6….5…4…3….2…1…0

    And even more fundamentally, Democratic-Republican Foreign Policy creates a terrorist backlash because the policy is fundamentally terrorist…

    It really is time…long overdue actually…to bury the stinking rotting corpse of the late New Athiest Pope and all around reprobate Christopher Hitchens(who is now rotting in HELL with War Criminal JFK)….

  43. Max Payne says:

    Man…. why is the US so evil?

  44. bunga says:
    @Stephen R. Diamond

    I can keep 2 supposedly contrasting ideas in my head and reach separate but right conclusion
    I hate his support /endorsement of Hillary I still thank him for writing lucidly where this country is heading to.

  45. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:

    The Alt Right must reject Ronnie Reagan Cold War Conservatism…..especially when you consider the fact that the Ronnie Reagan Whitehouse was a revolving door for pedophiles….

  46. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Where is Part II of this piece?

  47. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:
    @Anonymous

    In part two…distinguished Professor Emeritus MIT Noam Chomsky will enthusiastically support the Black American Revenge!!!!! rape and murder of f…….g Whitey. Noam’s and Valerie’s favorite kind of snuff porn!!!!!

  48. @Leftist conservative

    Well i’m not a liberal so i don’t really care other than to note the inconsistency in passing.

  49. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    The might of the US has become a religious Conquistador force, embroiled in a Crusade against Islam.
    The insistence of American politicians and Military officers on promoting their version of monotheism overwhelms any other political concern.

    Unless the ongoing fight amongst Abrahamic religions is denied legitimacy by nation state governance, we will continue to be dominated by religious wars and Inquisitions.

    It is no coincidence that the tortures of the Inquisition were so rapidly re established by the US. They are part of the pattern of Western conquest and dominion.

  50. Wow, can’t believe I missed the Chomsky garbage article. Can’t remember the site name, but some compsci students wrote a program to emulate Chom-Chom’s speech patterns. Frankly, on the servic of it, the computer made as much as much sense.

  51. RobinG says:
    @JPFounder

    JPF, have you heard of VotePact?

    http://www.votepact.org/

    I’ve begun following Sam Husseini’s twitter for latest, best takes on news. This article, with criticism on Chomsky, totally relevant.

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/01/29/the-anti-democratic-structure-of-two-party-elections-chomsky-bloomberg-and-and-the-votepact-solution/

    “It’s past time that structures give rise to anti-establishment center candidates that skillfully appeal to both the left and right.”

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS
PastClassics
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
Hundreds of POWs may have been left to die in Vietnam, abandoned by their government—and our media.
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.