The idea of "Jewish state" is problematic, typically states are of their citizens, not of particular race, ethnicity or confession. Why should Israel be an exception? As to the "ridiculous" ethnic cleansing, first read your history, Benny Morris, for example, then post to fora... More relevant, almost nobody _now_ insists on 100% right of return, what stops Israel from settling the issue? In fact, you gave your answer, you want 100% of what you consider "historic Palestine", whatever that means... Janet Kellman, software reviews

Roland Barthes is a key figure in international intellectual life. He is one of the most important intellectual figures to have emerged in postwar France and his writings continue to have an influence on critical debates today. weight loss

all the people. Living life in peace.

 

Oh, nevermind, there is no profit in it for you.

Credibility - If you want to understand that form of credibility, just go to your favorite Mafia don and ask him what credibility means. - June 16 2000 Noam Chomsky

'War Is a Racket'

Excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933 by General Smedley Darlington Butler, USMC. General Butler was the recipient of two Congressional Medals of Honor - one of only two Marines so honored.

War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses. . . .

There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.

It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents. . . .

How can anybody, who disagrees with Chomsky, argue with you guys, when you consider Chomsky's opponents morally inferior (or evil, or simply stupid). Look within yourselves, you will find that it's true. 

I ask you know, WHAT argument can I possibly present to you that could change your mind? Would you would ever be able to rationally look at argument of a person who you consider inferior to yourself either in moral or intellectual sense?Where did I get the opinion that you vilify your opponents... well I simply read your postings on Znet blogs. I noticed that as soon as anybody espouses opinion contrary to Chomsky's - within 2-3 rounds of posting exchange that person is called: apologist (for some kind of violence), resist, fascist-like etc.

I would like to say that if anyone questions my motives or personality in aforementioned manner - I will not reply to that person anymore, assuming that such a behavior on opponent's part is admission of defeat.

With that out of the way - answer me please how can anyone call Israel Palestinian conflict - a genocide, when we all know that Israel has enough power military-wise to level Palestinian territories to the ground in a matter of days. The only thing, that I can think of, that is stopping them - are the values of their own society.

Anything to say about the topic, Anonymous?

chomsky chomsky chomsky. If ur the same person that the marxist lecturers were shoving down my neck at university on the social anthropology course then I have a few choice words for you and your con artist bretheren, sorry, comrades. You and the whole left wing.

 You remind me of those 'writers' in the ufology industry, churning out the same rubbish under the guise of serious -investigator-exposing-the-truth type character.Falling back on the same old emotional buttons to ply your trade. The best frauds are the most audacious ones. The high priest of the church lives a double life as a devil worshipper at night.

You sanctify and validate yourself by self delusion. Your sanctimonious preachings feed into your own self belief which in turn... it goes round and round. All the while using the 'poor suppressed people' as the shield from any criticism, knowing full well that the most oppressive philosophy of all is socialism.Typical lefty. They dont believe in god, they ARE god. A duck can never be called a duck, everything is one. We are all serial killers, rapists, murderers, there are no differences. We are all nothings to be ruled over by socialism and everyone is equal. Victims to be saved by the socialists. Come all ye inadequate people who dont measure up, join something bigger than yourself, us. Well judging by the human species how can you lose? Its not hard to see how national socialism came about.

The left tell everyone they are a victim to be helped, who by?, the people telling them that. The left wing and their cronies. Only THEY have the answer. In truth so called equality and fairness as preached by left wingers means an obscene reality of absolute horrific proportions if you take it to the letter. Imagine a world where everyone is the same? Its a bullet to the head philosophy. Really they hate life itself. That is the biggest chip of all to bear on any shoulder.

Deep down, are you so sincere and ernestly rightous and do you really care that much? Are your solutions (heh) so right morally and realistically? Are they real? If so then you are way above 99.9% of the rest of us and you should indeed be a god,ruling over the rest of us poor souls.

 

Thanks—you're correct—my language weakened the facts.

"2/3 popular Iraqi rejection of US occupation" - that's incorrect, and not in fact what Chomsky said. He said 2/3 of Baghdad wants US to withdraw immediately.

The number of Iraqis who just generally want the occupation to end is higher. 82% of Iraqis reject the occupation - that's about 5/6 - this is according to the Seattle Times.

The IPS news has more complete reporting on a recent poll, this may be where NC got his number as it does report 2/3 in Baghdad want immediate withdrawal. In the same poll 4/5 said they believed US presence is causing more violence, and the same number believe the US wont withdraw because they want to keep permanent US Military bases in Iraq.

So opinion in Iraq on US occupation is even worse than you suggest.

blog

To Mr.Noam Chomsky.

Thanks for your visit to my site if indeed it was you. I have made reference to your articles on a number of occasions. I noticed your feed on elbohemio where I am currently referring people to links pertinent to the Virginia Tech tragedy especially since a Puerto Rican was among the dead. I normally have links to Puerto Rican issues or my own writings ( though I do not consider myself a writer, I am an artist ) on this site. Below is a list of my other sites.

http://elbohemio.wordpress.com/ Puerto Rican and Latin issues

http://hunterseeker.wordpress.com/ Antiwar Issues

http://puertoricanartist.blogspot.com/ Mostly art

Well, thanks a lot for your visit ( if indeed it was you )

Roberto Hernandez/elbohemio/hunterseeker

 

Live your life as you know how.

Hello frederick, long time havn't we see a post of yours.. I stand with your opnion.

You ask a lot of good questions.

I think one of the main things is that we tend to see government as having characteristics of individual people, like the sense of right and wrong. We're just projecting that on to them and feeling betrayed when we find out otherwise.

Modern governments are like corporations (practically are), they just want more and more power. Right and wrong doesn't enter into it. I think the powerful individuals who carry out this agenda (Empire in our case) tell themselves it's their destiny, it's nature, it's survival of the fittest (does that mean the nicest?). They probably feel that if not them, someone else would get the spoils. So, why not?

On the other hand, there are far more citizens than there are rulers. That is probably a concern of the powerful, that citizens in reality could be more powerful than they are. So they continually beef up the myth that America is the greatest democracy and so on. They also work very hard at diffusing any credible resistance.

It's not the job of "American Empire" to question it's reason for being. Questioning is seen as weakness. Questioning is seen as something to watch out for, not to cultivate.

--smallbird

 

 

 

 

 

 

hello mark,

so coinneach isnt a yank, but i bet his perception of this yellow peril stuff is by courtey of the yanks, who have been trumpeting the spectre of "chicoms" scheming to take over the world for almost half a century now, ever since uncle sham lost "his" china to the commies in 1949.
for example, the vietnam war was justified by this "domino theory" which says that vietnam was the first objective for red china's plan to take over the whole of sea, once it fell, the rest of the sea countries would follow one by one...
these days, we hear lots of statics regarding china's "excessive arms spending", hell, the chinese must be building up their military like crazy in order  to take over the world. [sic]

regards

denk

Hi Denk,

Not to split hairs, but I don't think this poster is from the US. Coinneach is hardly a common name here; I'm guessing this individual is in Ireland. Just a minor quibble from one of us ignorant Yanks.

Regards,
Mark

**the chinese communists, and their visions of taking this world over, did you know ? "**

 no i dont.

almost everyday we are treated to gems like this from the yanks. so the usa give the world information technology eh? a fat lot of good it does though, as john pilger once observed, the yanks are just like mushrooms -- kept in the dark and fed bushit all day.

the mind boggling igorance of the citizens of the worlds most advanced country surely must count as the eighth wonder of the world.

 

 I will not talk about Ameraca, I believe it has all been said, without any action coming from it.

 My two major problems are, The chinese communists, and their visions of taking this world over, did you know ? they aren't worried about loosing half a billion of their people, to achieve their desires.

 second problem, is our world. When do the D.H.s in charge of all our various countries, decide that this needs attention NOW.

 Why should I worry ? My body is past it's use by date, if one believes the medical fraturnity, not that I believe it.

I have 2 beautiful Grand Daughters, they are nearly one and two and a half years old. I am sure you will understand my concern. 

Of course this means that the Palestinian side has to accept the fact that a Jewish State will exist alongside a Muslim Palestinian state. Hamas, in power now, of course does not accept this, clearly stating that the end goal is no Israel at all, making impossible to actually negotiate a fair settlement. Israel and the US are talking to Abbas, who does agree with this two state solution, unfortunately, he is not in power. So I think nothing will happen for many years (unfortunately). The real losers here are the Palestinian people, who have been the political pawns of the Arab states for decades.

u are generous with arab lands.. what would you say no land at all for israeli families that werent there in 1930?

Fine, the idea of a Jewish State is problematic...then so is the idea of 57 muslim states (in most freedom of religion is non-existent, in contrast to the "Jewish State"). Then so is the idea of most countries, for example, Japan. Do you know that in Japan, you can only be a citizen based on BLOOD, even if you are born there, doesn't matter... you have to be of "Japanese" descent. This is exactly a state NOT for its citizens, but for a particular race or ethnicity, call it what you want.

Are you aware that many Latin American countries, such as Argentina, Bolivia, and Venezuela, maintain the Catholic Church as the state religion. The Argentine constitution still provides that only Catholics can become president. President Menem is a Muslim but had to be baptized by the Catholic Church before he could become president. Now imagine Israel (or the US, for it's first Muslim congressman) forced Muslims in parliament to convert in order to be a member of parliament... WOW can you imagine the UN resolutions against Israel. Argentina...who cares what they do, right?

So in reality, now is JUST the time when a Jewish State makes sense, just now because there are so many countries with state religions that are either Muslim or Catholic or ethnic based (like Japan), that are effectively hostile to others. When the world moves to what you say, truly nations "of their citizens", then I agree, no need for a "Jewish State".

What should be clear is that most (or frankly, probably all) states are deeply flawed based on the criteria that you only hold Israel to. Either you admit that many many countries are for a religion or race, and thus all flawed, or admit that you prefer to only single out only Israel for your criticism.

Yes, read Benny Morris. Even this way outside the mainstream Israeli writer would be quite balanced in his story, I am sure you are only reading certain convenient quotes of his, not the whole story (too much to discuss here). You want to see real ethnic cleansing? See Iraq, see Sudan, see Syria (10,000 killed by Hafez in Homa in 1982), see Kuwait kicking out tens of thousands of Palestinians after their support of Saddam Hussein, see Serbia vs. Bosina Muslims. The numbers pale in comparison with even the worst number you could come up with against Israel.

No, I don't "want" all of historic Palestine. I want the Arab side (other than Egypt and Jordan) to allow Israel to live in peace on the 13% of historic Palestine (very clear definition, this would be the British Palestine Mandate, the first time since ancient times that the borders of Palestine were drawn up) that they ended up getting.

Jeff Cafferty from CNN made a clear comparison between the current support of insurgents and the US support of Mujaheedin during the Afghanistan war. However, he did not draw any clear conclusions. I am not that terribly familiar with US media and never watch CNN, but thought this might be interesting to note.

I found about this on that horrible blog from Pat Dollard - a Hollywood talent agent who felt that there was too much of a left bias in the coverage of Iraq and decided to join the troops as an embedded filmmaker to correct this. Dollard of course jumps to the conclusion that Cafferty supports the killing of Americans. Here the short video clip on Dollards blog:

http://patdollard.com/2007/02/12/video-shocker-cafferty-condones-irans-killing-coalition-soldiers/

The idea of "Jewish state" is problematic, typically states are of their citizens, not of particular race, ethnicity or confession. Why should Israel be an exception?

As to the "ridiculous" ethnic cleansing, first read your history, Benny Morris, for example, then post to fora...

More relevant, almost nobody _now_ insists on 100% right of return, what stops Israel from settling the issue? In fact, you gave your answer, you want 100% of what you consider "historic Palestine", whatever that means...

Whatever you might say "Jewish Leadership" said or did not say, the fact is that thet accepted the partition plan in 1948 that created a Jewish and Arab state. Sure there were many voices who disagreed, after all, approximately 78% of historic Palestine was already carved into a Palestinian state called Jordan. So to see the Jewish state left with only about 13% of historic Palestine (if you need more evidence of the numbers, let me know) was not immediately accepted by "Jewish Leadership." But accept it they did, however, the Arab side clearly rejected ANY concept of a Jewish state and clearly stated their intention to perform the ethnic cleansing of all Jews. Yes, there was debate and voices rejecting partition, so what. Several Arab states then attacked the newly formed Jewish state, and too bad, but they lost the war. The Arabs/Palestinians have been trying to make up for this lost war ever since. In 1967, when the Arabs again launched a war against Israel (Egypt started with a military blockade of Israel's port in Eilat, a clear act of war) and lost (again), Israel offered the captured territories in return for peace, the Arab response was the famous three nos ("No recognition, no peace, no negotiations" [I may have the order mixed up]). Any call for "the right of return" by the Palestinians displaced in this unfortunate war in 1948,( launched by the Arabs and lost by the Arabs) is just code words for the elimination of a Jewish state in the region. To accuse Israel of ethnic cleansing is ridiculous. More Arabs have been killed by Arabs in Iraq, Syria and other places than have ever been killed by Israel. If Israel seriously wanted to ethnically cleanse, then why are there Arab members in Parliament and why does 20% of the population in Israel (i.e Arabs) live at a higher income levels than nearly the entire Arab world and in polls would never leave Israel to join a new Palestinian state. Maybe accusation of racial discrimination may be appropriate (like Blacks in the U.S., Koreans in Japan, all non-muslims in all muslim states, Gypsies in Europe, etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum) but ethnic cleansing? You demean the true meaning of these words.

The January 1976 veto related to Palestine cited above was just another of many crude attempts to deny Israel's right to exist or simply see it destroyed. The UN resolution on January 23, 1976 called for a Palestinian state (which I agree on and so do most Israelis) but more importantly (and the reason that it was voted against by the US then, and would be now as well), called for allowing "Palestinian refugees to return to their homes." This is code word for the destruction of Israel, because if millions of people in the West Bank and Gaza strip were allowed to enter and live in Israel, today's Israel would effectively be a Palestinian state with a Jewish Minority. And where does one expect Israelis living in homes claimed by these refugees go? (Answer: Into the sea, if you asked the resolution's backers). It is understood today that this blanket right of return, as envisioned in this January 1976 resolution, is not really part of a realistic two-state solution in the region. This is why it was rejected then and why it would still be rejected today. This is a minor blip in Ford's career. Only when the Palestinian side is truly ready to accept a permanent Jewish state in the region, will their be peace. Egypt and Jordan have been the only two countries in the region to accept this, and that is why there is peace (although cold) with these two countries.

I'm reminded of Roland Barthes' book Mythologies—a little dated, from 1957, but still relevant:

A synopsis can be found here:

http://orac.sund.ac.uk/~os0tmc/myth.htm

 

American Dream Global Nightmare goes much deeper into US mythology, focusing on movies. It's a much more scholarly book. It looks like Sardar and Davies realized their first book was a bit superficial and they did a lot of research and dug deeper. Although they don't cite him, this book has some affinities with the work on US propaganda by Alex Carey. T

I looked at the reviews for Why Do People Hate America at Amazon.com, and it looks like a good read. Although I think a case for “McDonaldification” of the “global market” is a problem—given the points about cultural integrity and specific elements of their region that may not adapt to that McDonaldification (even with the appropriation of Mar Far Chicken as Chicken McNuggets), I think the global success of McDonalds and, say, the TV show Baywatch, say little for the tastes of much of the world as well: inexpensive, I can understand, but why bland and exploitative? The US food and art scene has much better to offer: too bad it's economic and military muscle are used to coercively export the worst it has to sell. There may be no accounting for taste, though, so I personally would limit my critique of the US in this context to its coercion rather than the popularity of its “lowbrow” commodities—I wouldn't want to imply that it would be good to coerce if only we had a better product, or be too much of a snob about what catches fire in the global market—that has its own democratic aspect as well (other than “cheap” sells). More books on the “to check out” list!

It doesn't answer specifically, but it provides a very clear analysis of the mythology that pervades and perpetuates this US peculiarity of "not knowing they don't know" and blasting the world with denial. Ziauddin Sardar and Merryl Wyn Davies, American Dream Global Nightmare (Cambridge, UK: Icon Books, 2004). As far as I know no US publisher has touched it, but of course it's not that hard to get. Their earlier book Why Do People Hate America? is good too, although not as detailed in its analysis. T

Victor— I recall you noting in our exchange over Chomsky's last blog post on the Cambodia Industry: “why is it we seem to think that we even have the right to direct anyone's free will?” And here Chomsky notes, with regard to Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, “It was taken for granted that the US had the right to support resistance to aggression” and “the right of the US to use force and violence and the illegitimacy of any resistance to it is a Holy Doctrine, which cannot be questioned in polite society, even thought about.” It's all about (self) respect (and hence intertwined with (self) love). The US attitude often seems to be one of “we trust ourselves.” In other words, there is no strong possibility of self-deception or error, so march on. Again (from the aforementioned exchange between us) there seems to be a societal personality disorder. Shouldn't a sane person, or country, question their own motives? These motives may be unconscious, or implicit, and not “questioned in polite society” possibly because a) they are taken for granted, and/or b) they are too sordid to expose without embarrassment. It's a matter of pride (and possibly pride without integrity). Retrospection proves “we” have been wrong before when confident and self-righteous: might we be wrong now? How obvious does it have to become, before it becomes undeniable? The complementary US attitude seems to be “we can't trust them.” Hence we have the insulting “stick and carrot” talk about “dealing” with Iran's nuclear ambitions: as if Iran were some sort of mule, rather than an intelligent and sovereign nation of politically engaged citizens. I asked Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on his blog (with no reply) if he worried about Iran mirroring the US's subversive foreign policy interventionism (albeit on a smaller scale). Iran too needs to question its motivations: they may trust themselves with nuclear energy, but is any government that permanently stable and responsible? (Some may say nobody has dealt with the nuclear energy/waste/arms issue well.) They need to look at the “other's” perspective too, and possibly answer to the distrust they face. What do they need to prove to others (or themselves)? Maybe nothing: Iran has a right to self-determination; yet, while others may not have as clear a right to intervene on that self determination—how could Iran not recognize that other's have a legitimate “right” to concern for their own safety? Chomsky's noting the 2/3 popular Iraqi rejection of US occupation is troubling, to say the least; especially in relation to President Bush's remark to the effect that “We'll leave if asked to by the Iraq government.” Is there a democracy in Iraq? How are the people being represented? How did a government that seems “educated” (read “indoctrinated”) in a “western” perspective get elected democratically, when it doesn't follow the people's wishes on the most fundamentally “popular” issues of the day? This is a rhetorical, not a naïve question. I think Chomsky's point that we question our own motivations as much as we question others' is important. We must take the lessons we've learned about psychology and ethics on a personal level, such as the danger in hypocrisy and self-deception, and apply it to a societal/national level as well. We need to foster that sneaking suspicion that we might just be wrong: folks like Chomsky, although not always right (how could they be) may be like a part of the social brain that questions actions and raise self-consciousness. Interestingly, Chomsky the cognitive scientist and agnostic (?) also may be Chomsky the “Freudian” socio-analyst and promoter of Jesus' “Judge not, that ye be not judged” anti-hypocrisy.

But the point is that the right of the US to use force and violence and the illegitimacy of any resistance to it is a Holy Doctrine, which cannot be questioned in polite society, even thought about. Therefore debate is confined to the marginal question of whether Iran is in fact providing support to forces opposing the US occupation. Similarly, the debate over US tactics is restricted to the question of what is likely to work.

Notice how every time the Empire promotes a new adventure, it and its people and its Congress assumes the right to do so? Can someone please tell me why this is so? Can someone tell me what gives the American people the right to invade ANY country for whatever reason? And can someone tell me why Americans nearly always uses violence first, then diplomacy if things go pear-shaped? And can someone please tell me why America has the right to bomb civilians, destroy a people's defenses, tear up the vital communications and transport infrastructure that these countries built up at great expense and sacrifice over many years to support their populations? Can someone please please tell me why America has the right to use phosphorus, depleted uranium, cluster bombs and anti-personnel mines freely and without restriction, and why they have the right to sell these vicious arms to their so-called allies? Can anyone tell me why no one, not even their own citizens, has the right to even question US policies and practices internationally? Why does America feel it has an unrestricted right to protect its "interests" (oil, trade, slave labor and natural resources) around the globe through military and predatory economic policy? Why is it that American alone has the right to bomb the shit out of any country who it decides, for whatever reason, is a threat to those "interests"? And if America truly has such rights, then does it not follow that America indeed has the right to take over the entire world to protect those "interests", to economically and militarily enslave entire populations to "protect the American way of life" for American consumers and the rest of the wolf pack, the G-8? And as Mr. Chomsky states, why is it that the question always seems centered around How can we make this illegal and reprehensible invasion successful, rather than Should we invade to begin with? And if things go wrong (which they always do) why is the question always, how was this mis-managed and what can we do to turn it around and win? It's never, were we right to invade in the first place, and how do we get out now and make reparations for the damage we have incurred? And why do the targets of these invasions never, ever have the right to resist? And why do their neighboring countries not have the right to support that resistance? After all, wasn't that what the formation of the UN and NATO, and all those other US-conceived alliances were all about? Attack one of us, and you attack all of us? After all, they have "interests" too. Friends forever through thick and thin? A closed fist is mightier than five separate fingers? Stuff like that? So please tell me again, what's the matter with a country having allies willing to lend a hand against aggression? If the US has the right to protect its interests, do they not as well? So let's be absolutely clear about this - Is the US the ONLY country in the world with the right to protect its own interests, and the ONLY country in the world whose right cannot be questioned? And while I'm at it, can someone tell me why America NEVER questions its own actions that result in so much pain and destruction across the globe? Can anyone tell me why I have never heard a US apology from the Congress, from the President, or from US dominant media? Of course, I suppose there IS the possibility that we have never been wrong, that we have always had the most innocent and altruist aims at heart when we bombed the shit out of a weak country and its civilian population and used all those before-mentioned nasty (but effective) weapons. I DO go on and on, don't I! Apologies for that. But if you will be so kind as to answer these questions (and actually there are MANY more where those came from!), then I shall be more than happy to answer the one question weighing so heavily on the thoughtful minds and innocent hearts of so many Americans, "Why does the world hate America so much?"