To:

Zcom_simple
Home » Z Blogs » Noam Chomsky's Blog » US-UK relations

Hello,

Blogs are a familiar feature on the internet - where users post content in an accumulating manner, with comments, and search options, etc. They facilitate expression and exploration, and via attached comments, also debate and synthesis.


Reading and
Navigating Blogs

Our blogs are quite powerful. Each writer can post, as is typically the case. Sustainers who have the option can also post, however. All Blogs appear in the blog system, and sometimes also in content boxes the top page of ZNet - and always via the left menu of the top page - and can be found via searches, etc.

Commenting on blogs follows the blogs, attached at the bottom, and blog comments, like all others, are also visible in many places that show comments including in the forum system. In addition, the entire blog system gathers content for everyone - but one can look at the accumulating content in many ways.

  • For example one can look at one writer's efforts - so one is seeing what is effectively a blog system for that one writer, or Sustainer.
  • One can also look at the content by topic, seeing blogs that are tagged as being about a certain topic - or place, as well. Thus, when doing that, it is a blog system about a topic, or a place, with many contributors.
  • One can look at only writer blogs, or only sustainer blogs, as well.
  • One can look at blogs for particular Groups, too.

All this is easily done using the left menu. Searches allow even more variables and refinements.


Creating Blog Posts

If you are a Sustainer with permission, and are logged in, you will see a link in the left menu for you to post a blog - and you can use that to post one, and then tag it various ways (such as with a topic or place, or a group tag), and once you do, it is in the system with you as the author.

You can also use the console button to the left to post a blog - anytime and from anywhere in the site, as long as you are logged in.

Meanwhile, enjoy the blogs - and, by the way, if you are a Free Member or a Sustainer with a ZSpace page, of course you can put one or more content boxes on it, pulling blog links of any sort you may want to filter for, for example, by you or by your friends or by others - and by topic, about places, for groups, etc.

Blogs

9

Noam Chomsky's Blog

Web Address: http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/noamchomsky
Bio: (More)

All Chomsky Blogs

Recent Chomsky Content

Znetarticle_icon ZNet Articles
Zmagarticle_icon ZMag Articles
Zcommentary_icon ZCommentaries
Zaudio_icon ZAudios
Zvideo_icon ZVideos
Zblogpost_icon Blog Posts
Zbook_icon Books
Zvideo_icon ZStores

US-UK relations

By Noam Chomsky at Dec 16, 2004

PDF Version

Printer Friendly Version
Change Text Size a- | A+
The general contours are pretty clear. The US effectively displaced Britain as world-dominant power during World War II, quite consciously -- there were mini-wars going on right through the conflict, and they continued afterwards, often in ugly ways. Britain had to make a choice as to whether to join the re-emerging European system, or to become a "junior partner" of the US, as a Foreign Office official put it. "Our lieutenant (the fashionable word is partner)," as a senior adviser of the Kennedy administration put it at a moment when England was being kicked in the face by the boss. The choice has largely been the second, despite plenty of conflicts, and often really contemptuous treatment of England, as during the missile crisis and Skybolt affair. Though a declining economic power (relative to others), England remains a pre-eminent military force, far beyond any of the new EU states, now or in the foreseeable future, hence a useful partner for US imperial ventures. The eminent British military historian John Keegan captured the essence succinctly during the first Gulf War: "The British are used to over 200 years of expeditionary forces going overseas, fighting the Africans, the Chinese, the Indians, the Arabs. It's just something the British take for granted," and the war in the Gulf "rings very, very familiar imperial bells with the British." It was at a time when there was considerable distress that much-despised Italy had surpassed England as an industrial power, but the Brits still had their traditional values intact. In internal social policies, Britain is also poised between Europe and the US, competing with the US for lowest wages, worst working conditions, highest poverty, and other such prizes, while still keeping a national health service. Pretty much the same choices arise now for the "citizen-ranks." On [Jack] Straw, there was a case of survival that surprised me even more than the Zimbabwe affair. I happened to be in London in Dec. 2002 -- the period of build-up to the war, when Straw-Blair were carrying out their task of providing "independent confirmation" of the most severe charges that could be imagined against Saddam, and wringing their hands with much passion about his terrible crimes back to the 1980s. Right then Mark Thomas published a startling article in the New Statesman, revealing that the leaders of New Labour, then in opposition, did not even sign the parliamentary protests about the gassing of Kurds and other atrocities in the late 80s. And more dramatically, that Straw, as Home Secretary in the year 2000, had rejected the asylum request of an Iraqi who had escaped from Saddam's torture chambers, with a letter assuring the applicant that the Iraqi justice system was so credible and trustworthy that he could be assured of fair treatment if he was sent back to Iraq. I was sure that these revelations would have a devastating effect internally. I checked with Thomas and some other friends later, and they told me that the revelations sank like a stone -- no reaction, so I was told. Apparently, I was far too naive. Just for the record, mainstream French intellectuals are even worse in this regard. And to the limited extent I've looked elsewhere in Europe, it's not much different. Europeans enjoy condemning the barbarians across the Atlantic, often rightly, but a look in the mirror is often quite helpful.

Comment On This Blog Post  See All Comments (32)

Person

Re: US-UK relations

By K, Mr at Jan 03, 2005 06:54 AM
two peas in a pod why would you expect any thing else? neo-cons live in many different countries and entrenchment is everywhere uk is no different than canada or australia. the mode of production remains the same and corporate profit is the end to all means. where's the queen to save us?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: US-UK relations

By Maahaadave, Gurudave at Dec 23, 2004 06:14 AM
Fatalism, yes in a way. That is what I believe. That is what is taught by the Yoga masters. And that is what I also believe from my own experience. Fatalism is another word for Karmic destiny. This of course presupposes a belief in God, otherwise there is no mechanism for enforcing destiny. From my own experience I have no doubt whatsoever in Karmic destiny. As John Lennon succinctly put it: "There's nothing you can know that isn't known. Nothing you can see that isn't shown. Nowhere you can be that isn't where you're meant to be. It's easy."

Reply this comment

Person

Re: US-UK relations

By Maahaadave, Gurudave at Dec 23, 2004 03:06 AM
Those articles do not condone Israeli extremist policies, they simply point out arab extremist policies and american support of them i.e school textbooks that teach jew demonization distributed by the american government. As far as their ideology about the U.S using Israel as a scapegoat, and the use of islamic fanaticism for political purposes, I am intrigued by the evidence they present, but I am not sold on that idea. They present some interesting ideas that I don't find elsewhere. At this stage of the game it is impossible to know for certain if their suppositions are correct, but the evidence they have gathered is compelling.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: US-UK relations

By Maahaadave, Gurudave at Dec 23, 2004 03:01 AM
Yes only 30% voted republican. That is the point I made. Many people are not interested in politics. You are not going to reach them. They are reached by T.V. The only media that can reach them with a counter to the corporate media machine is on the internet. Almost all people who support the empowerment of the people and see the duopoly in Washington as a sham of vested ineterests, these people search out information. The mass of people without interest are just that. As for your critique of the articles by Prof Gil-White, I don't support them 100%. I think they do present an antithesis to an ideology that exculpates the palestinian leadership for any responsibility in handling that situation. Many people think it is a black and white situation, I believe there is a big grey area there as well. I don't think those articles are exculpating Israeli misdeeds, rather they are presenting the misdeeds of palestinian and other arab leadership that is often overlooked in the rush to lay all the fault on Israeli actions. There is a history that is often overlooked. The situation did not arise out of a vacuum. cont.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: US-UK relations

By Maahaadave, Gurudave at Dec 23, 2004 00:08 AM
The only way out of this is for those who control the system, the ones at the top of the pyramid, for one or more of them to change. Nothing else will work. Any kind of dissident movement with any size or possibilities to it, is monitered. With the new draconian laws, people will be less and less inclined to take part. If these groups become a threat to the system, they can be broken up using the new draconian laws. Dissidence will only be tolerated until it becomes a threat, then it will be squashed. Have no illusions about that. What is needed is education for the oilygarchs. They need to be educated on higher values. They need to develop a conscience. They need to understand that Karma is very real, that what they sow, they will reap. They need spiritual enlightenment. That can work, anything else is doomed to failure.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: US-UK relations

By Maahaadave, Gurudave at Dec 22, 2004 23:58 PM
So when you have more money then god, your disagreements with others like you, over how to control the world, is just trivial stuff that can be worked out over martinis. don't fool yourself, the big money people are low lifes, all of them. If they weren't you wouldn't see such desparate conditions for so many people in the world. It would take a fraction of these oilygarchs wealth to change that. Your ideology of "...and how to bring their collective power to bear on elite interests" is fancifull thinking. Most people aare uninterested in world politics or even local politics. Those that are, are almost all brainwashed into choosing two between two sides of the same coin. Whats left is relatively few, and their voices are trying to be squashed by legislation. It used to be that government relied on black bag jobs and assassination to silence dissidents in 1st world countries. That has changed. The new paradigm is to allow the law to do legally what they used to have to hire criminals or special agents for. That was messy, blackmail was always a possibility. Now dissidents can be sweeped off the street legally, no mess no fuss no worry.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: US-UK relations

By Maahaadave, Gurudave at Dec 22, 2004 23:44 PM
Both world views are presented by the same vested interests. They are playing to different crowds. You mention that elite interests are divided. That I disagree with. They are unified in the belief that they should exploit the world and the people in it for their own purposes. How that is to be done may cause differences among them. But that is what the commisions are for. It is where they work out their differences and make plans together for everyones benefit. You have to understand, these people are not nice people, none of them. These are people with untold trillions of $$$ at their command. Yet do we see them spending any of that vast wealth to help society ? No. Instead they may give a little here and there, but they have no desire to actually help others. Nader always mentions how much money it would take to give free university education to everyone, or free health care, or cheap housing, etc. It is a pittance to these people. Instead they will spend vast amounts of money on weapons technology and other wastefull things. There are no oilygarchs who spend large sums on others, who try and change things for the better, aside from cheap self promotion. cont.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: US-UK relations

By Maahaadave, Gurudave at Dec 22, 2004 23:34 PM
World opinion is an idea that has little to no meaning. Most of the world has little interest or awareness of world politics. They work hard and are not engrossed in mass media or the world situation. The ones who are, are for the most part receiving their info from corporate propaganda outlets. This is why so many americans vote republican. They vote against their own interests because the corporate propaganda machine works. So "World opinion" is really the opinions of those people who take an interest in world affairs, and who are not brainwashed by corporate media, in your paradigm. This amounts to an insignificant number of people. For example: Most people who hate the republicans do so because they see the republicans as right wing wackos, and they see the democrats as espousing the moderate rational view. That is a lie of course. One only has to review the Clinton era to see the truth. So "world opinion" is almost exclusively shaped by propaganda. The Dems and Reps represent this thesis/anthesis for the first world. cont.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: US-UK relations

By Maahaadave, Gurudave at Dec 22, 2004 03:06 AM
So "corporations" corrupting politicians willy nilly by contributions is also done, but only for small scale irrelevant policy, pork in bills. Big policy, like the direction of government on big issues, is given by the big boys. Again, just like the Mafia has the commission which makes all the big decisions, and then smaller units or crews spend their time in various rackets. The politicians give the smaller crews a quid pro quo service by putting pork in a bill. The politician gets money down the road, or to an offshore bank etc. But the big decisions in crime are made by commisions. Those are where the heads of the biggest families make policy for the benefit of each other, to make sure everything goes smoothly, so they don't step on each others toes, and to make complaints etc. That is the Bilderbergs, The Davos meetings, WTO meetings etc. THE big guys go over policy that will benefit themselves the most and best way. These are the people who run international banking and investments on the largest scale. The untraceable holding companies ownership. Capisce ?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: US-UK relations

By Maahaadave, Gurudave at Dec 22, 2004 02:52 AM
Government policy is not made based on voters. They all know that a job in government pays peanuts compared to the private sector. Even if by some chance occurence they lose an otherwise unlosable election, they know that by doing the bidding of the oligarchs while in office that they will be amply rewarded when they leave. And if they severely displease the oligarchs while in office...JFK, RFK, Nixon, Wellstone, Trafficant, etc. Politicians don't become politicians like some kind of Mr.Smith goes to Washington cliche. They receive positions of trust because they prove themselves to be trustworthy. It is exactly like the Mob. If you want full protection as a member of the mob you have to become a "Made Man". You have to get your hands dirty, you cannot enjoy the benefits of the rackets unless you implicate yourself in crimes which can be used to blackmail you. That is how a politician moves upward in the food chain. The more you can prove to be of use to the guys who own the rackets, by doing the illegal deeds yourself, then the more you are trusted and your ascendency is taken care of. If you falter then your backing is given to another. cont.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: US-UK relations

By Maahaadave, Gurudave at Dec 22, 2004 02:26 AM
You seem to think that the U.S and or the U.K governments care what the common people think. This is a big mistake. Politicians in these countries cannot get elected if they are not part of the system. This system is not a chaotic convergence of various corporate concerns that influence politicians willy nilly based on campaign contributions. That is the ontological paradigm that is spewed out by the corporate media. The basic message is "sure the system is corrupt, it's the campaign contributions that corrupt an otherwise good system, if we can fix that, then it's a good system". That is the Big Lie sold to the people. Hitler said a big lie is easier sold to people then a small lie because people have a hard time believing a big lie would be attempted. Campaign contributions mean nothing to politicians. When they leave office they get consulting jobs [influence peddling] worth millions upon millions of dollars for doing nothing, or next to nothing. So it pays to do the bidding of the oligarchs regardless of campaign contributions. In fact you cannot even be in a campaign as a Dem or Rep without support from the party, which is controlled by the oligarchs. cont.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: US-UK relations

By Maahaadave, Gurudave at Dec 22, 2004 02:11 AM
Your rational seems to be based on a misunderstanding of what I wrote. You seem to be saying that by defining the "crooks" as international cartels instead of national elected officials, that I am "spineless" and poop. A careful reading of what I wrote will reveal that I simply disagreed with the premise of a U.K subservience in it's relations with the U.S. Your seeming interpretation would have me saying that there should be no accounting of national governments because they aren't really in control. I implied no such thing. Your idea that the neolib/con agenda as a U.S national interest separate from trans-national oligarchs is something I disagree with as well. The destruction of the welfare state is a slippery slope that the elites fool around with. On the one hand they have Malthusian ideologies which impell them to eliminate social safety nets in order to let "useless eaters" and "the rabble rousing masses of poor" die off. And on the other hand they fear a social paradigm like that found in the third world i.e millions of people living in shanty towns and on the streets, making life dangerous for those unescorted by phalanxes of armed guards. cont.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: US-UK relations

By Gammon101, Bwong at Dec 21, 2004 06:30 AM
The education system in the U.S is a complete travasty(except for the elite schools and universities). You guys are complaining about the American people being politically ignorant. Well, that is not all, how about scientific illiterarcy? I saw some polls a while back that something like 60% of the people surveyed believe in the boble "literally"(God created the world in seven days and other non sense like that). I put "literally" in quotation because I doubt that a large number of Amercians read Hebrew or Greek. I am not sure what good will come if you were to talk to them like you do here.I can say with a lot of confidence that most Americans wouldn't read Chomsky, wouldn't listen to alternative radio.. even if these things are carried by the main stream media 24/7. They would just tune out. IF I think of myself as a "teacher", I wouldn't know how to "educate" people without the pre requisites, but then maybe I should forget about lecturing and try to interact like human being first.. Just my two cents, sorry for the rambling.

Reply this comment

Person

By Gammon101, Bwong at Dec 21, 2004 06:28 AM
I think sometimes "leftists" come across as alooft, holier than thou and "elitist", these impressions(not without some truth, sorry to say)turn people off.I think you may make some headway by trying to understand the people you want to preach to first, commucate with them before attempting to "educate". But this is not easy and likely much less intersting than discussing social theory, Capitalism and "manufacturing consent".

Reply this comment

Person

Re: US-UK relations

By Maahaadave, Gurudave at Dec 21, 2004 04:20 AM
I disagree with the premise that the U.K is The U.S's yes-man. Rather I see a nexus of non governmental entities who control both U.K and U.S policies. Are governments really a factor anymore? Take the Bilderberg association, or the World Economic Forum, or the WTO. What we have is a trans-national oligarchy who give governments their marching orders. To think of the U.S as an entity making decisions separate from these financial brotherhoods, is a mistake IMHO. The U.S is the military arm of the trans-national financial clique which controls the worlds financial wheelings and dealings i.e The World Bank, The IMF, and the worlds largest financial institutions. In my view seeing the U.S as the dominant player is missing the underlying truth of just who and what controls the U.S and U.K governments. Do Blair and Bush make policy that is independent of the plans made in Davos or Amsterdam or the City of London ? Not bloody likely. The spin put out by politicians and corporate media is to convince people of the integrity of their countries sovereignty.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: US-UK relations

By Rotmil, Adamrotmil at Dec 20, 2004 23:12 PM
propaganda n: information that is spread for the purpose of promoting some cause. (Princeton University) No problem if taken literally, but who would do so? If it were me, I think you're all right-on as far as spreading messages. But can't suggest intentionally attaching a negative connotation. For what it's worth, I just published a letter for Dec 21 NY Times about unfair labor conditions abroad. It was a response to a column called "A New World Order." And that's a good platform for reaching a lot people. Please write by all means, but don't be like me spending too much time writing about the act of writing. Just write! ;)

Reply this comment

Person

Re: US-UK relations

By Apocalypse, Unfolding at Dec 19, 2004 05:57 AM
JoeBlog, yeah, that does reflect a weakness in their global PR. But Americans, on average anyways, forget there is an outside world. I mean, if we Americans thought like you Europeans and South Americans and Canadians, well we'd never be in Iraq or Afganistan in the first place, and we definitely wouldn't have re-elected Bush. Here, politics and economics are almost completely removed from mainstream public consciousness. But going to church is central. And sure I know a few groups of educated and political-types. And sure we protested and marched our asses off. But everyone else in the city just drove by - secure and happy in their cars - and barely looked at us or read our signs. I know I come off sounding really pessimistic, but I wonder if our efforts can combat the widespread indoctrination. Am I missing something, or AREN'T THE ODDS STACKED HEAVILY AGAINST US? Here, about, 1.5 or 2% of Americans are politically aware. That's why everyone else is getting bashed by our military while the global population grows more enraged. And we do more and more Christmas shopping.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: US-UK relations

By Apocalypse, Unfolding at Dec 19, 2004 02:51 AM
JoeBlog, I agree their are inherent problems with presenting information without a supporting knowledge base. It is no different from how our media operates, and it does little to promote independent thinking - perhaps it harms it. But, I wonder if it is already too late for any other ploy? Can we really fight the establishment and their information monopoly any othe way? What if we presented propraganda aimed at stimulating political and historical investigation, as well as critical thought? (Don't ask me how yet.) And what if we also included the facts you mention, so that they can deduce (with their newly simulated skills) social reality themselves? Perhaps that formulation would blunt the weakness in presenting ideas outside of a coherent context. But the question still nags at me: don't "they" control most information sources and don't "they" carefully craft that information to suppress thought and questioning? And haven't they grown so successful that our world is what it is? So what can we do to fight this onslaught?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: US-UK relations

By Organum, Baby at Dec 19, 2004 02:11 AM
Let them stay whatever they are. Do NOT try to "save"em . Why dont we just give them good ideas for free ? Improved eco-housing saves el-bill and can be buildt cheaper than "modern" styrofoam-houses. The greed-package will likely be a liability so private capital must se a profitmargin. ( Maybe in prefab ? ) No use "building" a revolutionary setting here guys. Just give them better tools of survival. One could say that the evolution of class-consciousness was interfered with by marx and engels and that this "revelation" allso has been a tool for the ruling classes. According to marx the capitalist system must first be total before revolution. Personally i believe hardline marxists can alienate and destroy much if their revisions of reality does not include post-colonialism as a product of interface between marxism-socialism and capitalism. A "post-capitalism" in a way. All capitalisms traits intact but different recation to stimulus. SATYAGRAHA !!!

Reply this comment

Person

Re: US-UK relations

By Rotmil, Adamrotmil at Dec 18, 2004 08:26 AM
i once wrote some comments about fighting fire with fire, but edited what i was typing. you'd actually want to fight it with water, right? so okay, we drop the negative connotion and basically we're just talking about spreading messages. and that should be easy. there are so many facts, even within mainstream news, you can just quote the stuff. use actual facts and let people draw their own conclusions based on their own conscience. you might be interested in the book _Propaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes_ by Jacques Eullil, which talks about belief systems in mass cultures. It seems to be a book that might be up your alley.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: US-UK relations

By Apocalypse, Unfolding at Dec 18, 2004 02:11 AM
Yeah Sigma-6, I agree that the Marxists-Lenninists I know are a little out of touch with social reality. They actually approach people, trying to gain new members by saying something like "I'm a socialist and I think capitalism sucks, wanna talk politics?" And while there is nothing wrong with this, I would ask: "Can you and your organization convert more people to your side, inside of a limited time frame, faster than the news/advertising/entertainment industry can, inside of that same time frame?" And since the answer should be "NO," I fail to see why they would proceed with that approach. But I still have respect for them. Too bad they don't seem very open to my ideas or suggestions - they aren't standard Marx or Lenin. Oh well. What are we going to do? Honestly, I find it a little romantic to imagine living near the end ... but even more romantic trying to push that end further and further into the future.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: US-UK relations

By Apocalypse, Unfolding at Dec 18, 2004 02:03 AM
Anyways, something I suspect to be a major weakness in the idea above - creating a updateable and evolving database on strategies and tactics for "spreading the word" - is the likelihood of CIA/NSA/FBI infiltration and subsequent suppression. Its happened before and it will happen again. That considered, can we brainstorm ideas that might overcome that difficulty, or any other difficulties that might arise? surrounded by absurdities galore, and perhaps I'm more absurd than it all

Reply this comment

Person

Re: US-UK relations

By Apocalypse, Unfolding at Dec 18, 2004 02:01 AM
Adamrotmil, it is true that "propaganda" carries negative connotations. But my purpose in using that term was to highlight the fact that we should "fight fire with fire." However, in no way does that mean we should call our campaign a "propaganda campaign" when presenting it to the public. For once, I'd claim we should utilize some Orwellian rhetoric, maybe package our ideas in some glitzy wrapping screaming "read me! it's great for your self-esteem, your self-image, your longing for belonging to something, blah blah." And Baby, we are all psycho in that respect ... I mean, what options do we have to choose from when we want a quick meal outside the house? We're right in the smacking center of it all, it'd take serious time and training and a quite different set of options (for me anyways) to disregard those golden arches. continued ...

Reply this comment

Person

Re: US-UK relations

By Organum, Baby at Dec 18, 2004 01:22 AM
This child believes in unfolding apocalypse. To turn the tide it is neccesary to have these weapons of propaganda at disposal. The wast anglosaxon cultural area is major stage of western culture and thus should be focal point. sustainability should be job nr one and the evangelical communes could maybe be swayed to introduce moral norms. This powerbase is important. ( In the good book the good people are not the ones to bring about armaghedon are they? ) So many tecniques are available to improve living-conditions and at the same time save money and world-energy. Leftlbs are nok the most pop people in those counties ( I hear ) but the good message of solidarity and sustainability must out. PS thralldom of chocolateburgerdietdumbdrug-industry ? I saw supersize me yesterday and went straight for a burger afterwards. Psycho ???

Reply this comment

Person

Re: US-UK relations

By Rotmil, Adamrotmil at Dec 18, 2004 01:15 AM
wouldn't call such a task propaganda (makes for a bad slogan, to say the least) but it's certainly a good idea to spread messages that expose lies and raise awareness on important issues. some form of coordination and audience-research would also be wise. especially if you wanted to reach the main stream.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: US-UK relations

By Apocalypse, Unfolding at Dec 17, 2004 23:40 PM
Guys/Gals, I'm really interested in this idea. It'd be like our own marketing/research program. And it could offer very specific, very refined and sophisticated advice to activists worldwide trying to change public opinion. Imagine if this project grew in scope and scale. Imagine the vast interchange and evolution in ideas and their implementation. Imagine the direct involvement with and the feeling of unity with something greater. Or is this already under way? a concerned but filthy animal

Reply this comment

Person

Re: US-UK relations

By Apocalypse, Unfolding at Dec 17, 2004 23:39 PM
So what's all this ranting leading to? I propose we spend some serious time and energy crafting propraganda - developing information packages tailored specifically for different demographic sectors. We could emphasise the moral issues with the religious. We could highlight the economic exploitation with the working class. We could focus on race issues with minorities. etc etc And ideally, we could continue to adjust and improve the marketing techniques we use to sell our ideas. As new infomation surfaces, new goals emerge or new insights are gained from practice, we would make the pertinent changes in what information we present, how it is organized, and what sequences to deliver them in.. Wouldn't it be powerful to develop rhetoric and choose focal ideas that are perfectly matched for liberating a specific demographic, for instance evangelical Christians, from their economic and political misconceptions? Doesn't the establishment, the media and the entertainment industry work the same way but push in the exact opposite direction?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: US-UK relations

By Apocalypse, Unfolding at Dec 17, 2004 23:38 PM
What I wonder is this: can we build our own propaganda machine? If the fight is for public consciousness - for the very hearts and minds of the Western citizenry - isn't the creation of our own propaganda machine a neccessary step in escalating this information war? Ok Ok ... we've got Znet and liberal blogs and countless other alternative media broadcasters. But who do they reach? Definitely very very few evangelicals, or any Christians for that matter. The underclass, the people working 12 hour days? No way. Teenage pregnant moms? Probably one or two in a million.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: US-UK relations

By Dunne, Tom at Dec 17, 2004 23:27 PM
For some interesting perspective on the Iraq occupation check out Tariq Ali's book "Bush in Babylon". Ali discusses the creation of Iraq by the West; the 'familiar bells' Noam mentions from Keegan are quite apparent after reading this. Assurances by the Brits of being 'liberators, not conquerors' and other parallels are striking. No wonder the origins of Iraq are never mentioned in a media that is always willing to discuss the history of Saddam's atrocities but hardly anything before that, like how Iraq was created in the first place.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: US-UK relations

By Jemstein, Greenjazz at Dec 17, 2004 17:26 PM
Speaking as an Englishman, I'd like to confirm Prof Chomsky's analysis of current UK attitudes. Savage Capitalism has taken hold here with a vengeance, accompanied by its consort Consumerism. McDonalds, Starbucks et al are omnipresent; Walmart owns the ASDA retail chain; UK companies compete with equal glee and rapacity in the global marketplace. Blair, like Bush, is a practising Christian, though whether he's of the Born Again variety is a matter for posterity. Many of us see him as a Centrist, rather than any kind of socialist. The educational and health systems are gradually being privatised, and a two-tier structure is emerging. Wage differentials are very large. Environmental issues are ignored or dismissed with vague promises. Most of Europe is going this way - most of the world, I suspect. The UK may well be the only truly reliable ally for the US in military affairs, but it should be pointed out that Chirac and Schoeder's reservations have not in any substantial way impeded US aggression - nor were they intended to. After all, even Russia did no more than whine briefly when the US started its campaign for global control.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: US-UK relations

By Organum, Baby at Dec 17, 2004 01:13 AM
The US takeover must in most respects have taken place much before that. In ww1 US steelproduction was instrumental for allied vctory. Even before that USA had taken a stand and show of machismo of imperial ambition w monroe doctrine. Isnt it all geographics ? UK won heaps of diplomatic and miltary victories through its island-location outside of europa. Likewise US domination stems from island-like position "outside" of the eurasian continent. ( Hehehe Atlantis )

Reply this comment

Person

Re: US-UK relations

By Mkb3, Mkb51 at Dec 16, 2004 20:03 PM
Who are the mainstream French intellectuals who "are even worse in this regard"? Are the writers for Le Monde Diplomatique [LMD] included? If so I would disagree with your statement. LMD is quite popular among French leftist intellectuals, perhaps even mainstream On the other hand, writers for Le Monde, Libération or Le Novel Observateur might qualify as "mainstream intellectuals". And of course, so would those writers for more rightist wings of the spectrum. So, what is the point?

Reply this comment

Comment On This Blog Post  See All Comments (32)

Loading_border