Privatization of the planet: "a world too big to fail? / Noam Chomsky The democratic uprising in the Arab world has been a spectacular exercise of courage, dedication and commitment of the popular forces that has been fortuitously coincided with a notable rebellion of tens of thousands of people in favor of working people and democracy in Madison, Wisconsin, and other U.S. cities.
must be said, however, that if the paths of the riots in Cairo and Madison came to intersect, in effect were noising opposite: while in Cairo were aimed at the conquest of basic rights denied by the dictatorship, Madison pointed to the defense of rights which had been won through long and hard struggle and are now subject to a divestment assault.
both cases are a microcosm of trends present in the global society that are a variety of courses. The thing is beyond doubt: they will have far reaching consequences. Both what is happening now in the decaying industrial heartland richest and most powerful of human history, as is happening in what President Dwight Eisenhower called "the most strategically important area of \u200b\u200bthe world" ("a stupendous source of strategic power "and" probably the largest prize money in the world in the field of foreign investment "in the words of State Department 40 years, an award that the United States tried to reserve exclusively for themselves and their own allies in the emerging New World Order at the time).
In spite of all the changes since then, one can assume that the current razonabilísimamente policymakers basically maintained its commitment to the trial of the influential adviser to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, AA Berle, whereby the control of the incomparable energy reserves of the Middle East would bring "substantial control of the world." And similarly and in contrast, the loss of control that threaten the global domination project clearly articulated during World War II and persistently maintained even in the face of decisive changes occurred in the world ever since.
Since the war broke in 1939, Washington anticipated that it would end with the U.S. in a position of supremacy. Senior officials from the State Department and foreign policy specialists met repeatedly during the war in order to devise plans for the postwar world. Outlined a "Grand Area" that the U.S. had to dominate, and that included the Western Hemisphere, the Far East and the former British Empire, with its energy resources of the East East.
When Russia began to demolish the Nazi armies after the battle of Stalingrad, the objectives of the Greater Washington began to expand to include the largest possible area of \u200b\u200bEurasia, and least its economic hub in Western Europe. Within the Greater Washington, the U.S. maintained a "undisputed power," with "military and economic supremacy," while it would ensure "limit the exercise of sovereignty" of states capable of interfering with U.S. global aims. The circumstantial wartime plans were soon put for work.
always recognized that Europe could choose an independent course. NATO was designed in part to counter the threat of that independence. No sooner was dissolved in 1989, the official pretext that gave rise to NATO, NATO expanded eastward, in flagrant violation of the verbal promises made to Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. Since then it has become a force driven by U.S. intervention.
The vast range than assumes it well the secretary general of NATO, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, at a conference to inform the organization that "NATO troops have to guard pipelines carrying oil and gas in the direction of the West" and more in general, to protect the sea lanes used by freighters and other "critical infrastructure" of the energy system.
Great Doctrines of the license area are manifested arbitrary military intervention. That was vividly sitting under the Clinton administration, which proclaimed the right to serve U.S. military force to ensure "unhindered access to key markets, energy supplies and strategic resources" and urged them to keep "deployed to Europe and Asia huge military forces," to shape the views of people about us "and "shape events affecting the likelihood of our security."
same principles governed the invasion of Iraq. As has been making clear the U.S. inability to impose their will in Iraq, the real objectives of the invasion can no longer hidden behind a dazzling rhetoric. In November 2007, the White House issued a statement of principles demanding that U.S. forces remain in Iraq indefinitely and linking the fate of that country the privilege of American investors.
Two months later, President Bush informed Congress that he would veto legislation that would put limits on the permanent stationing of U.S. Armed Forces in Iraq or to control by the U.S., the oil resources of Iraq ": some requirements the U.S. had to abandon, in view of the Iraqi resistance.
In Tunisia and Egypt, the recent popular uprisings have won impressive battles, but as reported the Carnegie Endowment, though the names have changed, the systems remain: "A change in the ruling elites and the system of domination is still a distant goal. " The report discusses internal barriers traversed in the path of democracy, but ignores the outside, which, as always, are significant.
U.S. and its Western allies are determined to do everything they can to prevent a genuine democracy in the Arab world.
To understand why, just take a look at the opinion polls in the Arab world by U.S. agencies in polls . Although there has been little publicity of its results, why not stop being known by U.S. planners. Show that overwhelming majorities of Arabs see the U.S. and Israel as the biggest threats they face: they see the U.S. and 90% of the Egyptians, and the whole region, 75% of respondents.
Some Arabs see as a threat to Iran: 10%. Opposition to U.S. policy is so strong that a majority believe that security would improve if Iran's nuclear weapons available (it is believed, for example, 80 & of the Egyptians). Other categories of opinion show similar results. If public opinion could influence the decision, the U.S. could not only control the region, but would be expelled from it and all its allies, which would undermine the fundamental principles of global domination.
The invisible hand of power
Support for democracy is the province of the ideologists and propagandists of the system. In the real world, the disgust felt by the elite democracy is the norm. The evidence is overwhelming that democracy can only be supported while contributing to social and economic objectives, a conclusion reluctantly come more serious scholars.
Contempt the elite of democracy is revealed dramatically in reaction to the leaking WikiLeaks. Received the most attention, with comments bordering on euphoria, it was the cables that were reported on the support of the Arabs to the U.S. position towards Iran. The reference, of course, was to Arab dictators. The attitudes of public opinion even received mention. The guiding principle was clearly set by the specialist at the Carnegie Endowment Middle East, Marwan Muasher, a former senior official of the Jordanian state: "Nothing goes wrong, everything is under control." In short, if the dictators we support, what would I care?.
Muasher is sound doctrine and venerable. To reduce us to a single case of particular relevance today, in an internal debate occurred in 1958, President Eisenhower expressed concern about the "hate campaign waged against us in the Arab world, not by governments but by the people. The National Security Council (NSC, for its acronym in English) explained that the Arab world was the perception that the U.S. supported the Arab dictators and blocking democracy and development to ensure control of the resources of the region .
Moreover, this perception is basically correct, concluded the NSC, and that's what we do, second the doctrine Muasher. Studies by the Pentagon after Sept. 11 confirmed that the same is true today.
is normal for the victors thrown into the dustbin of history, while the victims were taken seriously. Brief comments on this important issue arising perhaps useful here. It is not the first time that Egypt and the U.S. face similar problems and move in directions opposite. It happened also in the early nineteenth century.
Economic historians often argue that Egypt was well placed to undertake a rapid economic growth while the United States. Both countries had a rich agriculture, including cotton, fuel of the first industrial revolution, but, unlike Egypt, the U.S. had to develop the production of cotton and a work force through conquest, extermination and slavery with consequences that are evident even today in the reserves for survivors and prisons that have mushroomed since the time of Reagan to house the population that the neoliberal industrialization made hat.
A fundamental difference was that the U.S. achieved independence , which gave them the freedom to ignore the requirements of economic theory, taught at the time of Adam Smith on terms similar to those now preach to the developing societies. Smith urged the emancipated colonies to produce raw materials for export and import, however, top British manufactures, and certainly not to try to monopolize crucial goods, notably cotton. Any other way, Smith said, "far from accelerating, delaying the further increase its annual production value, and far from promoting, obstruct the progress of their country towards real wealth and greatness."
gained independence, the colonies were free to ignore this advice and take, however, the course followed by England, the course, ie an independent state capable of promoting publicly developing their own high tariffs designed to protect to their industry of the UK-for the moment, textiles, then steel and other products, and for you to perform many other mechanisms to accelerate industrial development. The independent Republic also sought to make himself the monopoly of cotton, in order to "make all other nations at our feet," said the British enemy, and not deprived of Jacksonian presidents to declare the win Texas and half of Mexico.
possible path in the analogue of Egypt went through, however, the British power. Lord Palmerston stated that "any idea of \u200b\u200bfairness can be an obstacle in the flow of such great and paramount interests" as the British in an effort to preserve its economic and political hegemony. Expressly declared, in passing, his "hatred" towards the "ignorant barbarian" Muhammed Ali, who had avilantado to propose an independent course, and deploying the fleet and the British financial power to end the fight in Egypt by independence and economic development.
After World War II, when the U.S. displaced Britain's global hegemony, Washington took the same position, making clear that the U.S. would not provide any help to Egypt, unless they abide by the rules usaderas for weak rules, incidentally, that the U.S. continued to violate, imposing high tariffs on Egyptian cotton causing a debilitating shortage of dollars. The usual interpretation of the principles of the market.
hardly surprising, then, that the "hate campaign" against the U.S. that Eisenhower worried based on the perception that the U.S. supports dictators and democracy and the block development as do its allies.
It should be added in defense of Adam Smith himself clearly realized what would happen if Britain followed the rules of economic theory to use, we now call "neoliberalism." He warned that if the industrialists, traders and British investors were opened to the world, could make a profit, but England would suffer. But he felt that would be guided by national bias, as if by an invisible hand to England were not reserved the revenge of economic rationality.
The step is hard to forget. It is the only time it appears the famous phrase "invisible hand" throughout the Wealth of Nations. The other founder of classical economics, David Ricardo, drew similar conclusions in the hope that the home bias would lead men of property to "content with low profit rates in their own country, rather than seek employment more advantage of their wealth in foreign nations "; feelings., these, which, he added," sorry to see weakened. " Predictions aside, the instincts of classical economics were full of good sense.
"threat" Iran and China
The uprising for democracy in the Arab world is sometimes compared with that recorded in the Eastern Europe in 1989, but had enough dubious reasons. In 1989 democracy uprising was tolerated by the Russians, and supported by western powers doctrine under the broiler, is patently accommodated the economic and strategic objectives, making it a noble achievement, honored everywhere, unlike struggles the parallel development in Central America by the "fundamental rights of the people" in the words of the Archbishop of El Salvador, one of the hundreds of thousands of victims of armed and trained military forces in Washington. There was Nunkun Gorbachev in the West during those horrible years, and still have not. And the Western powers remain hostile to democracy in the Arab world for good reason.
Great Doctrines of the area continue to apply to the crises and confrontations of our days. In Western circles policy decisions, as well as among political commentators, it is considered that, as well as the Iranian threat would represent the greatest danger to world order, the U.S. foreign policy should focus primarily there, leaving the European foreign policy educated the role of diplomatic negotiations.
Now, what exactly is the Iranian threat? The Pentagon and U.S. intelligence services give us an authoritative answer. In its report last year on security overall, made it clear that the threat is not military in nature. Iranian military spending is "relatively low compared to the rest of the region," he concluded. Its military doctrine is strictly "defensive, designed to stop a possible invasion and to force a diplomatic solution to the hostilities." Iran only has "limited ability to project force beyond its borders." Regarding the nuclear option, "Iran's nuclear program, and willingness to keep open the possibility of developing nuclear weapons, is a central part of its strategy of deterrence." So much for the quotations.
Iranian clerical regime's brutal, it's not beyond doubt, represents a threat to their own people, but it can hardly be said to exceed in this area to U.S. allies. But the threat lies elsewhere, and is, indeed, ominous. One element of it is the Iranian potential for deterrence, an illegitimate exercise of sovereignty that might interfere with the freedom of U.S. action in the region. It is patently obvious why Iran seeks to build a deterrent: to explain, just take a look at the distribution of military bases and nuclear forces in the region.
seven years ago, the Israeli military historian Martin van Creveld wrote that "the world has witnessed how the U.S. have attacked Iraq, has come to be seen, without any reason. If the Iranians did not try to build nuclear weapons, would be stark mad, "especially being found, as they are under constant threat of attack in violation of the UN Charter. They finish building it or not is a question unanswered, but maybe.
This is that the Iranian threat goes beyond deterrence capability. It also seeks to expand its influence in neighboring countries, underscore the Pentagon and U.S. intelligence services, and thus, to "destabilize" the region, as stated in the technical jargon of the discourse of foreign policy: the U.S. military invasion and occupation of Iran's neighbors is "stabilization" Iran's efforts to extend its influence towards them, something in every way illegitimate.
These uses language have become routine. Therefore, the preeminent foreign policy expert James Chace properly used the term "stability" in its technical sense, he explained that to achieve "stability" in Chile, it was necessary to "destabilize" the country by overthrowing the elected government of Salvador Allende and installing the dictatorship of General Augusto Pinochet.
Other concerns raised by Iran worthy of being explored, but it may suffice to illustrate the above guiding principles and the status they enjoy in the imperial culture. As stressed in your day planners Franklin Delano Roosevelt at the dawn of the system contemporary world, the U.S. can not tolerate "any exercise of sovereignty" that interferes with their overall purposes.
U.S. and Europe will one o'clock to punish Iran for its threat to stability, but it is useful to remember how isolated they are. Non-aligned countries have strongly supported Iran's right to enrich uranium. In the region, Arab public opinion is even more favorable to the development of nuclear weapons by Iran. The largest regional power, Turkey, voted against the latest sanctions advocated by U.S. in the Security Council, and he did with Brazil, the most admired country in the South. His disobedience was severely censured, and not for the first time, Turkey was already bitterly condemned in 2003 when his government supported the will of 95% of its population and refused to participate in the invasion of Iraq, showing a weak notion of democracy "Western style.
After his wrongdoing in the Security Council last year, Turkey was reprimanded by the head of Obama's diplomacy in European affairs, Philip Gordon: I had to "demonstrate its commitment as a partner in the West. "An academic who works for the Council on Foreign Relations asked:" How to keep the Turks on the path that they have to? ". For the orders, as good Democrats.
Brazil's Lula was warned in an editorial in the New York Times: their joint efforts with Turkey to open a solution to the problem of enriched uranium outside the framework established by the American power was a "blemish on the Brazilian leader's legacy. "In a word: do as I say, to see or not.
An interesting side light finally turned off, the offers that the negotiation Iran-Turkey-Brazil enjoyed the approval of Obama, presumably on the idea would fail, providing thus a new weapon against Iran. When successfully completed, the discharge changed to censorship, and Washington was ready to impose in fits and starts a Security Council resolution that ultimately was so weak that even the China signed: it is now punishable by stick the letter of the resolution, instead of supporting the unilateral guidelines Washington.
Although the U.S. may tolerate disobedience Turkish, even if with dismay, China is far more difficult to ignore. The press warns that "investors and Chinese businessmen are filling a void now in Iran, to the extent that companies in many other nations, notably European, will: especially concerned about the expansion of its dominant role in the energy industries Iranians. Washington is reacting to a point of desperation.
The State Department warned China that if you want to be accepted into the international community, a technical term to refer to the U.S. to anyone who disagrees with them, "can not" stand aside and evade its international responsibilities [which] are very clear "and that is: secondary U.S. orders. It is highly unlikely that this will cause the least impression on China.
There is much concern also with the growing military threat from China. A recent study by the Pentagon warned that China's military budget is about "a fifth of Pentagon spending in military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan," turn a fraction of the U.S. military budget, needless to say. The expansion of Chinese military forces could "blind the ability of U.S. warships to operate in international waters off its shores," added the New York Times.
off the coast of China, of course, no one has proposed yet that the U.S. remove its military forces close to Caribbean Chinese warships. China's inability to understand the rules of international civility is further illustrated by their objections to plans for the nuclear aircraft carrier George Washington to join the naval exercises developed a few miles off the coast of China, purportedly ability to bomb Beijing.
Instead, the West fully understands that those U.S. operations are undertaken, all to defend its own stability and security. The liberal-left New Republic expresses its concern that "China sends ten warships in international waters, just before the Japanese island of Okinawa." It's a provocation, unlike the fact that not bother to mention that Washington has turned the island into a major military base, in defiance of vehement protests from the people of Okinawa, this is not a provocation, according to usadero principle that we are the owners of the world.
Leaving aside the deeply-rooted imperial doctrine, there are good reasons for China's neighbors worry about the growing military power and its trade. And while Arab public opinion supports a possible Iranian nuclear weapons program, we, from Of course, we should not. The literature on international politics is full of proposals to avoid this threat. One obvious rarely merits discussion: work towards the establishment of a Nuclear Weapons Free Zone (NWFZ) ne the region.
The proposal, once again, was born in Conference of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) held in the headquarters of the United Nations last May. Egypt, in his capacity as president of the 118 nations that make up the Non-Aligned Movement, called for starting negotiations for a NWFZ Middle East, as had been agreed, also, including U.S. West, "in the 1995 NPT conference.
International support for this proposal is so overwhelming, Obama had no choice but to join it formally. Good idea, Washingtn said at the conference, but not now. The U.S. made it clear, moreover, that Israel should stay out of it: they are not eligible proposals requesting to put Israel's nuclear program under the auspices of the International Atomic Energy Agency or require information on "facilities and nuclear activities of Israel. "
Suffice it to get an idea of \u200b\u200bthe method that addresses the problem of Iranian nuclear threat.
Privatization of the planet
Although the doctrine of the Large Area remains in place, the ability to perform it has declined noticeably. The top of U.S. power came after World War II, when available literally half of the world's wealth. But, of course, was declining, as other industrial economies were recovering from the devastation of war and decolonization began walking circuitously. In the early 70's, the U.S. participation in global wealth had decreased to 25% and the industrial world had become tripolar: North America, Europe and East Asia (then based in Japan).
in the 70 There was also a drastic change in the U.S. economy, which led to the financialization and export production. Several factors converged to create a vicious circle of radical concentration of wealth, primarily in the fraction of 1% of the population at the top: basically, executives, managers and hedge funds and people like that. That brought the concentration of political power, which in turn resulted in public policies conducive to increasing the concentration of economic, fiscal policies, corporate governance standards, deregulation, etc., Etc.
Meanwhile, the costs of election campaigns soared, pushing the political parties into the pockets of concentrated capital, financial increasingly: the Republicans, in conscience, the Democrats now are what we used to call moderate Republicans, "behind.
Elections have become a grotesque farce run by the public relations industry. After his 2008 victory, Obama won an award from the industry for best marketing campaign of the year.
Executives sector were elated. Explained in the press of business since the Reagan era had been advertising the candidates as if it were any commodity, but the 2008 campaign was his great achievement and change the way that campaign advertising addresses large companies.
elections are expected in 2012 will cost 2 billion dollars, mainly provided by big business. Can not therefore surprising that Obama is electing leaders of business for senior positions. Opinion public is angry and frustrated, but as the principles governing Muasher, that is irrelevant.
While wealth and power have been concentrated in a narrow band, the real incomes of the bulk of the population have been stagnant and people are increasingly loaded with hours of work , debt and asset inflation regularly destroyed by the financial crisis began to threaten from the regulatory apparatus began to be dismantled from the 80's.
None of that is problematic for the very wealthy, who benefit from public insurance policy called "too big to fail." Banks and investment firms can transact risky, with high yields, when the system inevitably collapses dad can always go to state for the taxpayer to rescue, yes, well asiditos their copies of books by Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman.
Such has been the most common process since the Reagan years, each new crisis more extreme than the previous (para el grueso de la población, claro está). Ahora mismo, el desempleo real se halla a niveles de la Gran Depresión para buena parte de la población, mientras que Gdman Sachs, uno de los principales arquitectos de la presente crisis, es más rico que nunca. Acaba de anunciar, impertérrito, la cifra de 17,5 mil millones de dólares en concepto de remuneraciones para sus ejecutivos en el pasado año, y el presidente de su consejo de administración, Lloyd Blankfein, sólo en concepto de bonos, recibirá 12,6 millones de dólares, mientras su salario base se triplicará.
forward anything not focus on such incidents. Consequently, propaganda has to look for other culprits in recent months, public sector workers, their salariazos, their exorbitant pensions, and so forth. All in the best tradition of imaginary Reaganites with moms black limousines brought in by their drivers to collect the checks in public welfare agencies, and other models of the sort that is not worth even mentioning. We all have to tighten our belts, well, almost everyone.
The teachers are a particularly suitable target, as part of a deliberate effort to destroy the public education system, from kindergartens to universities childhood, by way of privatization, again good policy for the rich, but disastrous for the population, as well as long-term health of the economy. But that is another of the externalities that must be put aside, while market principles prevail.
Another super white : immigrants. That has been true throughout U.S. history, more so in times of economic crisis, but now exacerbated by a sense that our country is being taken away from us: the white population will soon be a minority. One can understand the fear of individuals who feel aggrieved, but the cruelty of immigration policies is stupefying.
What immigrants become targets of these attacks? In eastern Massachusetts, where I live, many are Maya who escaped the genocide in the Guatemalan high preferred by the murderers Reagan. Others are Mexicans, victims of NAFTA free trade agreement favored by Clinton, one of those rare agreements between governments that get hurt the peoples of all countries (three in this case: U.S., Mexico and Canada).
When NAFTA was approved in Congress against popular objections in 1994 when Clinton also initiated the militarization of the Frontera between Mexico and the U.S., before reasonably open. Knowing that Mexican farmers could not compete with publicly subsidized agribusiness in the U.S. and that Mexican companies would not survive competition from U.S. multinationals. Transnational is to be considered as "national" under false nickname of free trade agreements: a privilege, incidentally, agreed only to legal persons who are the companies, not people of flesh and bone.
As expected, these measures brought a current of refugees fallen into despair, and the resulting anti-immigrant hysteria among the victims of the same internal state policies and Large companies private.
Something very similar is happening in Europe, where racism is probably more virulent than in the U.S.. One can not but observe with astonishment when Italy complains flow of immigrants from Libya, one scene of the first genocide after the First World War happened in the now-liberated this country at the hands of the fascist government of Italy. ;
Or when France, still the chief protector of the brutal dictatorships that governed their former colonies, manages to ignore the subject for her heinous atrocities in Africa, while French President Nicolas Sarkozy warning, solemn, on the "wave of immigrants," Marine Le Pen will object that does nothing to prevent it. I need not mention Belgium, which would take the palm in what Adam Smith called "the savage injustice of the Europeans."
The rise of neo-fascist parties in much of Europe as a phenomenon would be scary enough even without having to remember what happened on the continent in the recent past. Imagine the reaction, if the Jews were expelled from France, condemned to misery and oppression, and compared with the lack of reaction when same applies to the Roma, the brutalized population of Europe, also victims of the Holocaust.
In Hungary, the neo-fascist party Jobbik achieved 17% of the vote in national elections, something that is perhaps not so surprising if one recalls that three-quarters of the population believed to be worse now than under communist domination. Sntirse could perhaps relieved by the fact that in Austria the far right Joerg Haider achieved only 10% of the vote in 2008, if it were not for the new Freedom Party, which is further to the right, managed to exceed 17%. It is chilling to recall that in 1928 the Nazis consiguierion less than 3% of the vote in Germany.
In England, the British National Party and British Defence League, in the right ultrarracista are important force. (What's happening in Holland you will know better than me.) Germany [former Social Democrat] Thilo Sarrazin laments that immigrants are destroying the country and get a bestseller with his lament, while Chancellor Angela Merkel, condemned the book even declares that multicultutralismo has "failed miserably" imported Turks do the dirty work in Germany have failed to point to become blond, blue-eyed, true Aryans.
About retain a sense for irony recall that Benjamin Franklin, a leading figure of the Enlightenment, warned that the newly emancipated American colonies should tread carefully when admitting German immigration, because they were too dark, and so are the Swedes. Until well into the twentieth century, the ridiculous myths about Anglo-Saxon purity were common in the U.S., even among presidents and other figures in viso. Racism in the literary culture has been an obscenity unhealthy, but worse has been in practice, needless to say. Esmucho easier to eradicate polio this horrible plague reappears again and again, and with greater virulence, in times of economic malaise.
I can not conclude without mentioning another externality to be overlooked in the market system: the fate of the species. Systemic risk in the financial system can remedy the taxpayer wins, but nobody will come to rescue the environment is being devastated. That must be devastated, is little more than an institutional imperative. Business leaders who are developing advertising campaigns to convince people that anthropogenic global warming is a leftist hoax fully understand the seriousness of the threat, but they have to maximize their profits and market shares in the short term. If they do them, so will others.
This vicious circle could prove lethal. To realize what peremptory danger, just take a look at the new U.S. Congress, enthroned by finance and business advertising. Almost all are climate deniers. Have already begun to cut funding for measures that can mitigate the environmental catastrophe. And what's worse, some of them really believe it, for example, the new head of the subcommittee on environment, which goes about explaining that global warming can not be a problem because God promised to Noah that there would be another flood universal.
If such things were happening in some remote little country, might even smile. But they are happening in the richest and most powerful country in the world. And before us from silly laughter, we must remember that this economic crisis back in no small measure to the fanatical faith in dogmas such as the hypothesis of market efficiency, and in general, what the Joseph Stiglitz Nobel Prize 15 years ago called "religion" of the omniscience of the Market: a religion that prevented central banks and professional economists seem to realize the existence of a huge housing bubble without any basis in the fundamentals of economic life and, at the outbreak, proved devastating to the whole economy.
All that and more, can proceed while the doctrine governing Muasher. While the bulk of the population remains passive, apathetic, given to consumerism or hatred against vulnerable, powerful in the world can continue doing what they please, and those who survive will be left but that does not contemplate the disastrous outcome. ;
(*) Noam Chomsky is professor emeritus of the Department of Linguistics and Philosophy MIT. Universally recognized as the innovator of contemporary linguistics, is the most quoted living author, the most prominent public intellectual of our time and an iconic political figure of the global anti-imperialist resistance. The text translated here is from a conference held in Amsterdam last March.
