Original Message:
-----------------
Subject: Michael Moore, Noam Chomsky, and Greg Palast Hit Bestseller List WithIncendiary Books: Angry White Men
THIS IS MY AMERICA AND THERE ARE MORE OF US THAN MANY (ESPECIALLY ABROAD)
THINK!
The Village Voice
Michael Moore, Noam Chomsky, and Greg Palast Hit Bestseller List With
Incendiary Books: Angry White Men
by Eric Demby
August 21 - 27, 2002
http://www.villagevo.../0234/demby.php
The success of a handful of books that assail the Bush administration as
hypocritical, incompetent, and corrupt has demarcated a groundswell of
Americans who desire truth about their leaders amid the dearth of critical
and official information that is today's mainstream media. It's a
demographic large enough that any politician or pollster would identify it
as pivotal in an election: Stupid White Men by Michael Moore now has
500,000 copies in print and is still number five on the New York Times Top
10; 9-11 by Noam Chomsky has 205,000 in print; and The Best Democracy Money
Can Buy by investigative journalist Greg Palast, published by an indie
British press, just sold its paperback rights to American publisher Penguin
Putnam for an undisclosed amount.
After griping extensively during interviews with the Voice about a media
blackout of the viewpoints expressed in their books, each of these authors
arrived at a similar conclusion: Their popularity as "dissenting" authors
has extended beyond the liberal fringes and represents the fruit of a
grassroots movement that corporate America, and potentially the government,
can no longer ignore.
On Michael Moore's recent lecture tour, he became convinced that he was no
longer just preaching to the converted. "I look out at the auditorium or
gymnasium, and I don't see the tree huggers and the granola heads," he told
the Voice. "I see Mr. and Mrs. Middle America who voted for George W. Bush,
who just lost $60,000 because their 401(k) is gone. And they believed in
the American Dream as it was designed by the Bushes and Wall Street, and
then they woke up to realize it was just that, a dream."
In a September 19 interview collected in his latest book, 9-11, Noam
Chomsky called America "a leading terrorist state," and he explained how
September 11 will "accelerate the agenda of militarization, regimentation,
reversal of social democratic programs [and] transfer of wealth to narrow
sectors." This mix of unsettling and prescient commentary helped ignite the
sales of 9-11, a paperback collection of interviews with Chomsky, in which
he catalogs questionable U.S. government actions (the boycott of Iraq and
the vengeful "terrorist attack" on Nicaragua in the '80s, for example) that
have sullied its reputation around the world. The 205,000 copies in print
place it among the bestselling titles of Chomsky's more than 30 books. It's
worth recalling that Chomsky's early books criticizing U.S. policy in
southeast Asia were bibles of the Vietnam anti-war movement.
Although its views are in many ways the most incendiary of the three books,
9-11 followed the most conventional promotional path. Chomsky's small but
influential New York-based publisher, Seven Stories Press, took out
full-page ads in liberal publications like The Nation, In These Times, and
The Progressive; the book also received prominent placement in bookstores
upon its release. When it started selling, the mainstream media came
calling on the iconoclastic Chomsky. After profiles ran in The New York
Times and The Washington Post in May 2002, he faced off with
arch-conservative Bill Bennett on CNN's American Morning With Paula Zahn,
an appearance that created a definite spike in sales, according to Greg
Ruggiero, Chomsky's editor.
The public's hunger for an alternative analysis of America's role in
inciting terrorism drove sales beyond expectations, surprising even Chomsky
himself. He believes 9-11's strong sales suggest that, "for many people,
the 9-11 atrocities were a kind of 'wake-up call,' which has led to
considerable openness, concern, skepticism, and dissidence." For the
September 11 "anniversary," Barnes & Noble has elected to display the book
prominently, with no prodding from the publisher.
Skepticism and dissent have fueled the runaway sales of Michael Moore's
Stupid White Men. But according to Moore, his publisher, HarperCollins's
ReganBooks, saw these qualities as a liability after the WTC attacks. In
the months following September 11, the book's original release date, Moore
claims the publisher pressured him to revise Stupid White Men, threatening
to pulp the book if he did not change the section that refers to Bush as a
"threat to our national security" in a letter calling for his resignation.
The book also calls Bush's election a "coup," making him a "trespasser on
federal land, a squatter in the Oval Office." Moore said he was told by an
executive, at a particularly contentious meeting, "We're united-we-stand
behind George W. Bush . . . and we are asking you to tone down your
dissent."
HarperCollins wouldn't comment on its discussions with Moore, but Lisa
Herling, director of corporate communications, explained the publisher's
revision request: "As with any political book, you want to make sure it
hasn't become outdated or need any adjustment based on the events of 9-11."
At a time when Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer was telling people to "watch
what they say" such adjustments seemed Ashcroftian. But after steadfastly
refusing to alter the content of Stupid White Men, Moore claims he was
faced with the sole option of censoring himself and then paying for the
reprint costs. He dropped the gloves—the book was finished.
Were it not for librarians, the story would have ended there, with a book
by one of America's most popular liberals essentially suppressed by the
publishing division of Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. However, on December 1,
Ann Sparanese, an Englewood, New Jersey, librarian, heard Moore complain
about Stupid White Men's untimely end in a speech to the annual New Jersey
Citizens Action conference. Within days, librarian chat rooms and listservs
were ablaze with rumors of censorship, and, according to Moore,
HarperCollins was deluged with angry e-mails from librarians calling them
censors and book-banners. Herling said the publisher was "not aware of
[HarperCollins] receiving a large number of e-mails from librarians."
Spectacularly, by December's end HarperCollins agreed to release the book
without change in February.
"If I seem to have this kinda weird optimism in the people of this
country," Moore said, "it's because I know that they're the ones
responsible for the success of this book." Stupid White Men has since
reached number one on bestseller lists in the U.S., Canada, and England,
and has remained in the New York Times Top 10 for all 25 weeks since its
release, placing it among the top-selling nonfiction books of 2002 thus
far.
Following a four-city book tour organized by HarperCollins (the tour was
increased to 12 cities once the book took off), Moore sensed an expanding
chink in Bush's unanimous-support armor. Soon after, Moore embarked on a
47-city American tour that he had assembled with his two sisters. In March,
he addressed 7000 potential readers at the Austin launch of populist writer
and radio commentator Jim Hightower's Rolling Thunder Down-Home Democracy
Tour; in April, he spoke to 5000 people at a Ralph Nader rally at Tampa's
Sun Dome; and he attracted 3500 people to a solo lecture at Evergreen State
College in Olympia, Washington. In May, Moore had bounced publishers to
Warner Books, garnering a $3 million deal for his next two books. Last
week, Variety reported that he was negotiating to make an animated movie
based on Stupid White Men. Just a year after a sea of flags virtually
drowned it out, political dissent is now a bankable commodity.
"My appearance in their towns gave them the opportunity to not be afraid to
speak their minds, and to be there with thousands of other people who felt
the same way," Moore explained. "It was a great emotional and morale boost
to those who believe that the strength of a democracy is built upon the
willingness of the citizens to question what's going on."
It's this sort of questioning that has turned Greg Palast's The Best
Democracy Money Can Buy, a collection of his most explosive articles about
everything from what he calls the "Bush family cartel" to the purging of
African American felons from Florida's voter rolls by Republicans during
the 2000 Presidential election, into a hot-selling book as well. Published
in February by the small, London-based Pluto Press, the book has more than
40,000 copies in print, despite spotty U.S. distribution and scant
mainstream review coverage. Nevertheless, in June, it managed to crack the
Top 10 of the Los Angeles Times and San Francisco Chronicle bestseller
lists.
Palast, an American journalist who publishes mainly in The Guardian and
reports for BBC TV's Newsnight, told the Voice that many of his book's
sales have been driven by non-traditional media outlets. He credits
Pacifica Radio Network, for instance, for plugging the book, as well as his
appearances at places like Washington, D.C.'s Politics & Prose bookstore.
Like Moore, but without the benefit of his name recognition, Palast cobbled
together his own reading tour through 20 American cities, drawing crowds of
more than 1000 over two March nights in Berkeley and 350 to Walker Studios
in Tribeca in April. "What I'm happy about is that with no money, no
marketing, and a completely amateur operation, you can get 40,000 copies
sold in the U.S.," Palast said, "if you've got something to say." The Best
Democracy Money Can Buy has now been translated into Spanish, Japanese,
Croatian, Turkish, Italian, Korean, and Bulgarian.
His underground success caught the eye of Kelly Notaras, an editor at
Penguin Putnam's Plume imprint, which recently purchased the U.S. paperback
rights to The Best Democracy Money Can Buy. "The way this book did so well
in hardcover was almost exclusively through Greg's events," she told the
Voice. The paperback will be updated with new information about Bush's
Enron connections for its February 2003 release. "It's not the kind of book
you have to be ultra-liberal to be interested in," said Notaras, "because
the things that he's discovered are appalling, and there's nobody out there
right now doing the same thing."
The rise of Palast's media star—he's putting his Observer column on hold to
work on films and books, and will be contributing to Harper's—is coinciding
with the expanding of America's appetite for unsanctioned perspectives.
After joining the NAACP's Voter Empowerment Tour through Florida in
September (where he'll also be filming Jeb and Kate Bush), he's hooking up
with People for the American Way in October, then Jim Hightower and Ralph
Nader's "democracy" tours in November. He is also scheduled to speak at the
Apollo Theater in October (date to be announced). Palast responded to this
explosion of attention and his jump from an indie press to a mainstream
publisher by way of complimenting Michael Moore: "Apparently, this is the
moment for the awful truth. No one wants to miss the next Stupid White
Men."
[ Izmena poruke: sonja na dan 2002-08-21 20:39 ]
THIS IS MY AMERICA
Started by
sonja
, Aug 21 2002 15:51
110 replies to this topic
#2
MarinaK
-
- Members
- 274 posts
Posted 21 August 2002 - 18:33
Kad vec spominjes Greg Palasta evo excerpt iz njegove knjige The Best Democracy Money Can Buy:
(The Observer, April 29, 2001; also published at Greg Palast's web site on Oct. 10, 2001)
IMF's four steps to damnation
How crises, failures, and suffering finally drove a Presidential adviser to the wrong side of the barricades
By Gregory Palast
It was like a scene out of Le Carré: the brilliant agent comes in from the cold and, in hours of debriefing, empties his memory of horrors committed in the name of an ideology gone rotten.
But this was a far bigger catch than some used-up Cold War spy. The former apparatchik was Joseph Stiglitz, ex-chief economist of the World Bank. The new world economic order was his theory come to life.
He was in Washington for the big confab of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. But instead of chairing meetings of ministers and central bankers, he was outside the police cordons. The World Bank fired Stiglitz two years ago. He was not allowed a quiet retirement: he was excommunicated purely for expressing mild dissent from globalisation World Bank-style.
Here in Washington we conducted exclusive interviews with Stiglitz, for The Observer and Newsnight, about the inside workings of the IMF, the World Bank, and the bank's 51% owner, the US Treasury.
And here, from sources unnamable (not Stiglitz), we obtained a cache of documents marked, 'confidential' and 'restricted'.
Stiglitz helped translate one, a 'country assistance strategy'. There's an assistance strategy for every poorer nation, designed, says the World Bank, after careful in-country investigation.
But according to insider Stiglitz, the Bank's 'investigation' involves little more than close inspection of five-star hotels. It concludes with a meeting with a begging finance minister, who is handed a 'restructuring agreement' pre-drafted for 'voluntary' signature.
Each nation's economy is analysed, says Stiglitz, then the Bank hands every minister the same four-step programme.
Step One is privatisation. Stiglitz said that rather than objecting to the sell-offs of state industries, some politicians - using the World Bank's demands to silence local critics - happily flogged their electricity and water companies. 'You could see their eyes widen' at the possibility of commissions for shaving a few billion off the sale price.
And the US government knew it, charges Stiglitz, at least in the case of the biggest privatisation of all, the 1995 Russian sell-off. 'The US Treasury view was: "This was great, as we wanted Yeltsin re-elected. We DON'T CARE if it's a corrupt election." '
Stiglitz cannot simply be dismissed as a conspiracy nutter. The man was inside the game - a member of Bill Clinton's cabinet, chairman of the President's council of economic advisers.
Most sick-making for Stiglitz is that the US-backed oligarchs stripped Russia's industrial assets, with the effect that national output was cut nearly in half.
After privatisation, Step Two is capital market liberalisation. In theory this allows investment capital to flow in and out. Unfortunately, as in Indonesia and Brazil, the money often simply flows out.
Stiglitz calls this the 'hot money' cycle. Cash comes in for speculation in real estate and currency, then flees at the first whiff of trouble. A nation's reserves can drain in days.
And when that happens, to seduce speculators into returning a nation's own capital funds, the IMF demands these nations raise interest rates to 30%, 50% and 80%.
'The result was predictable,' said Stiglitz. Higher interest rates demolish property values, savage industrial production and drain national treasuries.
At this point, according to Stiglitz, the IMF drags the gasping nation to Step Three: market-based pricing - a fancy term for raising prices on food, water and cooking gas. This leads, predictably, to Step-Three-and-a-Half: what Stiglitz calls 'the IMF riot'.
The IMF riot is painfully predictable. When a nation is, 'down and out, [the IMF] squeezes the last drop of blood out of them. They turn up the heat until, finally, the whole cauldron blows up,' - as when the IMF eliminated food and fuel subsidies for the poor in Indonesia in 1998. Indonesia exploded into riots.
---
TiM Ed.: Or Argentina, anyone?
---
There are other examples - the Bolivian riots over water prices last year and, this February, the riots in Ecuador over the rise in cooking gas prices imposed by the World Bank. You'd almost believe the riot was expected.
And it is. What Stiglitz did not know is that Newsnight obtained several documents from inside the World Bank. In one, last year's Interim Country Assistance Strategy for Ecuador, the Bank several times suggests - with cold accuracy - that the plans could be expected to spark 'social unrest'.
That's not surprising. The secret report notes that the plan to make the US dollar Ecuador's currency has pushed 51% of the population below the poverty line.
The IMF riots (and by riots I mean peaceful demonstrations dispersed by bullets, tanks and tear gas) cause new flights of capital and government bankruptcies This economic arson has its bright side - for foreigners, who can then pick off remaining assets at fire sale prices.
A pattern emerges. There are lots of losers but the clear winners seem to be the western banks and US Treasury.
Now we arrive at Step Four: free trade. This is free trade by the rules of the World Trade Organisation and the World Bank, which Stiglitz likens to the Opium Wars. 'That too was about "opening markets",' he said. As in the nineteenth century, Europeans and Americans today are kicking down barriers to sales in Asia, Latin American and Africa while barricading our own markets against the Third World 's agriculture.
In the Opium Wars, the West used military blockades. Today, the World Bank can order a financial blockade, which is just as effective and sometimes just as deadly.
Stiglitz has two concerns about the IMF/World Bank plans. First, he says, because the plans are devised in secrecy and driven by an absolutist ideology, never open for discourse or dissent, they 'undermine democracy'. Second, they don't work. Under the guiding hand of IMF structural 'assistance' Africa's income dropped by 23%.
Did any nation avoid this fate? Yes, said Stiglitz, Botswana. Their trick? 'They told the IMF to go packing.'
Stiglitz proposes radical land reform: an attack on the 50% crop rents charged by the propertied oligarchies worldwide.
Why didn't the World Bank and IMF follow his advice?
'If you challenge [land ownership], that would be a change in the power of the elites. That's not high on their agenda.'
Ultimately, what drove him to put his job on the line was the failure of the banks and US Treasury to change course when confronted with the crises, failures, and suffering perpetrated by their four-step monetarist mambo.
'It's a little like the Middle Ages,' says the economist, 'When the patient died they would say well, we stopped the bloodletting too soon, he still had a little blood in him.'
Maybe it's time to remove the bloodsuckers.
---
This excerpt was taken from the following web-site: http://www.truthinmedia.org/
Greg Palast is an investigative reporter for London's Sunday paper, The Observer, and BBC TV's Newsnight. Read, view or subscribe to his column at http://www.GregPalast.com. This article is taken from his book, The Best Democracy Money Can Buy, out in March.
[ Izmena poruke: MarinaK na dan 2002-08-21 19:36 ]
(The Observer, April 29, 2001; also published at Greg Palast's web site on Oct. 10, 2001)
IMF's four steps to damnation
How crises, failures, and suffering finally drove a Presidential adviser to the wrong side of the barricades
By Gregory Palast
It was like a scene out of Le Carré: the brilliant agent comes in from the cold and, in hours of debriefing, empties his memory of horrors committed in the name of an ideology gone rotten.
But this was a far bigger catch than some used-up Cold War spy. The former apparatchik was Joseph Stiglitz, ex-chief economist of the World Bank. The new world economic order was his theory come to life.
He was in Washington for the big confab of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. But instead of chairing meetings of ministers and central bankers, he was outside the police cordons. The World Bank fired Stiglitz two years ago. He was not allowed a quiet retirement: he was excommunicated purely for expressing mild dissent from globalisation World Bank-style.
Here in Washington we conducted exclusive interviews with Stiglitz, for The Observer and Newsnight, about the inside workings of the IMF, the World Bank, and the bank's 51% owner, the US Treasury.
And here, from sources unnamable (not Stiglitz), we obtained a cache of documents marked, 'confidential' and 'restricted'.
Stiglitz helped translate one, a 'country assistance strategy'. There's an assistance strategy for every poorer nation, designed, says the World Bank, after careful in-country investigation.
But according to insider Stiglitz, the Bank's 'investigation' involves little more than close inspection of five-star hotels. It concludes with a meeting with a begging finance minister, who is handed a 'restructuring agreement' pre-drafted for 'voluntary' signature.
Each nation's economy is analysed, says Stiglitz, then the Bank hands every minister the same four-step programme.
Step One is privatisation. Stiglitz said that rather than objecting to the sell-offs of state industries, some politicians - using the World Bank's demands to silence local critics - happily flogged their electricity and water companies. 'You could see their eyes widen' at the possibility of commissions for shaving a few billion off the sale price.
And the US government knew it, charges Stiglitz, at least in the case of the biggest privatisation of all, the 1995 Russian sell-off. 'The US Treasury view was: "This was great, as we wanted Yeltsin re-elected. We DON'T CARE if it's a corrupt election." '
Stiglitz cannot simply be dismissed as a conspiracy nutter. The man was inside the game - a member of Bill Clinton's cabinet, chairman of the President's council of economic advisers.
Most sick-making for Stiglitz is that the US-backed oligarchs stripped Russia's industrial assets, with the effect that national output was cut nearly in half.
After privatisation, Step Two is capital market liberalisation. In theory this allows investment capital to flow in and out. Unfortunately, as in Indonesia and Brazil, the money often simply flows out.
Stiglitz calls this the 'hot money' cycle. Cash comes in for speculation in real estate and currency, then flees at the first whiff of trouble. A nation's reserves can drain in days.
And when that happens, to seduce speculators into returning a nation's own capital funds, the IMF demands these nations raise interest rates to 30%, 50% and 80%.
'The result was predictable,' said Stiglitz. Higher interest rates demolish property values, savage industrial production and drain national treasuries.
At this point, according to Stiglitz, the IMF drags the gasping nation to Step Three: market-based pricing - a fancy term for raising prices on food, water and cooking gas. This leads, predictably, to Step-Three-and-a-Half: what Stiglitz calls 'the IMF riot'.
The IMF riot is painfully predictable. When a nation is, 'down and out, [the IMF] squeezes the last drop of blood out of them. They turn up the heat until, finally, the whole cauldron blows up,' - as when the IMF eliminated food and fuel subsidies for the poor in Indonesia in 1998. Indonesia exploded into riots.
---
TiM Ed.: Or Argentina, anyone?
---
There are other examples - the Bolivian riots over water prices last year and, this February, the riots in Ecuador over the rise in cooking gas prices imposed by the World Bank. You'd almost believe the riot was expected.
And it is. What Stiglitz did not know is that Newsnight obtained several documents from inside the World Bank. In one, last year's Interim Country Assistance Strategy for Ecuador, the Bank several times suggests - with cold accuracy - that the plans could be expected to spark 'social unrest'.
That's not surprising. The secret report notes that the plan to make the US dollar Ecuador's currency has pushed 51% of the population below the poverty line.
The IMF riots (and by riots I mean peaceful demonstrations dispersed by bullets, tanks and tear gas) cause new flights of capital and government bankruptcies This economic arson has its bright side - for foreigners, who can then pick off remaining assets at fire sale prices.
A pattern emerges. There are lots of losers but the clear winners seem to be the western banks and US Treasury.
Now we arrive at Step Four: free trade. This is free trade by the rules of the World Trade Organisation and the World Bank, which Stiglitz likens to the Opium Wars. 'That too was about "opening markets",' he said. As in the nineteenth century, Europeans and Americans today are kicking down barriers to sales in Asia, Latin American and Africa while barricading our own markets against the Third World 's agriculture.
In the Opium Wars, the West used military blockades. Today, the World Bank can order a financial blockade, which is just as effective and sometimes just as deadly.
Stiglitz has two concerns about the IMF/World Bank plans. First, he says, because the plans are devised in secrecy and driven by an absolutist ideology, never open for discourse or dissent, they 'undermine democracy'. Second, they don't work. Under the guiding hand of IMF structural 'assistance' Africa's income dropped by 23%.
Did any nation avoid this fate? Yes, said Stiglitz, Botswana. Their trick? 'They told the IMF to go packing.'
Stiglitz proposes radical land reform: an attack on the 50% crop rents charged by the propertied oligarchies worldwide.
Why didn't the World Bank and IMF follow his advice?
'If you challenge [land ownership], that would be a change in the power of the elites. That's not high on their agenda.'
Ultimately, what drove him to put his job on the line was the failure of the banks and US Treasury to change course when confronted with the crises, failures, and suffering perpetrated by their four-step monetarist mambo.
'It's a little like the Middle Ages,' says the economist, 'When the patient died they would say well, we stopped the bloodletting too soon, he still had a little blood in him.'
Maybe it's time to remove the bloodsuckers.
---
This excerpt was taken from the following web-site: http://www.truthinmedia.org/
Greg Palast is an investigative reporter for London's Sunday paper, The Observer, and BBC TV's Newsnight. Read, view or subscribe to his column at http://www.GregPalast.com. This article is taken from his book, The Best Democracy Money Can Buy, out in March.
[ Izmena poruke: MarinaK na dan 2002-08-21 19:36 ]
#3
sonja
-
- Members
- 683 posts
Posted 10 September 2002 - 21:17
Published on Monday, September 9, 2002 in the Guardian/UK
Drain the Swamp and There Will Be No More Mosquitoes
By attacking Iraq, the US will invite a new wave of terrorist attacks
by Noam Chomsky
September 11 shocked many Americans into an awareness that they had better pay much closer attention to what the US government does in the world and how it is perceived. Many issues have been opened for discussion that were not on the agenda before. That's all to the good.
It is also the merest sanity, if we hope to reduce the likelihood of future atrocities. It may be comforting to pretend that our enemies "hate our freedoms," as President Bush stated, but it is hardly wise to ignore the real world, which conveys different lessons.
The president is not the first to ask: "Why do they hate us?" In a staff discussion 44 years ago, President Eisenhower described "the campaign of hatred against us [in the Arab world], not by the governments but by the people". His National Security Council outlined the basic reasons: the US supports corrupt and oppressive governments and is "opposing political or economic progress" because of its interest in controlling the oil resources of the region.
Post-September 11 surveys in the Arab world reveal that the same reasons hold today, compounded with resentment over specific policies. Strikingly, that is even true of privileged, western-oriented sectors in the region.
To cite just one recent example: in the August 1 issue of Far Eastern Economic Review, the internationally recognized regional specialist Ahmed Rashid writes that in Pakistan "there is growing anger that US support is allowing [Musharraf's] military regime to delay the promise of democracy".
Today we do ourselves few favors by choosing to believe that "they hate us" and "hate our freedoms". On the contrary, these are attitudes of people who like Americans and admire much about the US, including its freedoms. What they hate is official policies that deny them the freedoms to which they too aspire.
For such reasons, the post-September 11 rantings of Osama bin Laden - for example, about US support for corrupt and brutal regimes, or about the US "invasion" of Saudi Arabia - have a certain resonance, even among those who despise and fear him. From resentment, anger and frustration, terrorist bands hope to draw support and recruits.
We should also be aware that much of the world regards Washington as a terrorist regime. In recent years, the US has taken or backed actions in Colombia, Nicaragua, Panama, Sudan and Turkey, to name a few, that meet official US definitions of "terrorism" - that is, when Americans apply the term to enemies.
In the most sober establishment journal, Foreign Affairs, Samuel Huntington wrote in 1999: "While the US regularly denounces various countries as 'rogue states,' in the eyes of many countries it is becoming the rogue superpower ... the single greatest external threat to their societies."
Such perceptions are not changed by the fact that, on September 11, for the first time, a western country was subjected on home soil to a horrendous terrorist attack of a kind all too familiar to victims of western power. The attack goes far beyond what's sometimes called the "retail terror" of the IRA, FLN or Red Brigades.
The September 11 terrorism elicited harsh condemnation throughout the world and an outpouring of sympathy for the innocent victims. But with qualifications.
An international Gallup poll in late September found little support for "a military attack" by the US in Afghanistan. In Latin America, the region with the most experience of US intervention, support ranged from 2% in Mexico to 16% in Panama.
The current "campaign of hatred" in the Arab world is, of course, also fueled by US policies toward Israel-Palestine and Iraq. The US has provided the crucial support for Israel's harsh military occupation, now in its 35th year.
One way for the US to lessen Israeli-Palestinian tensions would be to stop refusing to join the long-standing international consensus that calls for recognition of the right of all states in the region to live in peace and security, including a Palestinian state in the currently occupied territories (perhaps with minor and mutual border adjustments).
In Iraq, a decade of harsh sanctions under US pressure has strengthened Saddam Hussein while leading to the death of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis - perhaps more people "than have been slain by all so-called weapons of mass destruction throughout history", military analysts John and Karl Mueller wrote in Foreign Affairs in 1999.
Washington's present justifications to attack Iraq have far less credibility than when President Bush Sr was welcoming Saddam as an ally and a trading partner after he had committed his worst brutalities - as in Halabja, where Iraq attacked Kurds with poison gas in 1988. At the time, the murderer Saddam was more dangerous than he is today.
As for a US attack against Iraq, no one, including Donald Rumsfeld, can realistically guess the possible costs and consequences. Radical Islamist extremists surely hope that an attack on Iraq will kill many people and destroy much of the country, providing recruits for terrorist actions.
They presumably also welcome the "Bush doctrine" that proclaims the right of attack against potential threats, which are virtually limitless. The president has announced: "There's no telling how many wars it will take to secure freedom in the homeland." That's true.
Threats are everywhere, even at home. The prescription for endless war poses a far greater danger to Americans than perceived enemies do, for reasons the terrorist organizations understand very well.
Twenty years ago, the former head of Israeli military intelligence, Yehoshaphat Harkabi, also a leading Arabist, made a point that still holds true. "To offer an honorable solution to the Palestinians respecting their right to self-determination: that is the solution of the problem of terrorism," he said. "When the swamp disappears, there will be no more mosquitoes."
At the time, Israel enjoyed the virtual immunity from retaliation within the occupied territories that lasted until very recently. But Harkabi's warning was apt, and the lesson applies more generally.
Well before September 11 it was understood that with modern technology, the rich and powerful will lose their near monopoly of the means of violence and can expect to suffer atrocities on home soil.
If we insist on creating more swamps, there will be more mosquitoes, with awesome capacity for destruction.
If we devote our resources to draining the swamps, addressing the roots of the "campaigns of hatred", we can not only reduce the threats we face but also live up to ideals that we profess and that are not beyond reach if we choose to take them seriously.
Noam Chomsky is professor of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and author of the US bestseller 9-11 chomsky@MIT.edu
[ Izmena poruke: sonja na dan 2002-09-10 22:19 ]
Drain the Swamp and There Will Be No More Mosquitoes
By attacking Iraq, the US will invite a new wave of terrorist attacks
by Noam Chomsky
September 11 shocked many Americans into an awareness that they had better pay much closer attention to what the US government does in the world and how it is perceived. Many issues have been opened for discussion that were not on the agenda before. That's all to the good.
It is also the merest sanity, if we hope to reduce the likelihood of future atrocities. It may be comforting to pretend that our enemies "hate our freedoms," as President Bush stated, but it is hardly wise to ignore the real world, which conveys different lessons.
The president is not the first to ask: "Why do they hate us?" In a staff discussion 44 years ago, President Eisenhower described "the campaign of hatred against us [in the Arab world], not by the governments but by the people". His National Security Council outlined the basic reasons: the US supports corrupt and oppressive governments and is "opposing political or economic progress" because of its interest in controlling the oil resources of the region.
Post-September 11 surveys in the Arab world reveal that the same reasons hold today, compounded with resentment over specific policies. Strikingly, that is even true of privileged, western-oriented sectors in the region.
To cite just one recent example: in the August 1 issue of Far Eastern Economic Review, the internationally recognized regional specialist Ahmed Rashid writes that in Pakistan "there is growing anger that US support is allowing [Musharraf's] military regime to delay the promise of democracy".
Today we do ourselves few favors by choosing to believe that "they hate us" and "hate our freedoms". On the contrary, these are attitudes of people who like Americans and admire much about the US, including its freedoms. What they hate is official policies that deny them the freedoms to which they too aspire.
For such reasons, the post-September 11 rantings of Osama bin Laden - for example, about US support for corrupt and brutal regimes, or about the US "invasion" of Saudi Arabia - have a certain resonance, even among those who despise and fear him. From resentment, anger and frustration, terrorist bands hope to draw support and recruits.
We should also be aware that much of the world regards Washington as a terrorist regime. In recent years, the US has taken or backed actions in Colombia, Nicaragua, Panama, Sudan and Turkey, to name a few, that meet official US definitions of "terrorism" - that is, when Americans apply the term to enemies.
In the most sober establishment journal, Foreign Affairs, Samuel Huntington wrote in 1999: "While the US regularly denounces various countries as 'rogue states,' in the eyes of many countries it is becoming the rogue superpower ... the single greatest external threat to their societies."
Such perceptions are not changed by the fact that, on September 11, for the first time, a western country was subjected on home soil to a horrendous terrorist attack of a kind all too familiar to victims of western power. The attack goes far beyond what's sometimes called the "retail terror" of the IRA, FLN or Red Brigades.
The September 11 terrorism elicited harsh condemnation throughout the world and an outpouring of sympathy for the innocent victims. But with qualifications.
An international Gallup poll in late September found little support for "a military attack" by the US in Afghanistan. In Latin America, the region with the most experience of US intervention, support ranged from 2% in Mexico to 16% in Panama.
The current "campaign of hatred" in the Arab world is, of course, also fueled by US policies toward Israel-Palestine and Iraq. The US has provided the crucial support for Israel's harsh military occupation, now in its 35th year.
One way for the US to lessen Israeli-Palestinian tensions would be to stop refusing to join the long-standing international consensus that calls for recognition of the right of all states in the region to live in peace and security, including a Palestinian state in the currently occupied territories (perhaps with minor and mutual border adjustments).
In Iraq, a decade of harsh sanctions under US pressure has strengthened Saddam Hussein while leading to the death of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis - perhaps more people "than have been slain by all so-called weapons of mass destruction throughout history", military analysts John and Karl Mueller wrote in Foreign Affairs in 1999.
Washington's present justifications to attack Iraq have far less credibility than when President Bush Sr was welcoming Saddam as an ally and a trading partner after he had committed his worst brutalities - as in Halabja, where Iraq attacked Kurds with poison gas in 1988. At the time, the murderer Saddam was more dangerous than he is today.
As for a US attack against Iraq, no one, including Donald Rumsfeld, can realistically guess the possible costs and consequences. Radical Islamist extremists surely hope that an attack on Iraq will kill many people and destroy much of the country, providing recruits for terrorist actions.
They presumably also welcome the "Bush doctrine" that proclaims the right of attack against potential threats, which are virtually limitless. The president has announced: "There's no telling how many wars it will take to secure freedom in the homeland." That's true.
Threats are everywhere, even at home. The prescription for endless war poses a far greater danger to Americans than perceived enemies do, for reasons the terrorist organizations understand very well.
Twenty years ago, the former head of Israeli military intelligence, Yehoshaphat Harkabi, also a leading Arabist, made a point that still holds true. "To offer an honorable solution to the Palestinians respecting their right to self-determination: that is the solution of the problem of terrorism," he said. "When the swamp disappears, there will be no more mosquitoes."
At the time, Israel enjoyed the virtual immunity from retaliation within the occupied territories that lasted until very recently. But Harkabi's warning was apt, and the lesson applies more generally.
Well before September 11 it was understood that with modern technology, the rich and powerful will lose their near monopoly of the means of violence and can expect to suffer atrocities on home soil.
If we insist on creating more swamps, there will be more mosquitoes, with awesome capacity for destruction.
If we devote our resources to draining the swamps, addressing the roots of the "campaigns of hatred", we can not only reduce the threats we face but also live up to ideals that we profess and that are not beyond reach if we choose to take them seriously.
Noam Chomsky is professor of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and author of the US bestseller 9-11 chomsky@MIT.edu
[ Izmena poruke: sonja na dan 2002-09-10 22:19 ]
#4
skituljac
-
- Members
- 340 posts
Posted 10 September 2002 - 22:07
Zao mi je, Sonja, sto se necu sloziti sa njim; covek je toliko neargumentovan - sto najbolje mozes videti samo po fusnotama njegovih knjiga. Odakle on izvlaci te informacije meni nije jasno; nista ne argumentuje pravim dokazima, odn. dokumentima, vec navodima iz raznoraznih stampi za koje niko nkad nije cuo...
#5
sonja
-
- Members
- 683 posts
Posted 11 September 2002 - 01:47
Kao na primer...skituljac:
vec navodima iz raznoraznih stampi za koje niko nkad nije cuo...
#7
Free Mason
-
- Members
- 636 posts
Posted 13 September 2002 - 11:22
Meni je sledece jako simpaticno i moram priznati zastupljeno i u mojoj org-
A Japanese company and an American company decided to have
a canoe race on the Missouri River. Both the teams practiced hard and
long to reach their peak performance before the race. On the big day the
Japanese won by a mile.
Afterward, the American team became very discouraged and
morally depressed. The American management decided the
reason for the crushing defeat had to be found.
A "Management Team" made up of senior management was formed to investigate
and recommend appropriate action. Their conclusion was the Japanese had 8 people rowing and 1 person steering, while the American team had 8 persons steering and one person rowing.
So American management hired a team of Academians and paid
them an incredible amount of money. They advised that too
many people were steering the boat, while not enough people
were rowing.
To prevent losing to the Japanese again next year,
the rowing team's management structure was totally reorganized
to 4 steering supervisors, 3 area steering superintendents and 1
assistant superintendent steering manager. They also implemented a new
performance system that would give the 1 person rowing the boat greater
incentive to work harder. It was called the " Rowing Team Quality First
Program," with meetings, dinners and free pens for the rower. "We must
give the rower the empowerment and enrichments through this quality
program."
The next year the Japanese won by two miles.
Humiliated, the American management laid off the rower for poor performance,
halted development of a new canoe, sold the paddles, and canceled all
capital investments for new equipment. Then they distributed the money
saved as bonuses to the senior executives.
A Japanese company and an American company decided to have
a canoe race on the Missouri River. Both the teams practiced hard and
long to reach their peak performance before the race. On the big day the
Japanese won by a mile.
Afterward, the American team became very discouraged and
morally depressed. The American management decided the
reason for the crushing defeat had to be found.
A "Management Team" made up of senior management was formed to investigate
and recommend appropriate action. Their conclusion was the Japanese had 8 people rowing and 1 person steering, while the American team had 8 persons steering and one person rowing.
So American management hired a team of Academians and paid
them an incredible amount of money. They advised that too
many people were steering the boat, while not enough people
were rowing.
To prevent losing to the Japanese again next year,
the rowing team's management structure was totally reorganized
to 4 steering supervisors, 3 area steering superintendents and 1
assistant superintendent steering manager. They also implemented a new
performance system that would give the 1 person rowing the boat greater
incentive to work harder. It was called the " Rowing Team Quality First
Program," with meetings, dinners and free pens for the rower. "We must
give the rower the empowerment and enrichments through this quality
program."
The next year the Japanese won by two miles.
Humiliated, the American management laid off the rower for poor performance,
halted development of a new canoe, sold the paddles, and canceled all
capital investments for new equipment. Then they distributed the money
saved as bonuses to the senior executives.
#8
sonja
-
- Members
- 683 posts
Posted 13 September 2002 - 15:52
nice and to the point! hehehehehe :grin:
#9
MarinaK
-
- Members
- 274 posts
Posted 15 September 2002 - 10:54
Perpetual war through perpetual commerce :wink:
PS : First you knock them down then you build them up
PS : First you knock them down then you build them up
#10
DakotaBlue
-
- Members
- 2 posts
Posted 19 September 2002 - 13:49
WHY ARE THEY HERE?
EGYPTIAN AND SAUDI SCHOOLS ARE "JUST AS GOOD"
By: Steve Edwards
The recent incident in Florida in which three medical students were stopped and then detained for 17 hours after having verbalized what sounded like a terroristic threat in a public place has been analyzed and discussed at some length in the Leftmedia, with NBC's Matt Lauer, among others, giving those three (and, of course, their attorney) national airtime to tell their side of the story.
But what is missing --- what is ALWAYS missing --- in this era of multiculturalism and the Left's fawning approval and embrace of all things diverse and perverse (as long as it does not include Judeo-Christian or Western values), is the primary issue of post-9/11/01 America. If all societies, all cultures, all religions (or "faith traditions," in the words of Al Gore), all educational systems are equal in the eyes of God --- or at least in the myopic mist of our Kulturfog --- then why can't these hate-filled and hateful people stay in their own wonderful countries and learn to be pilots, physicians, engineers, or computer programmers?
The same leftists who urge open borders and tolerance for the anti-Americans who swarm here would be the first to insist that foreign countries have just as good, if not better [see their opinions on Castro's health care and school systems over the past 40 years], a culture and educational base as the United States. So why do we even consider issuing visas to people who have no intention of settling here and assimilating as Americans?
The immigration of the late-19th century and the first half of the twentieth century was comprised of people from many places in the world. The one unifying characteristic that all of them shared was a burning desire to become Americans. They knew how important it would be for their children to speak English if they were to become successful in America, and they fervently wanted their children to take their rightful place as native-born Americans.
Over time, these immigrants and their families became Americans. While retaining many of the beautiful cultural traditions and rich heritage of their native lands, they were proud to be Italian-Americans, Irish-Americans, Greek- Americans, or just plain unhyphenated Americans. But they were NOT, however, just Saudis living in America as permanent aliens and speaking Arabic, Mexicans living in America as permanent aliens and speaking Spanish, or Russians living in America as permanent aliens and speaking Russian.
The Balkanization of America hit full throttle as race hustlers, poverty pimps, open borders advocates, and bilingualists (later multilingualists) drove wedges between groups of Americans. The Balkanizers cunningly focused upon relatively small differences and creating a Newspeak of hyphenated group identities, a victim culture, increased use of litigation to promote transfer of wealth, and the linguistic path of least resistance. Why learn English, the language of the oppressors? Why not make America adapt to us?
From the Tower of Babel to modern-day Quebec, the inability (and worse, the unwillingness) to communicate with others is the fuse that is sure to ignite latent animosities. The American melting pot had so successfully reduced these animosities that "only in America" became a phrase signifying good relations, intermarriage, and peaceful coexistence of groups that were at constant war in other places on the planet. Even though there were frequent racial and cultural flare-ups, most of these were localized and relatively inconsequential.
But the Balkanizers struck the mother lode when they adopted the strategy of pressing for the admission of ONLY those people who brought nothing of value to America. These included AIDS-infected people, people with no productive skills and no history of anything remotely resembling a work ethic, and people whose primary activities were consuming and procreating more consumers --- in other words, people who were sure to look to government for handouts and were even more sure to become completely dependent upon the political whores and demagogues who tossed them their few scraps from the table.
Every other sentient nation on earth restricts immigration prudently. To immigrate into Australia or New Zealand, one must possess an occupation or skill that Australia or New Zealand needs. "Only in America" now signifies a prosperous and productive society that encourages illegal aliens to stay forever via frequent (and eagerly- anticipated) amnesties, while the talented and educated would-be immigrants play by the rules and thereby wait for years (if ever) for their opportunity to come to the Promised Land.
During a protracted war on terrorism, immigration should be slowed to a well-screened trickle. Educational visas for people from countries and cultures that detest America should be terminated, and the Left should support this enthusiastically. After all, why impart the cultural and scientific bias of Dead White Males to people who would be far better educated in those excellent Saudi, Egyptian, Cuban, and Chinese schools?
EGYPTIAN AND SAUDI SCHOOLS ARE "JUST AS GOOD"
By: Steve Edwards
The recent incident in Florida in which three medical students were stopped and then detained for 17 hours after having verbalized what sounded like a terroristic threat in a public place has been analyzed and discussed at some length in the Leftmedia, with NBC's Matt Lauer, among others, giving those three (and, of course, their attorney) national airtime to tell their side of the story.
But what is missing --- what is ALWAYS missing --- in this era of multiculturalism and the Left's fawning approval and embrace of all things diverse and perverse (as long as it does not include Judeo-Christian or Western values), is the primary issue of post-9/11/01 America. If all societies, all cultures, all religions (or "faith traditions," in the words of Al Gore), all educational systems are equal in the eyes of God --- or at least in the myopic mist of our Kulturfog --- then why can't these hate-filled and hateful people stay in their own wonderful countries and learn to be pilots, physicians, engineers, or computer programmers?
The same leftists who urge open borders and tolerance for the anti-Americans who swarm here would be the first to insist that foreign countries have just as good, if not better [see their opinions on Castro's health care and school systems over the past 40 years], a culture and educational base as the United States. So why do we even consider issuing visas to people who have no intention of settling here and assimilating as Americans?
The immigration of the late-19th century and the first half of the twentieth century was comprised of people from many places in the world. The one unifying characteristic that all of them shared was a burning desire to become Americans. They knew how important it would be for their children to speak English if they were to become successful in America, and they fervently wanted their children to take their rightful place as native-born Americans.
Over time, these immigrants and their families became Americans. While retaining many of the beautiful cultural traditions and rich heritage of their native lands, they were proud to be Italian-Americans, Irish-Americans, Greek- Americans, or just plain unhyphenated Americans. But they were NOT, however, just Saudis living in America as permanent aliens and speaking Arabic, Mexicans living in America as permanent aliens and speaking Spanish, or Russians living in America as permanent aliens and speaking Russian.
The Balkanization of America hit full throttle as race hustlers, poverty pimps, open borders advocates, and bilingualists (later multilingualists) drove wedges between groups of Americans. The Balkanizers cunningly focused upon relatively small differences and creating a Newspeak of hyphenated group identities, a victim culture, increased use of litigation to promote transfer of wealth, and the linguistic path of least resistance. Why learn English, the language of the oppressors? Why not make America adapt to us?
From the Tower of Babel to modern-day Quebec, the inability (and worse, the unwillingness) to communicate with others is the fuse that is sure to ignite latent animosities. The American melting pot had so successfully reduced these animosities that "only in America" became a phrase signifying good relations, intermarriage, and peaceful coexistence of groups that were at constant war in other places on the planet. Even though there were frequent racial and cultural flare-ups, most of these were localized and relatively inconsequential.
But the Balkanizers struck the mother lode when they adopted the strategy of pressing for the admission of ONLY those people who brought nothing of value to America. These included AIDS-infected people, people with no productive skills and no history of anything remotely resembling a work ethic, and people whose primary activities were consuming and procreating more consumers --- in other words, people who were sure to look to government for handouts and were even more sure to become completely dependent upon the political whores and demagogues who tossed them their few scraps from the table.
Every other sentient nation on earth restricts immigration prudently. To immigrate into Australia or New Zealand, one must possess an occupation or skill that Australia or New Zealand needs. "Only in America" now signifies a prosperous and productive society that encourages illegal aliens to stay forever via frequent (and eagerly- anticipated) amnesties, while the talented and educated would-be immigrants play by the rules and thereby wait for years (if ever) for their opportunity to come to the Promised Land.
During a protracted war on terrorism, immigration should be slowed to a well-screened trickle. Educational visas for people from countries and cultures that detest America should be terminated, and the Left should support this enthusiastically. After all, why impart the cultural and scientific bias of Dead White Males to people who would be far better educated in those excellent Saudi, Egyptian, Cuban, and Chinese schools?
#11
sonja
-
- Members
- 683 posts
Posted 19 September 2002 - 21:07
At first I was going to write a long response but now I see that it is not worth it. Could you cite the source of the article?
_________________
The test of courage comes when we are in the minority; the test of tolerance comes when we are in the majority. Ralph W. Stockman
[ Izmena poruke: sonja na dan 2002-09-19 22:07 ]
_________________
The test of courage comes when we are in the minority; the test of tolerance comes when we are in the majority. Ralph W. Stockman[ Izmena poruke: sonja na dan 2002-09-19 22:07 ]
#12
Free Mason
-
- Members
- 636 posts
Posted 20 September 2002 - 07:17
Yet another limpid sentiment of exclusion...
#13
teknokrat
-
- Members
- 234 posts
Posted 08 October 2002 - 13:37
Takvih clanaka (DakotaBlue-ova poruka) ima ovde po australijskim novinama. Mogu se rezimirati sa:
I'm wondering why we are allowing it! This is our country!
Na srecu, u Australiji takvi ksenofobicni imbecili predstavljaju manjinu.
PS. Skituljac, ako si i dalje ubedjena da je Prof Chomsky nedovoljno referenciran, javi se da popricamo o tome. Chomsky IMA pojma, i to kao retko ko.
(dodato) 2 Skituljac:
Evo drzim u rukama "Manufacturing consent" (Herman & Chomsky) otvoren na slucajnom mestu, str. 380, fusnote (skraceno):
[list]
[*]Congressional hearings, Pentagon Papers
[*]State Department background notes
[*]Howard Elterman (PhD Thesis, NY University)
[*]Fred Branfman "Voices from the plain of jars", NY 1972
[*]US Senate Report on refugees
[*]Manchester Gardian Weekly
[*]Washington Post
[*]Boston Globe
[*]Kimmo Kiljunen "Kampuchea: decade of Genocide" government-backed Finnish inquiry commission
[list]
... lista se nastavlja, do 117. ovakvih i slicnih referenci samo za jedno poglavlje ove knjige...
I... zasto smatras da su ovo invalidne reference? Ako "niko nije cuo za njih" to moze biti samo jos jedna potvrda o "proizvodnji saglasnosti", pre nego kritika rada N.C.
[ Izmena poruke: teknokrat na dan 2002-10-08 14:58 ]
I'm wondering why we are allowing it! This is our country!
Na srecu, u Australiji takvi ksenofobicni imbecili predstavljaju manjinu.
PS. Skituljac, ako si i dalje ubedjena da je Prof Chomsky nedovoljno referenciran, javi se da popricamo o tome. Chomsky IMA pojma, i to kao retko ko.
(dodato) 2 Skituljac:
Evo drzim u rukama "Manufacturing consent" (Herman & Chomsky) otvoren na slucajnom mestu, str. 380, fusnote (skraceno):
[list]
[*]Congressional hearings, Pentagon Papers
[*]State Department background notes
[*]Howard Elterman (PhD Thesis, NY University)
[*]Fred Branfman "Voices from the plain of jars", NY 1972
[*]US Senate Report on refugees
[*]Manchester Gardian Weekly
[*]Washington Post
[*]Boston Globe
[*]Kimmo Kiljunen "Kampuchea: decade of Genocide" government-backed Finnish inquiry commission
[list]
... lista se nastavlja, do 117. ovakvih i slicnih referenci samo za jedno poglavlje ove knjige...
I... zasto smatras da su ovo invalidne reference? Ako "niko nije cuo za njih" to moze biti samo jos jedna potvrda o "proizvodnji saglasnosti", pre nego kritika rada N.C.
[ Izmena poruke: teknokrat na dan 2002-10-08 14:58 ]
#14
Kinik
-
- Members
- 43,426 posts
Posted 19 October 2002 - 00:21
Amerika je toliko veeeelika zemlja da moze da podnese fantazme i jednog Nauma Homskog...
#15
teknokrat
-
- Members
- 234 posts
Posted 19 October 2002 - 01:45
Kanda ima vise chomskih, jer onaj koga ja citam nema bas nikakve fantazme, vec predstavlja kvintesenciju realnosti iliti Awful Truth-a kako bi rekao Michael Moore.
* US vlada trenira teroriste na svojoj teritoriji - istina ili trac?
* US vojska je ucestvovala u vise ratova u zadnjih 50 godina nego bilo koja druga zemlja na planeti - istina ili trac?
* Svega 3-4 kompanije poseduje prakticno sve znacajne mediju u Americi (i na Zapadu) - istina ili trac?
* Mainstream ili korporativni mediji izvestavaju onako kako to odgovara njihovim vlasnicima a ne aktualnim dogadjajima - istina ili trac?
* US vlada tj CIA je trenirala Osamu Bin Ladena i podrzavala rezim Sadama Huseina 80-tih godina, istina ili trac?
* US bazira svoju neproporcionalnu ekonomsku nadmoc u velikoj meri na upotrebi nasilja i uterivanju jedne po jedne zemlje sveta u poslusnost, istina ili trac?
* U istom cilju US naftni centri moci zele da kontrolisu vlast u Iraku da bi diktirali cenu nafte i punili sebi dzepove, a Sadam je poceo da bude "zao" tek od kada je postao neposlusan, istina ili trac?
Jel' treba jos? Hajd' sad ukazite na fantazme, nemanje pojma ili aljkave reference. I ko bi drugi rekao to sto Chomsky govori kad bi njega ucutkali takvi kao vi. Nije to, naravno, nego uvek ima ovih "antiprotivnih" koji su iskompleksirani pa nisu srecni ako ne piske po nekome (bilo kome, Chomsky, Starbucks, U2) ko nailazi na opste priznanje. Keep your urine and use your brain(s).
[ Izmena poruke: teknokrat na dan 2002-10-19 02:58 ]
* US vlada trenira teroriste na svojoj teritoriji - istina ili trac?
* US vojska je ucestvovala u vise ratova u zadnjih 50 godina nego bilo koja druga zemlja na planeti - istina ili trac?
* Svega 3-4 kompanije poseduje prakticno sve znacajne mediju u Americi (i na Zapadu) - istina ili trac?
* Mainstream ili korporativni mediji izvestavaju onako kako to odgovara njihovim vlasnicima a ne aktualnim dogadjajima - istina ili trac?
* US vlada tj CIA je trenirala Osamu Bin Ladena i podrzavala rezim Sadama Huseina 80-tih godina, istina ili trac?
* US bazira svoju neproporcionalnu ekonomsku nadmoc u velikoj meri na upotrebi nasilja i uterivanju jedne po jedne zemlje sveta u poslusnost, istina ili trac?
* U istom cilju US naftni centri moci zele da kontrolisu vlast u Iraku da bi diktirali cenu nafte i punili sebi dzepove, a Sadam je poceo da bude "zao" tek od kada je postao neposlusan, istina ili trac?
Jel' treba jos? Hajd' sad ukazite na fantazme, nemanje pojma ili aljkave reference. I ko bi drugi rekao to sto Chomsky govori kad bi njega ucutkali takvi kao vi. Nije to, naravno, nego uvek ima ovih "antiprotivnih" koji su iskompleksirani pa nisu srecni ako ne piske po nekome (bilo kome, Chomsky, Starbucks, U2) ko nailazi na opste priznanje. Keep your urine and use your brain(s).
[ Izmena poruke: teknokrat na dan 2002-10-19 02:58 ]
