Prof. Noam Chomsky: Illegal but Legitimate: a Dubious Doctrine for the Times”Intellectuals have the task of covering it up… administrations are in his words “schizophrenic””

4:25

“Two prominent strategic analysts writing in the Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences not given to hyperbole they conclude that Washington’s current military programs and aggressive stance quoting them carry an appreciable risk of ultimate doom and they express the hope that the threat that the US administration is posing to the world and to the American people will be countered by a coalition of peace-loving nations led by China we’ve come to a pretty pass when such thoughts are expressed at the heart of the establishment and what that implies about the state of American democracy is no less shocking and threatening and you may consider leave it to you to consider what the judgments imply about Britain which was not expected to lead the coalition well in considering their reasons – the reasons that led them to these conclusions good place to start is with an event that actually took place after their article appeared but is typical last November at the United Nations Commission Committee on disarmament it’s basically the General Assembly which voted to support a treaty to ban production of fissile material for nuclear weapons the vote was 147 to 1 there were 2 abstentions the one you can guess the two abstentions were Israel which is reflexive and Britain which explained its abstention on the grounds I’m quoting the British ambassador on grounds that: the resolution had divided the international community at a time at a time when progress should be a prime objective. That divided it a hundred and forty seven to one.”

50:37

“Well one case that can hardly be ignored has to do with the Bush Blair invasion of Iraq which is based on a single question in their words as they and their associates repeatedly emphasized Iraq’s refusal to obey Security Council orders to stop developing weapons of mass destruction. After the collapse of these pretexts we were solemnly informed that the justification was not anticipation or self-defense as had been insistently proclaimed but rather Bush’s messianic vision to bring democracy to the world. As the new version is described by the liberal press, its reactions to the announcement of the messianic vision ranged from rapturous awe to critical commentary. Which praised the nobility and generosity of the vision but warned that it may be beyond their means, the beneficiaries may be too backward, might be too costly that this is the guiding vision and always has been it is presupposed throughout a self-evident. It’s hard to find an exception within the mainstream. You might try all that was missing was evidence, evidently the declarations of our leaders suffice. Massive counter-evidence up to the present can be dismissed as irrelevant without comment. Well these strongest witnesses for the defense should be the leading scholars and the most enthusiastic advocates of what’s called democracy promotion. The most prominent among them is the director of the democracy and rule of law project at the Carnegie Endowment Thomas Carruthers. He’s just published a book reviewing the record of democracy promotion since the end of the Cold War. He finds what he calls a strong line of continuity running through all administrations quoting him now “where democracy appears to fit in well with US security and economic interests the United States promotes democracy. Where democracy clashes with other significant interests it is downplayed or even ignored” all administrations are in his words “schizophrenic” with curious consistency. He predicts with regret that Iraq policies will likely exhibit similar contradictions between stated principles and political reality. But the dedication to the principles is nonetheless unquestionable. Well it didn’t take long for his predictions about Iraq to be fulfilled the occupation authorities worked assiduously to avert the threat of democracy. But the US and Britain were compelled with great reluctance to permit elections that was a major triumph of nonviolent resistance a few competent observers would disagree with the editors of the Financial Times quote them that: the reason the elections took place was the insistence of the grand ayatollah Al Sistani and the mass popular resistance that he supported elicited. I added that Sistani who vetoed three schemes by the us-led occupation authorities to shelve or dilute. Bush and Blair did not waste a single moment in declaring that they intended to subvert the elections that they had tried to prevent by rejecting any timetable for withdrawal as a large majority of the Arab population want and as even their own candidate Yet Allowi was compelled to include as a plank in his program so the strong line of continuity persists and the struggle is far from over.”

55:12

“The reason Carruthers explains is that the United States would tolerate only limited top-down forms of democratic change that did not risk upsetting the traditional structures of power with which the United States has long been allied. Washington sought to maintain the basic order of quite undemocratic societies and to avoid populist base change in short the strong line of community. Continuity goes back a decade earlier to its Reagan roots and remember I’m not quoting a critic but the most prominent scholarly advocate of the programs. Well it goes back far beyond but I’ll skip that and none of it should come as any surprise. It merely reveals that the United States is very much like other powerful states past and present pursuing strategic and economic interests of dominant sectors. Intellectuals have the task of covering it up and making it look as if it’s dedicated to principles and values. Democracy is fine as long as it takes the top-down form that does not risk popular interference with primary interests of power and wealth. Much the same doctrine holds internally where enormous efforts are made to promote to “protect the minority of the opulent from the majority It’s a primary goal of government” and I am quoting the framer of the American constitutional system James Madison explaining what the new system should be to his colleagues at the Constitutional Convention.”

I found out about all those lies when I was around 16-17 year’s old and at around 20 I already knew and understood corporatocracy. This lecture was over 12 years ago. I also posted lectures from 2001 and 1999. There are even older lectures. All this was well understood a long time ago, the most terrifying thing is in those old days more people knew the truth than now. Today society is more ignorant and more indoctrinated and it’s just getting worse with the passage of time.

I watch those Western Intellectuals “covering it up and making it look as if it’s dedicated to principles and values.” For almost 20 years.  It’s now or never the US wants to make a department to fight misinformation so literally an Orwelian Ministry of Truth. People cheered antivax censorship now they are cheering censorship of Putin trolls. If they do it, the game is over and we condemn our kids and our future generations for an Orwellian nightmare without escape, a painless concentration camp for the entire society Huxley spoke about.

“There will be, in the next generation or so, a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude, and producing dictatorship without tears, so to speak, producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them, but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda or brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods. And this seems to be the final revolution.” -Aldous Huxley, Tavistock Group, California Medical School, 1961