Showing posts with label Watergate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Watergate. Show all posts

Thursday, May 13, 2010

Some more observations on conspiracy buffs and the Boogeyman...


They--the ubiquitous "they"--see them everywhere, and they know the score, according to...well, to them. Above all others, they understand the "true" machinations of our civilization, never mind those silly academics-they're part of the conspiracy too if they don't agree with the conspiracy buffs. Which conspiracy theory? Take your pick. Isn't it really about crime, under the color of law and authority? Isn't that something you could actually try in a court of law, before a jury? Wouldn't going after politicians who are criminals by treating them as such work better? No, it's a conspiracy, because that's easier for me to unthink about.

The truth? Ultimate truth is unknowable, so the conspiracy gurus like the Alex Joneses and Alex Constantines of the world must be elves, pixies, faeries, and the Oracle at Delphi, atop mount Parnassus, telling everyone what they already know: that conspiracy buffs are full of shit, possibly nuts in many cases, and need to get a life and learn to be responsible citizens who really watchdog their government. Constantine claims that he once did. He might return to his good work, but like Alex Jones, it takes him all morning to get his coffee back from the toxicology lab. No, the ones that really get away with murder in our society are the business & finance sectors. But most of the cranks love them, contrary claims aside, because those CEOs believe most of the same things that the dopes do: the Libertarian credo of the lawless Frontier maverick (long dead in the real world, meaning it's alive-and-well on Wall Street and in boardrooms) who's entitled to do whatever he wants without any repercussions. That's not freedom for everyone else, it's negative freedom, negative "Liberty."

There are legitimate researchers, journalists, and historians out there who are doing diligent and thoughtful work that at least eventually gets some kind of a "peer review" (we won't dwell on the nano-thermite flap regarding the rickety WTC-7), and they should be thanked. Naming them here would be unfair, and anyone familiar with academic intelligence history and credible historiographical research (private and academic) into our political history knows wildly speculative crap when they see it. Many in the public today do not, and I lay the blame at the feet of educators and the individual. The mainstream media is also sorely to blame. Too many members of the public are simply not credible or rational thinkers, generally, and more standardized requirements for logic training would go a long way in ameliorating this problem. Americans don't stand on the international stage as especially rational thinkers, hardly. Many Americans have literally never written a thesis in their entire lives if they even know what it means.

Our domestic policies are a great illustration of this: on the one hand, many Americans don't trust their government (thanks partly to scandals like Watergate and Iran-Contra, but perpetuated by anti-government cranks who call themselves "conspiracy researchers," etc.), yet expect to receive social services from it. The prevalence of the myth of "the disappeared" gives this attitude an especially weird quality when one considers that many Americans don't want to pay taxes, but again, expect social services like Social Security checks, roads, bridges, power plants, drinkable water, and all of the things social infrastructure can bring. Still, according to some on the fringe, the government is totalitarian and "evil." That's a conservative argument, though not a traditional one. There are no real conservatives, but that's a theme for another time.

The fact is that even with all of the corruption, the bribing lobbyists, crony appointments, kiss-ass politicians, a mostly comatose and wrong-headed public, obviously unconstitutional legislation, absurd Supreme Court rulings, and the resultant scandals and cock-ups, they still have to deliver these social services because the social contract has to be served. Regardless of what anyone says, we're still a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, no matter how impaired these things might be at present. Classical liberal theory on servicing the social contract through the redistribution of wealth is a warning, not a threat, that if you don't manage your society wisely, you will reap chaos. If it is not, you can expect very serious drama indeed. What the conspiracy buffs and nuts are saying is that the social contract has been entirely forfeited, and that's not true by any stretch, especially compared to many other nations around the world where it's patently obvious that that's the case. However, were many of them to have it their way, yes, a cohesive society we can be proud of would be almost entirely null-and-void.

Without even understanding what the social contract is, conspiracy nuts say that we're already at the critical mass, that the government isn't delivering--or even that it should at all. Most of these people don't believe in traditional Western democracy nor the ideals of the French Revolution, meaning Liberty, Fraternity, and Equality. They're barbarians. They don't really believe in our most cherished American ideals of Liberty and democracy. What they believe in is selling you a t-shirt or a poorly researched and produced DVD so that they can turn a profit off of social discontent and sell you the anti-government line. Government is only as good as the people of a nation, and in that sense, it's not complicated. You must stay engaged. You must watch the watchers as a lifetime responsibility. If you want government services--rich, poor, or even middle-class--you must expect to pay for them, but you should also pay your fair share. When the top 500 corporations are often paying significantly less than a working-class individual, something's very wrong with the body politic.

But the conspiracy nuts--in-the-main--don't get this...or much else.

Tuesday, January 22, 2008

Fred Thompson Leaves the Presidential Race


Fredland
--When someone like Richard M. Nixon refers to you as 'stupid,' you have to take it seriously. Fred didn't, and now he looks more the fool. Considering that Karl Rove and his former U.S. Attorney pupil Tim Griffin were part of the effort to force Fred on the American people, we can all assume they're going to gravitate to whoever the winners are at this moment. Rove and company might have to leap-frog from one GOP hopeful to another--they had best be careful it's not someone they burglarized.

That man would the shell-shocked John McCain, current waterboy for the Bush administration and their war crimes in the Middle East. It appears that all of those break-ins of the campaign offices of Thompson's running mates in 2007 yielded as much useful data as the Watergate job. Goodbye to a very ugly, stupid, whore-mongering half-man. We don't have to hear about you anymore. Now, if Giuliani can realize it isn't 1993, he might be able to swallow his ego and also admit that the public doesn't like him, and quit too.

[Ed., 09.19.2008-It should be noted that around this time Palfrey began talking more about Larry Flynt's list--that John McCain, Fred Thompson, and Dick Cheney were found in the phone records. Palfrey also began corroborating it in comments. All three appear to have been fashioned out of mud, just like Richard Nixon.]

Monday, September 10, 2007

WATERGATE TIME AGAIN-AND-AGAIN-AND-AGAIN, STARRING FRED THOMPSON'S CAMPAIGN (WITH KARL ROVE & TIM GRIFFIN & OPERATIVES IN THE SHADOWS?)


"Once is happenstance. Twice is circumstance. The third time is enemy action."
--007 author Ian Fleming (through the character Auric Goldfinger. Also sometimes attributed to the Chicago underworld during the time of Al Capone's Outfit.


"These are times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. " --Thomas Paine, 1776, from the pamphlet, "Common Sense."

Boston, Massachusetts
--Surprised that Mitt Romney's campaign offices were burglarized? Authorities in Boston are being mum over when it occurred exactly, but the break-in happened during this last weekend. What was stolen? A television...and "several laptops" (eight-in-all).This is getting ridiculous, and as usual, the press is being strangely credulous over the assertion that this is nothing.

There is a political war going-on (primarily within the GOP), and being executed by-or-for the presidential campaign of
Fred Thompson. It's all benefiting him.


Why do I believe this? Because he's the one who will stand to gain the most from it, that's why. This is likely the reason why Arlen Specter has come to the aid of humiliated Idaho Sen. Larry E. Craig--he understands this, he gets it. I'm beginning to agree with old Arlen: something stinks here, and the former prosecutor knows the smell of this kind of corruption.


Sen.
Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) has been advising Craig on what his next move should be, which is very big of him. Regardless of what one thinks about the GOP and Craig, there is a potential motive in the downing of the Idaho Senator: paving-the-way for the campaign of Fred Thompson. How is this connected to the upcoming elections in 2008? Think back to when the scandal broke:
On Monday, Craig quit Mitt Romney's presidential campaign, shortly after the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call revealed the plea and arrest details. "Sen. Craig has stepped down from his role with the campaign. He did not want to be a distraction and we accept his decision," Matt Rhoades, communications director for the Romney campaign, said. Craig has been one of Romney's top Senate supporters, serving as a Senate liaison for the campaign since February. (AP/Fox, 08.28.2007)
Keep-in-mind that the McCain campaign has also been hit with scandal when it was disclosed that one of his advisers--Bob Allen--a Florida state representative--was arrested soliciting sex in a men's restroom. Sound familiar? Then, in June, the Giuliani campaign was "rocked" when his campaign chairman for South Carolina--State Treasurer Thomas Ravenel--was charged trying to unload 500 grams of cocaine to an undercover police officer.

In addition, there is Louisiana Senator David Vitter, caught-up in the web of "Hookergate," who was going to help run Giuliani's Southern campaign--that's the
one story this writer feels assured isn't part of the smearing and compromising of various presidential aspirants, primarily Republican (there could be others that don't fit a pattern).

Any takers on the contention that Deborah Jeane Palfrey is a GOP operative or a government agent? I didn't think so, because there's absolutely no proof of it, and she wouldn't be on trial if she were. What's going on then? Are these folks just being "railroaded," as a minority within the GOP currently asserts? Yes and no.

The common denominator in all of this is that all of these individuals have lost their protections for their aberrant-behaviors (where they existed). The privilege of the coverup has been rescinded by the Bush administration who controls the Justice Department at present, even without an Alberto Gonzales or John Ashcroft.

Some other flunky is running the show now at Justice, and another will be found for the public face side-of-things whom the Senate will also approve, just as they did the last two. Revolving-door is right. The point is, someone with enormous power and wealth wants Fred Thompson to be president, not the rest of the GOP contenders, and they're allowing the exposure of individuals within and close to the McCain, Romney, and Giuliani campaigns to damage said campaigns. [Ed., 08.28.2008--Now it could be safely assumed that Rove and Co. are throwing-in their lot with McCain.]

Today's story is just another sad and unsettling chapter in what could end-up being the dirtiest campaign in American history, namely the elections of 2008. None of this bodes well for a fair and legal election, and while nobody will do it, there should be a nationwide call for international observers during the elections next year. Again, it would also help if we had a functioing Justice Department to investigate these crimes, bot no-such-luck. But it's not just the GOP anymore--the Democrats are starting to get hit, though so far only through break-ins:

The incident is the third of its kind recently involving a presidential contender.
Last month a man was arrested and charged with breaking into a Hartford, Conn., office belonging to Sen. Chris Dodd, who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination. The accused lived in a city shelter and had a lengthy arrest record, and a city police official said that crime likely was prompted to support a drug habit. In July, the Davenport, Iowa, campaign headquarters for Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was burglarized. Two laptop computers and campaign literature were reported stolen.
(AP, 09.10.2007)
Indeed, these gentlemen are also running against Fred Thompson in the presidential race. In the Dodd, Obama, and now the Romney break-ins, computers were stolen. An interesting problem found in the story of the Dodd break-in is that the alarms were never triggered at his senatorial offices in Hartford. Thus far, the police there have offered no solid explanations as to why this was the case, just that a homeless man with a criminal record did it and that he left an incriminating piece of evidence that identified him behind. Is all this coordinated action? It could be, and there's black smoke rising from the windows in sundry places.

The groupings of these break-ins are very tight, and elicit reasonable doubt as to the veracity of the the "conventional wisdom" that there's no connection between any of them. In February of this same year, the New Hampshire offices of the Democratic Party were also burglarized. This was in Concord, part of the battleground where the American Revolution began on April 19th, 1775.
The British continued the 6 miles to Concord and the Americans retreated to the North Bridge just outside the town. While the main body of soldiers accomplished their mission of seizing the gunpowder, a small contingent of British troops skirmished again with the colonists, now numbering several hundred. 3 British soldiers and 2 Americans were killed in this battle. As they returned to Boston, the British were under constant assault from Massachusetts militiamen, who inflicted 273 casualties. (www.americanrevolution.com)
Have we all come full-circle? Are there individuals in the shadows sending us a message? Who's behind all of this? This writer's bets are all on the whoever is backing the bulk of the Thompson campaign. This is a time of scoundrels. It's high-time to get to the bottom of all of this criminality and nonsense, and rescue our rights from the jaws of what could be an encroaching tyranny, a kind of crypto-fascism. The Redcoats are coming.

AP: "Romney's campaign offices burglarized," September 10th, 2007: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070910/ap_on_el_pr/romney_burglary;_ylt=AgHgkL686vYSitnTDDyqbTaMwfIE

AP/Fox on the beginnings of the Craig Scandal, August 8th, 2007: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,294852,00.html

"Scandal Taints Another Giuliani Ally," July 10th, 2007: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/07/10/scandal-taints-another-giuliani-ally/



Thursday, August 23, 2007

HIDE YOUR GEORGE WALLACES: ARTHUR BREMER IS BEING RELEASED IN DECEMBER

Travis Bickle: Listen, you fuckers, you screwheads. Here is a man who would not take it anymore. A man who stood up against the scum, the cunts, the dogs, the filth, the shit. Here is a man who stood up. --From Paul Schrader's screenplay to Martin Scorsese's 1976 film, "Taxi Driver." (imdb)

Baltimore, Maryland--At 57-years-old, it's unlikely that Arthur Bremer is going to be a threat to many, and certainly not George Wallace, the late segregationist governor and politician from Alabama. When Bremer belatedly shot Wallace at a campaign appearance for his bid for the presidency on May 15th, 1972, it was considered a real shock, and a reflection of the chaos of the times.

According to prison officials, Bremer has never shown any remorse for the wounding and crippling of the 'nigger-baiting' scoundrel, but it has to be said that Wallace was forever changed by the experience spiritually. Thanks to Arthur Bremer, we know what it took to stop George Wallace and his calculated appeals to Southern racists: shooting him. However, like most of the assassinations of that period, there are innumerable unanswered questions and problematic facts.


But the AP piece really nails the crux of the case: Bremer refers to Wallace in a 1996 parole hearing as a "segregationist dinosaur," just two years before the wheelchair-bound baiter died in 1998. Unsurprisingly, he was denied parole. What's not in the article, or in the peculiar reasoning of the parole board members in 96' is that Wallace incited many people in the South during the 1950s into the early-1970s to segregationist violence and harassment of Black (and White) civil rights workers.

Like anyone with a pulse, Bremer saw an individual--not a man--who was willing to play with people's lives by inciting people to racist-attacks, taunting, and full-on violence. Not that Wallace was alone, even Richard Nixon got in on the fun. His take on America 11-years-ago is interesting, accurate, and breathtaking:


"Everyone is mean nowadays ... (We've) got teenagers running around with drugs and machine guns, they never heard of me," he said. "They never heard of the public figure in my case, and they couldn't care less. I was in prison when they were born. The country kind of went to hell in the last 24 years." (AP, 08.23.2007)
Indeed, America has truly gone to hell, even since the time of Bremer's statements.

There is ample evidence to suggest that a rollback of Black Americans' right to vote was intentionally impaired by forces like Wallace in the national elections of 2000, 2004, and even 2006 (more people were watching the GOP closely in 2006, so it wasn't as successful). Taking down a cold, calculated segregationist politician appears to be why Bremer shot Wallace--but is there more? Could be. Wallace was the only real threat to Nixon's 1972 reelection ambitions, just as he had been in 1968...along with Bobby Kennedy.

Regardless of what conclusion one makes, the downing of Wallace wouldn't be enough for Nixon, and he would instruct his operatives ("the plumbers") to burglarize Democratic campaigning offices at the Watergate. They were also ordered to bug the phones.


One needs to look at who handled the FBI's investigation into the Wallace shooting, and it's not comforting at all. It was Mark Felt, then assistant FBI director to L. Patrick Gray III
(Hoover having died in early-May of 1972), who handled the investigation, and it was rife with problems and jurisdictional turf-battles between the Bureau and the Secret Service. Wallace believed in the immediate aftermath of the assassination attempt that President Nixon was behind it all. Mark Felt and Bob Woodward have confirmed that the Nixon administration was watching Wallace's "every move" in the run-up to the assassination attempt.


He had good reason to believe so, though nobody wants to ask Bremer any of these questions. Such political observers as Gore Vidal suggested in-the-wake of the assassination attempt that Nixon administration official Charles Colson authored Bremer's diary (published in 1973), which is an interesting charge. This would be especially peculiar if true, since screenwriter Paul Schrader based a lot of his script for "Taxi Driver" (1976) on Bremer's diary. He could be right, particularly in light of this exchange between President Nixon and Colson from a later May 15th call:

PRESIDENT NIXON: Is he a left winger, right winger?
COLSON: Well, he's going to be a left winger by the time we get through, I think.
PRESIDENT NIXON: Good. Keep at that, keep at that.

Colson might be able to clarify a lot of this, but he has left an oral history with the National Archives, and is featured prominently in the legendary tapes. What's a little unsettling is the early-coverage of Bremer's trail in that proverbial "run-up" to the shooting of Wallace. Felt provided his protege--Bob Woodward--with the "scoop." Was Woodward too credulous? Does that even have to be asked anymore?

...On May 18, I did a Page One article that said, among other things, "High federal officials who have reviewed investigative reports on the Wallace shooting said yesterday that there is no evidence whatsoever to indicate that Bremer was a hired killer."

It was rather brazen of me. Though I was technically protecting my source and talked to others besides Felt, I did not do a good job of concealing where the information was coming from. Felt chastised me mildly. But the story that Bremer acted alone and without accomplices was a story that both the White House and the FBI wanted out. (Washington Post, 06.02.2005)
If the stories were accurate, what was so "brazen" about reporting Bremer's days before the shooting? Perhaps he's just referring to the fact that he might have nearly blown Felt's cover as his source inside the FBI as the assistant Director, but Watergate hadn't even happened yet. What's going-on here? Felt was feeding Woodward the information on Bremer, he was pulling-the-strings, not his protege. One might suspect that they both had an overarching agenda that preceded Watergate itself, and that the real story has yet to be told.

One would think the Washington Post's editor is writing in code. Nobody said journalism would be easy...unless you're lazy and incompetent. Then, it's really easy, and we don't have to get into all those ugly confrontations! Why can't we be friends? Indeed, Bob Woodward has taken this to-heart with the current administration. There's good reason to think he's done it several-times before. Aren't American polticians great?

Listen, you fuckers, you screwheads. Here was a man who wouldn't take it any more. Here is a man who stood up to the scum, the shills, the lobbyists, and the DOJ. Here is...a man. The pen is mightier than Arthur Bremer's gun (that's why you buy-off people like Bob Woodward, et. al.).

Saturday, May 12, 2007

An interview with Dr. Noam Chomsky, from "Interpol Magazine," February 1995 (Part 1 of 2)



This was an interview conducted through the mail with Dr. Chomsky while I was finishing my degree in American History at Ball State University. Just two-months after I received his answers in the mail, we all witnessed the Oklahoma City bombing, and the stirrings of the war on terror (really a domestic one against all of us). It's been a long road from the Spring of 1995. At that time, the internet was just starting to become accessible, and its impact on the political and cultural discourse is only now being realized.

1995 was a year when the "zine revolution" was occurring, and it was quickly-supplanted by the high-price of paper and the internet. This interview was done for one of those little zines--my own--called "Interpol." I actually got copies of it in zine-central, the legendary Quimby's Queer Store in Chicago. It was pretty surreal going-up to the Windy City and seeing those copies in the store (I never got paid, incidentally), it felt pretty good.

All that said, I would never trade the blog format, it's superior in every respect to that old digest format, and it's getting better all the time. Dr. Chomsky is a very friendly and encouraging person, and when he passes from this world, we will have lost a wonderful human being. Appreciate the flowers in life, they are fleeting. Try to be that person you admire, and strive to make a better world for all. That's the meaning of life.


Matt Janovic: Dr. Chomsky, in the past you've made comments on the importance of the FBI's COINTEPROs (Counterintelligence Programs) against the Black Panthers and the multi-faceted "New Left" as having a preponderant effect on the demise of these groups in the 1960s and early 1970s--do you feel that the effect of this element of American History is overlooked by most historians?

Noam Chomsky: There is no doubt that this material has been marginalized--by historians, the media, and the intellectual community general. Merely to give one personal example, I have a long article on "domestic terrorism" that is still unpublished after 15 years, apart from excerpts way at the margins. Recently, a leading criminologist asked for it for an anthology, but was finally unable to work it in (not his judgement; he wanted it).But the story is far more dramatic. Simply consider the relative attention given to Watergate and to COINTELPRO. It's a very revealing comparison. They were disclosed at the very same time. COINTELPRO was vastly more significant: it was a program by the national political police, acting on the highest authority through three administrations, to undermine and destroy independent thought and political action; its methods reached as far as Gestapo-style political assassination, under Nixon. These facts are not contested. In contrast, Watergate was a tea party.

For unknown reasons some tenth-rate burglars ransacked a Democratic Party headquarters; one minor part of COINTELPRO was massive disruption of a legal political party, which has the same status as the Democrats in our constitutional system, except that it has no private wealth behind it (the Socialist Workers Party)--that single episode is far more significant than all of Watergate. There was great outrage over Nixon's "enemy list"; nothing happened to anyone on it, as I know personally, since I was on it. But also on it were the head of IBM, McGeorge Bundy, etc., and to call powerful people bad names in private is a scandal that undermines the foundations of the republic. In contrast, to assassinate a Black Panther organizer in an FBI-organized early morning police raid, killing him in bed (probably drugged), is quite OK. And on, and on.

Now, simply check the reaction to these simultaneous disclosures. Ask yourself how Watergate and COINTELPRO figure into the political culture and history crafted by the privileged and educated, and what the impact has been on the repeated disclosure of these very startling and revealing facts. There is only one conclusion: it's a crime to annoy the powerful, but it's fine to terrorize and disrupt the lives of the weak. It could hardly be more clear that that is the dominant value of the political-intellectual culture.

MJ: In past interviews, you've refrained from any call for specific action, yet your analysis of the present domestic and world situation regarding the rights of individuals seems bleak. In the face of such widespread oppression and exploitation by various transnational corporations (usually implemented by the apparatus of domestic governments), why do you generally refrain from doing so?

NC: I don't refrain from calls to specific action. I've undertaken plenty myself, and recommend them to others. What I don't do is stand up on a podium and say: Do This or That. I don't feel I have any right to do so. What I try to do--whether successfully or not others can judge--is to lay out the situation as I see it, encourage others to inquire with independent minds, and when they draw their own conclusions, to act to change what I am convinced they will see as dangerous and often horrifying developments. If asked about specific actions, I always try to answer. And as I mentioned, I've undertaken plenty myself, including organizing direct resistance.

MJ: How did the discussions on the Donahue/Pozner show [Ed-the short-lived political talk show from the early-1990s] on CNBC come about? Did the main host, Mr. Donahue, have any serious problems taking you on a network that is mostly owned by General Electric, a major defense contractor to the Pentagon?

NC: My impression is that Phil Donohue would be very pleased to have people like me on his show regularly, and to get enough corporate sponsorship (it's not easy to get any other, in our system of private tyranny) to allow such discussions to be widely heard. My impression also is that it's not easy even for a person of his stature in the mainstream media to break the rigid rules of Political Correctness imposed by private power, largely. As to whether these impressions are accurate in this particular case, you'd have to inquire elsewhere, of course.

MJ: This is probably pretty pedestrian to you by now, but: do you feel as an older man that youth culture can have a serious and positive impact towards humanistic thought and action, or is it just another social dynamic that we can only exert a minimal amount of control over? Specifically, I'm talking about non-conformist rock culture.

NC: I'm too ignorant to comment, frankly. My impression--and again it's only that--is that the rock culture has had an effect on getting young people to think and act independently. But like the youth culture generally, it's been readily absorbed into the vast system of private power, which wants to distort it to serve its own ends of commercialization, separation of people from one another, and so on. How these tendencies play out, others who know better than I would have to say.

MJ: Why do you think that Europe has maintained a greater tradition of Leftism than the United States.
NC: Europe has been rather different from the US in many respects. As England has fallen more into the US orbit, there are by now quite striking differences between an even broader Anglo-American model and a continental European-Japanese model. It shows up quite clearly in many features of the societies. Take family values: they have been under severe attack for the past 15 years in the Anglo-American model, while support systems have been encouraged and sustained these values in the contrasting model. This has been studied in some depth right in the mainstream, and the results are pretty striking, but you'd have to find all that out. I have some references and comment in the January and February issues of Z Magazine.But this is only one facet. It's even recognized by the Courts. Thus, the Sixth Court of Appeals in a 1994 decision denying legal protection to older workers thrown out of their jobs takes explicit not that "Unlike law and social policy in many European countries, the laws of the United States do not prohibit" actions by owners undertaken for private profit, whatever the effect on workers and communities. In brief, the prevailing values here are that what counts is private power, not human beings. The Court's decision is accompanied by a good deal of utter nonsense about "legal and economic theory," but the distinction the Court draws is quite real, and has been for a long time. US labor history, for example, is unusually violent. Even the right-wing press in England was appalled, for many decades, at the brutal treatment of American workers by the government security forces mobilized by the owners.
What are the reasons? It's a complicated story, but in part it reflects the fact that American society began as a kind of "blank slate," once the native population was exterminated or driven away. It therefore reflected the quite sharply the values of those who had domestic power, business interests overwhelmingly. Of course, they never believed in a free market, and still don't: the US is also unusual in its record of extreme protectionism and public subsidy to private power through the state system ("welfare for the rich," we would call it, if honesty were permitted).

That's the primary reason for the very rapid economic growth of the US. But though the business world has always demanded ample state protection from market discipline, and still does, they've naturally demanded such discipline be imposed rigorously on the poor and defenseless at home and abroad, and have relied extensively on state power to insure that result as well. In societies where industrial capitalism grew out of existing social networks, support systems, traditional societies that recognized a "right to life," etc., the edges of the system were softer, a labor movement was able to survive and grow, and a social contract was achieved that is scarcely known here.
In an era of transnational capital, those systems are eroding everywhere; that's a large part of the perceived value of globalization of production and the huge expansion of speculative financial capital. The whole industrial world is leveling downward under consciously undertaken social policy, for reasons that are well understood. That's not inevitable; contrary to their illusions, these are human decisions taken within human institutions with their own historically contingent power relations, not laws of physics (let alone economics). But it is entirely natural as private tyranny increases its sway worldwide.
On the other hand, there are respects in which the US is much more free than other societies. Take freedom of speech, for example. Since the 1960s, at least, the US leads the world in defending this fundamental right--and it didn't just "happen"; the great 1964 victory at the Supreme Court was part of the civil rights movement, to mention one example. There's also a streak of independence and a lack of deference and class subordination in American social life that's very refreshing, and different from most of the industrial world. More generally, it's a complicated story, and one should be wary of easy formulas.
End of Part 1 (and statement of intellectual ownership): This interview is the intellectual property of Dr. Noam Chomsky and Matt Janovic. Permission to reprint, quote, or reproduce can be obtained through written permission from the authors. All rights reserved as of 2007, Noam Chomsky and Matt Janovic.

Wednesday, January 24, 2007

DEATH OF A SPOOK: E. HOWARD HUNT DEAD


Miami, Florida
--The man who coordinated the break-in at the Watergate Hotel into Democratic campaigning offices (and many other "black bag" jobs, like the break-in at Daniel Ellsberg's shrink's office) on June 17th, 1972 is dead at 88. He was also involved in the CIA operations into Guatemala in 1954, and the botched Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba, amongst others. He also wrote shitty spy-novels, as many disgraced CIA-operatives do upon their "retirement" (they never retire--unless they're killed).

JFK assassination researchers have pointed-out that Hunt could be one of the "tramps" at Dealey Plaza on November 22nd, 1963. I have seen the photographic evidence, and there is a case for it. Bye-bye shill, you had to declare bankruptcy in 1997 due to fines accrued from the Watergate break-in. Good-riddance to you.
He has a new book coming-out in April--fortunately, he won't be able to profit from it now. What a C.R.E.E.P. What a traitor. Hunt is the man on-the-left in the photo.