This site is Dedicated to Cooperate to the Disclosure of
The Alternative Thinking.

The Cyberspace Brotherwood

Index

Interview with an Extraterrestrialby Paul Lutus

The "F" Word By Michael C. Ruppert 

El 'factor Dios' de José Saramago

Interview with an Extraterrestrial

By  P. Lutus

Scene: In an artificial bubble on the surface of Ganymede (one of Jupiter's moons),
an alien explorer describes his visit to Earth.
Can you give us a general picture of Earth and its inhabitants?
        
The planet is rather pretty, with lots of natural resources. "Fertile" isn't too strong a word, especially when compared with most places in the local system. There are lots of energy sources, easily accessed, and lots of chemical resources as well. And we think this fertility is why the Earth's inhabitants -- the "humans" -- have such distorted ideas about reality.
You mean like the silica worms on Venus, who, because they can't see through their atmosphere, have the idea that their planet is the entire universe?
        
No, the humans are much worse. They can see and study the entire universe, but they still think they are the center of everything, that their planet is the reason the universe exists.
(collective gasp from audience)

But only the young humans, the larvae, have these distorted ideas, right?
        
No, that would be true here, but on Earth even old humans have a larval view of reality. Some never mature beyond expecting a deity, or a government, or nature herself, to satisfy their craving for transformation.

What is this transformation? Don't they understand what they are?
        
Not in the slightest. They believe they are super-beings, or are mystically connected to a super-being, so everything is simultaneously temporary and unsatisfactory, to be someday replaced by fame, justice, immortality, or something called "true love."

Do any of them have our concept of nature as a connected whole, of which all are a part? How do their beliefs differ?
        
The earthlings have it exactly backward. They think nature exists for them, designed to meet their needs, not that they are part of nature, as we understand it -- (another gasp)
        
-- But it is much worse than that. They can't understand why nature won't meet their most trivial needs, and they are possessed by dissatisfaction. If they look at their planet's moon, it is unsatisfactory because they can't build a house on it. Everything is too hot or too cold, too big or too small. Reality is viewed solely in terms of a human's immediate needs.

How did they stay so backward for so long?
        
Mostly by looking in the wrong places. You may not believe this, but many of them rely on each other for structure and meaning -- they even form units, composed of a leader and followers. The leader pretends to need followers, and the followers pretend to need a leader. Naturally, the most dangerous leaders -- and followers -- are those who forget it's a game. This game used to be called "religion," now it is called "government."

Are there any regions of more advanced behavior, a place where we could safely present ourselves?
        
Emphatically not. In fact, there is one area of Earth that is much worse than the others -- it's called "America." The Americans have raised dissatisfaction to an art form. They rarely notice events and creatures of great beauty, and completely miss spectacular examples of nature's generosity. For example, I once monitored the brain-waves of a human observing a sunset. After a moment, he thought "If only this sunset were 10% prettier, why then I would be happy."

What causes this distorted view of reality?
        
Well, humans have only recently acquired intellectual skills, therefore those skills are in a dangerous, immature form. We have seen this in other places -- the Earthlings have Godlike thinking powers grafted onto animal personalities. They have the ability to destroy themselves through badly formed ideas, but no ability to curb their passions.
        
Their most serious problem is that they still believe in authority --
(gasps and laughter)
        
-- yes, I know it is hard to believe. Many species throughout the universe have successfully made the transition from animal, instinctive mental processes to true intellect, and along the way they come to recognize authority for what it is: the last vestige of animal thought and behavior. But the transition away from authority can be difficult. The humans are about halfway through this learning process -- they still believe in centralized control of individual behavior, and yet they have developed fusion weapons, as though they had any chance to control such weapons with their pack-animal political system.

Don't they have some version of science and mathematics to help them transcend their animal passions?
        
Most don't even know what science and mathematics are, and many of the rest think science can only be practiced by someone called a "scientist." --
(pandemonium)
        
-- Yes, and that is the best evidence for their primitive state. They don't recognize scientific thought as the principal way to evolve from the half-animal, half-civilized state in which they are now living. They don't understand that science is the moral property of all thinking creatures.
Well, at least they realize they are in transition between the world of animals and intelligent beings?
        
No, actually they think they are intelligent beings, with no supporting evidence at all. Humans study the geological record of species that have been transformed to meet new requirements, but they don't realize they are themselves in the midst of such a transformation.
Can we help them? Can we share any part of our knowledge base with them, ease them toward intelligent behavior?

        
No, I cannot recommend that. They would only use our tools to kill each other, and our ideas would either confuse or frighten them. I recommend that we stay out of their view, as the other advanced species have decided to do, and let them wake up by themselves, in their own good time.
Thank you for your report. Make it so. It is requested that none of our craft approach Earth, or become visible from there.

Send out this request: Stay away from Earth -- they must show evidence of civilized behavior before we can allow them to join our community in the stars.

Author:  Paul Lutus © by Paul Lutus   
Arachnophilia The Levels of Human Experience  

The "F" Word By Michael C. Ruppert

El 'factor Dios' 
José Saramago

El País

En algún lugar de la India. Una fila de piezas de artillería en posición. Atado a la boca de cada una de ellas hay un hombre. En primer plano de la fotografía, un oficial británico levanta la espada y va a dar orden de disparar. No disponemos de imágenes del efecto de los disparos, pero hasta la más obtusa de las imaginaciones podrá 'ver' cabezas y troncos dispersos por el campo de tiro, restos sanguinolentos, vísceras, miembros amputados. Los hombres eran rebeldes. En algún lugar de Angola. Dos soldados portugueses levantan por los brazos a un negro que quizá no esté muerto, otro soldado empuña un machete y se prepara para separar la cabeza del cuerpo. Esta es la primera fotografía. En la segunda, esta vez hay una segunda fotografía, la cabeza ya ha sido cortada, está clavada en un palo, y los soldados se ríen. El negro era un guerrillero. En algún lugar de Israel. Mientras algunos soldados israelíes inmovilizan a un palestino, otro militar le parte a martillazos los huesos de la mano derecha. El palestino había tirado piedras. Estados Unidos de América del Norte, ciudad de Nueva York. Dos aviones comerciales norteamericanos, secuestrados por terroristas relacionados con el integrismo islámico, se lanzan contra las torres del World Trade Center y las derriban. Por el mismo procedimiento un tercer avión causa daños enormes en el edificio del Pentágono, sede del poder bélico de Estados Unidos. Los muertos, enterrados entre los escombros, reducidos a migajas, volatilizados, se cuentan por millares.

Las fotografías de India, de Angola y de Israel nos lanzan el horror a la cara, las víctimas se nos muestran en el mismo momento de la tortura, de la agónica expectativa, de la muerte abyecta. En Nueva York, todo pareció irreal al principio, un episodio repetido y sin novedad de una catástrofe cinematográfica más, realmente arrebatadora por el grado de ilusión conseguido por el técnico de efectos especiales, pero limpio de estertores, de chorros de sangre, de carnes aplastadas, de huesos triturados, de mierda. El horror, escondido como un animal inmundo, esperó a que saliésemos de la estupefacción para saltarnos a la garganta. El horror dijo por primera vez 'aquí estoy' cuando aquellas personas se lanzaron al vacío como si acabasen de escoger una muerte que fuese suya. Ahora, el horror aparecerá a cada instante al remover una piedra, un trozo de pared, una chapa de aluminio retorcida, y será una cabeza irreconocible, un brazo, una pierna, un abdomen deshecho, un tórax aplastado. Pero hasta esto mismo es repetitivo y monótono, en cierto modo ya conocido por las imágenes que nos llegaron de aquella Ruanda- de-un-millón-de-muertos, de aquel Vietnam cocido a napalm, de aquellas ejecuciones en estadios llenos de gente, de aquellos linchamientos y apaleamientos, de aquellos soldados iraquíes sepultados vivos bajo toneladas de arena, de aquellas bombas atómicas que arrasaron y calcinaron Hiroshima y Nagasaki, de aquellos crematorios nazis vomitando cenizas, de aquellos camiones para retirar cadáveres como si se tratase de basura. Siempre tendremos que morir de algo, pero ya se ha perdido la cuenta de los seres humanos muertos de las peores maneras que los humanos han sido capaces de inventar. Una de ellas, la más criminal, la más absurda, la que más ofende a la simple razón, es aquella que, desde el principio de los tiempos y de las civilizaciones, manda matar en nombre de Dios. Ya se ha dicho que las religiones, todas ellas, sin excepción, nunca han servido para aproximar y congraciar a los hombres; que, por el contrario, han sido y siguen siendo causa de sufrimientos inenarrables, de matanzas, de monstruosas violencias físicas y espirituales que constituyen uno de los más tenebrosos capítulos de la miserable historia humana. Al menos en señal de respeto por la vida, deberíamos tener el valor de proclamar en todas las circunstancias esta verdad evidente y demostrable, pero la mayoría de los creyentes de cualquier religión no sólo fingen ignorarlo, sino que se yerguen iracundos e intolerantes contra aquellos para quienes Dios no es más que un nombre, nada más que un nombre, el nombre que, por miedo a morir, le pusimos un día y que vendría a dificultar nuestro paso a una humanización real. A cambio nos prometía paraísos y nos amenazaba con infiernos, tan falsos los unos como los otros, insultos descarados a una inteligencia y a un sentido común que tanto trabajo nos costó conseguir. Dice Nietzsche que todo estaría permitido si Dios no existiese, y yo respondo que precisamente por causa y en nombre de Dios es por lo que se ha permitido y justificado todo, principalmente lo peor, principalmente lo más horrendo y cruel. Durante siglos, la Inquisición fue, también, como hoy los talibán, una organización terrorista dedicada a interpretar perversamente textos sagrados que deberían merecer el respeto de quien en ellos decía creer, un monstruoso connubio pactado entre la Religión y el Estado contra la libertad de conciencia y contra el más humano de los derechos: el derecho a decir no, el derecho a la herejía, el derecho a escoger otra cosa, que sólo eso es lo que la palabra herejía significa.

Y, con todo, Dios es inocente. Inocente como algo que no existe, que no ha existido ni existirá nunca, inocente de haber creado un universo entero para colocar en él seres capaces de cometer los mayores crímenes para luego justificarlos diciendo que son celebraciones de su poder y de su gloria, mientras los muertos se van acumulando, estos de las torres gemelas de Nueva York, y todos los demás que, en nombre de un Dios convertido en asesino por la voluntad y por la acción de los hombres, han cubierto e insisten en cubrir de terror y sangre las páginas de la Historia. Los dioses, pienso yo, sólo existen en el cerebro humano, prosperan o se deterioran dentro del mismo universo que los ha inventado, pero el `factor Dios´, ese, está presente en la vida como si efectivamente fuese dueño y señor de ella. No es un dios, sino el `factor Dios´ el que se exhibe en los billetes de dólar y se muestra en los carteles que piden para América (la de Estados Unidos, no la otra...) la bendición divina. Y fue en el `factor Dios´ en lo que se transformó el dios islámico que lanzó contra las torres del World Trade Center los aviones de la revuelta contra los desprecios y de la venganza contra las humillaciones. Se dirá que un dios se dedicó a sembrar vientos y que otro dios responde ahora con tempestades. Es posible, y quizá sea cierto. Pero no han sido ellos, pobres dioses sin culpa, ha sido el `factor Dios´, ese que es terriblemente igual en todos los seres humanos donde quiera que estén y sea cual sea la religión que profesen, ese que ha intoxicado el pensamiento y abierto las puertas a las intolerancias más sórdidas, ese que no respeta sino aquello en lo que manda creer, el que después de presumir de haber hecho de la bestia un hombre acabó por hacer del hombre una bestia.

Al lector creyente (de cualquier creencia...) que haya conseguido soportar la repugnancia que probablemente le inspiren estas palabras, no le pido que se pase al ateísmo de quien las ha escrito. Simplemente le ruego que comprenda, con el sentimiento, si no puede ser con la razón, que, si hay Dios, hay un solo Dios, y que, en su relación con él, lo que menos importa es el nombre que le han enseñado a darle. Y que desconfíe del `factor Dios´. No le faltan enemigos al espíritu humano, mas ese es uno de los más pertinaces y corrosivos. Como ha quedado demostrado y desgraciadamente seguirá demostrándose.

José Saramago es escritor portugués, premio Nobel de Literatura

English: Nobel Prize Internet Archive homepage
Portuguese: José Saramago (Prémio Nobel da Literatura 1998)
French: José Saramago  José Saramago, Prix Nobel de littérature 1998 
^{Spanish: http://www.iespana.es/saramago/home2.htm}

AN EVENING WITH NOAM CHOMSKY

The New War Against Terror

October 18, 2001 - Transcribed from audio
recorded at The Technology & Culture Forum at MIT
The Talk (audio)

 

Everyone knows it’s the TV people who run the world [crowd laugher]. I just got orders that I’m supposed to be here, not there. Well the last talk I gave at this forum was on a light pleasant topic. It was about how humans are an endangered species and given the nature of their institutions they are likely to destroy themselves in a fairly short time. So this time there is a little relief and we have a pleasant topic instead, the new war on terror. Unfortunately, the world keeps coming up with things that make it more and more horrible as we proceed.

Assume 2 Conditions for this Talk

I’m going to assume 2 conditions for this talk.

• The first one is just what I assume to be recognition of fact. That is that the events of September 11 were a horrendous atrocity probably the most devastating instant human toll of any crime in history, outside of war.
• The second assumption has to do with the goals. I’m assuming that our goal is that we are interested in reducing the likelihood of such crimes whether they are against us or against someone else.

If you don’t accept those two assumptions, then what I say will not be addressed to you. If we do accept them, then a number of questions arise, closely related ones, which merit a good deal of thought.

The 5 Questions

One question, and by far the most important one is what is happening right now? Implicit in that is what can we do about it? The 2nd has to do with the very common assumption that what happened on September 11 is a historic event, one which will change history. I tend to agree with that. I think it’s true. It was a historic event and the question we should be asking is exactly why? The 3rd question has to do with the title, The War Against Terrorism. Exactly what is it? And there is a related question, namely what is terrorism? The 4th question which is narrower but important has to do with the origins of the crimes of September 11th. And the 5th question that I want to talk a little about is what policy options there are in fighting this war against terrorism and dealing with the situations that led to it.

I’ll say a few things about each.  Glad to go beyond in discussion and don’t hesitate to bring up other questions. These are ones that come to my mind as prominent but you may easily and plausibly have other choices.

1. What’s Happening Right Now?

Starvation of 3 to 4 Million People

Well let’s start with right now. I’ll talk about the situation in Afghanistan. I’ll just keep to uncontroversial sources like the New York Times [crowd laughter]. According to the New York Times there are 7 to 8 million people in Afghanistan on the verge of starvation. That was true actually before September 11th. They were surviving on international aid. On September 16th, the Times reported, I’m quoting it, that the United States demanded from Pakistan the elimination of truck convoys that provide much of the food and other supplies to Afghanistan’s civilian population. As far as I could determine there was no reaction in the United States or for that matter in Europe. I was on national radio all over Europe the next day. There was no reaction in the United States or in Europe to my knowledge to the demand to impose massive starvation on millions of people. The threat of military strikes right after September…..around that time forced the removal of international aid workers that crippled the assistance programs. Actually, I am quoting again from the New York Times. Refugees reaching Pakistan after arduous journeys from AF are describing scenes of desperation and fear at home as the threat of American led military attacks turns their long running misery into a potential catastrophe. The country was on a lifeline and we just cut the line. Quoting an evacuated aid worker, in the New York Times Magazine.

The World Food Program, the UN program, which is the main one by far, were able to resume after 3 weeks in early October, they began to resume at a lower level, resume food shipments. They don’t have international aid workers within, so the distribution system is hampered. That was suspended as soon as the bombing began. They then resumed but at a lower pace while aid agencies leveled scathing condemnations of US airdrops, condemning them as propaganda tools which are probably doing more harm than good. That happens to be quoting the London Financial Times but it is easy to continue. After the first week of bombing, the New York Times reported on a back page inside a column on something else, that by the arithmetic of the United Nations there will soon be 7.5 million Afghans in acute need of even a loaf of bread and there are only a few weeks left before the harsh winter will make deliveries to many areas totally impossible, continuing to quote, but with bombs falling the delivery rate is down to ½ of what is needed. Casual comment. Which tells us that Western civilization is anticipating the slaughter of, well do the arithmetic, 3-4 million people or something like that. On the same day, the leader of Western civilization dismissed with contempt, once again, offers of negotiation for delivery of the alleged target, Osama bin Laden, and a request for some evidence to substantiate the demand for total capitulation. It was dismissed. On the same day the Special Rapporteur of the UN in charge of food pleaded with the United States to stop the bombing to try to save millions of victims. As far as I’m aware that was unreported. That was Monday. Yesterday the major aid agencies OXFAM and Christian Aid and others joined in that plea. You can’t find a report in the New York Times. There was a line in the Boston Globe, hidden in a story about another topic, Kashmir.

Silent Genocide

Well we could easily go on….but all of that….first of all indicates to us what’s happening. Looks like what’s happening is some sort of silent genocide. It also gives a good deal of insight into the elite culture, the culture that we are part of. It indicates that whatever, what will happen we don’t know, but plans are being made and programs implemented on the assumption that they may lead to the death of several million people in the next few months….very casually with no comment, no particular thought about it, that’s just kind of normal, here and in a good part of Europe. Not in the rest of the world. In fact not even in much of Europe. So if you read the Irish press or the press in Scotland…that close, reactions are very different. Well that’s what’s happening now. What’s happening now is very much under our control. We can do a lot to affect what’s happening. And that’s roughly it.

2. Why was it a Historic Event?

National Territory Attacked

Alright let’s turn to the slightly more abstract question, forgetting for the moment that we are in the midst of apparently trying to murder 3 or 4 million people, not Taliban of course, their victims. Let’s go back…turn to the question of the historic event that took place on September 11th. As I said, I think that’s correct. It was a historic event. Not unfortunately because of its scale, unpleasant to think about, but in terms of the scale it’s not that unusual. I did say it’s the worst…probably the worst instant human toll of any crime. And that may be true. But there are terrorist crimes with effects a bit more drawn out that are more extreme, unfortunately. Nevertheless, it’s a historic event because there was a change. The change was the direction in which the guns were pointed. That’s new. Radically new. So, take US history.

The last time that the national territory of the United States was under attack, or for that matter, even threatened was when the British burned down Washington in 1814. There have been many…it was common to bring up Pearl Harbor but that’s not a good analogy. The Japanese, what ever you think about it, the Japanese bombed military bases in 2 US colonies not the national territory; colonies which had been taken from their inhabitants in not a very pretty way. This is the national territory that’s been attacked on a large scale, you can find a few fringe examples but this is unique.

During these close to 200 years, we, the United States expelled or mostly exterminated the indigenous population, that’s many millions of people, conquered half of Mexico, carried out depredations all over the region, Caribbean and Central America, sometimes beyond, conquered Hawaii and the Philippines, killing several 100,000 Filipinos in the process. Since the Second World War, it has extended its reach around the world in ways I don’t have to describe. But it was always killing someone else, the fighting was somewhere else, it was others who were getting slaughtered. Not here. Not the national territory.

Europe

In the case of Europe, the change is even more dramatic because its history is even more horrendous than ours. We are an offshoot of Europe, basically. For hundreds of years, Europe has been casually slaughtering people all over the world. That’s how they conquered the world, not by handing out candy to babies. During this period, Europe did suffer murderous wars, but that was European killers murdering one another. The main sport of Europe for hundreds of years was slaughtering one another. The only reason that it came to an end in 1945, was….it had nothing to do with Democracy or not making war with each other and other fashionable notions. It had to do with the fact that everyone understood that the next time they play the game it was going to be the end for the world. Because the Europeans, including us, had developed such massive weapons of destruction that that game just have to be over. And it goes back hundreds of years. In the 17th century, about probably 40% of the entire population of Germany was wiped out in one war.

But during this whole bloody murderous period, it was Europeans slaughtering each other, and Europeans slaughtering people elsewhere. The Congo didn’t attack Belgium, India didn’t attack England, Algeria didn’t attack France. It’s uniform. There are again small exceptions, but pretty small in scale, certainly invisible in the scale of what Europe and us were doing to the rest of the world. This is the first change. The first time that the guns have been pointed the other way. And in my opinion that’s probably why you see such different reactions on the two sides of the Irish Sea which I have noticed, incidentally, in many interviews on both sides, national radio on both sides. The world looks very different depending on whether you are holding the lash or whether you are being whipped by it for hundreds of years, very different. So I think the shock and surprise in Europe and its offshoots, like here, is very understandable. It is a historic event but regrettably not in scale, in something else and a reason why the rest of the world…most of the rest of the world looks at it quite differently. Not lacking sympathy for the victims of the atrocity or being horrified by them, that’s almost uniform, but viewing it from a different perspective. Something we might want to understand.

3. What is the War Against Terrorism?

Well, let’s go to the third question, ‘What is the war against terrorism?’ and a side question, ‘What’s terrorism?’. The war against terrorism has been described in high places as a struggle against a plague, a cancer which is spread by barbarians, by “depraved opponents of civilization itself.” That’s a feeling that I share. The words I’m quoting, however, happen to be from 20 years ago. Those are…that’s President Reagan and his Secretary of State. The Reagan administration came into office 20 years ago declaring that the war against international terrorism would be the core of our foreign policy….describing it in terms of the kind I just mentioned and others. And it was the core of our foreign policy. The Reagan administration responded to this plague spread by depraved opponents of civilization itself by creating an extraordinary international terrorist network, totally unprecedented in scale, which carried out massive atrocities all over the world, primarily….well, partly nearby, but not only there. I won’t run through the record, you’re all educated people, so I’m sure you learned about it in High School. [crowd laughter]

Reagan-US War Against Nicaragua

But I’ll just mention one case which is totally uncontroversial, so we might as well not argue about it, by no means the most extreme but uncontroversial. It’s uncontroversial because of the judgments of the highest international authorities the International Court of Justice, the World Court, and the UN Security Council. So this one is uncontroversial, at least among people who have some minimal concern for international law, human rights, justice and other things like that. And now I’ll leave you an exercise. You can estimate the size of that category by simply asking how often this uncontroversial case has been mentioned in the commentary of the last month. And it’s a particularly relevant one, not only because it is uncontroversial, but because it does offer a precedent as to how a law abiding state would respond to…did respond in fact to international terrorism, which is uncontroversial. And was even more extreme than the events of September 11th. I’m talking about the Reagan-US war against Nicaragua which left tens of thousands of people dead, the country ruined, perhaps beyond recovery.

Nicaragua’s Response

Nicaragua did respond. They didn’t respond by setting off bombs in Washington. They responded by taking it to the World Court, presenting a case, they had no problem putting together evidence. The World Court accepted their case, ruled in their favor, ordered the…condemned what they called the “unlawful use of force,” which is another word for international terrorism, by the United States, ordered the United States to terminate the crime and to pay massive reparations. The United States, of course, dismissed the court judgment with total contempt and announced that it would not accept the jurisdiction of the court henceforth. Then Nicaragua then went to the UN Security Council which considered a resolution calling on all states to observe international law. No one was mentioned but everyone understood. The United States vetoed the resolution. It now stands as the only state on record which has both been condemned by the World Court for international terrorism and has vetoed a Security Council resolution calling on states to observe international law. Nicaragua then went to the General Assembly where there is technically no veto but a negative US vote amounts to a veto. It passed a similar resolution with only the United States, Israel, and El Salvador opposed. The following year again, this time the United States could only rally Israel to the cause, so 2 votes opposed to observing international law. At that point, Nicaragua couldn’t do anything lawful. It tried all the measures. They don’t work in a world that is ruled by force.

This case is uncontroversial but it’s by no means the most extreme. We gain a lot of insight into our own culture and society and what’s happening now by asking ‘how much we know about all this? How much we talk about it? How much you learn about it in school? How much it’s all over the front pages?’ And this is only the beginning. The United States responded to the World Court and the Security Council by immediately escalating the war very quickly, that was a bipartisan decision incidentally. The terms of the war were also changed. For the first time there were official orders given…official orders to the terrorist army to attack what are called “soft targets,” meaning undefended civilian targets, and to keep away from the Nicaraguan army. They were able to do that because the United States had total control of the air over Nicaragua and the mercenary army was supplied with advanced communication equipment, it wasn’t a guerilla army in the normal sense and could get instructions about the disposition of the Nicaraguan army forces so they could attack agricultural collectives, health clinics, and so on…soft targets with impunity. Those were the official orders.

What was the Reaction Here?

What was the reaction? It was known. There was a reaction to it. The policy was regarded as sensible by left liberal opinion. So Michael Kinsley who represents the left in mainstream discussion, wrote an article in which he said that we shouldn’t be too quick to criticize this policy as Human Rights Watch had just done. He said a “sensible policy” must “meet the test of cost benefit analysis” -- that is, I’m quoting now, that is the analysis of “the amount of blood and misery that will be poured in, and the likelihood that democracy will emerge at the other end.” Democracy as the US understands the term, which is graphically illustrated in the surrounding countries. Notice that it is axiomatic that the United States, US elites, have the right to conduct the analysis and to pursue the project if it passes their tests. And it did pass their tests. It worked. When Nicaragua finally succumbed to superpower assault, commentators openly and cheerfully lauded the success of the methods that were adopted and described them accurately. So I’ll quote Time Magazine just to pick one. They lauded the success of the methods adopted: “to wreck the economy and prosecute a long and deadly proxy war until the exhausted natives overthrow the unwanted government themselves,” with a cost to us that is “minimal,” and leaving the victims “with wrecked bridges, sabotaged power stations, and ruined farms,” and thus providing the US candidate with a “winning issue”: “ending the impoverishment of the people of Nicaragua.” The New York Times had a headline saying “Americans United in Joy” at this outcome.

Terrorism Works – Terrorism is not the Weapon of the Weak

That is the culture in which we live and it reveals several facts. One is the fact that terrorism works. It doesn’t fail. It works. Violence usually works. That’s world history. Secondly, it’s a very serious analytic error to say, as is commonly done, that terrorism is the weapon of the weak. Like other means of violence, it’s primarily a weapon of the strong, overwhelmingly, in fact. It is held to be a weapon of the weak because the strong also control the doctrinal systems and their terror doesn’t count as terror. Now that’s close to universal. I can’t think of a historical exception, even the worst mass murderers view the world that way. So pick the Nazis. They weren’t carrying out terror in occupied Europe. They were protecting the local population from the terrorisms of the partisans. And like other resistance movements, there was terrorism. The Nazis were carrying out counter terror. Furthermore, the United States essentially agreed with that. After the war, the US army did extensive studies of Nazi counter terror operations in Europe. First I should say that the US picked them up and began carrying them out itself, often against the same targets, the former resistance. But the military also studied the Nazi methods published interesting studies, sometimes critical of them because they were inefficiently carried out, so a critical analysis, you didn’t do this right, you did that right, but those methods with the advice of Wermacht officers who were brought over here became the manuals of counter insurgency, of counter terror, of low intensity conflict, as it is called, and are the manuals, and are the procedures that are being used. So it’s not just that the Nazis did it. It’s that it was regarded as the right thing to do by the leaders of western civilization, that is us, who then proceeded to do it themselves. Terrorism is not the weapon of the weak. It is the weapon of those who are against ‘us’ whoever ‘us’ happens to be. And if you can find a historical exception to that, I’d be interested in seeing it.

Nature of our Culture – How We Regard Terrorism

Well, an interesting indication of the nature of our culture, our high culture, is the way in which all of this is regarded. One way it’s regarded is just suppressing it. So almost nobody has ever heard of it. And the power of American propaganda and doctrine is so strong that even among the victims it’s barely known. I mean, when you talk about this to people in Argentina, you have to remind them. Oh, yeh, that happened, we forgot about it. It’s deeply suppressed. The sheer consequences of the monopoly of violence can be very powerful in ideological and other terms.

The Idea that Nicaragua Might Have The Right To Defend Itself

Well, one illuminating aspect of our own attitude toward terrorism is the reaction to the idea that Nicaragua might have the right to defend itself. Actually I went through this in some detail with database searches and that sort of thing. The idea that Nicaragua might have the right to defend itself was considered outrageous. There is virtually nothing in mainstream commentary indicating that Nicaragua might have that right. And that fact was exploited by the Reagan administration and its propaganda in an interesting way. Those of you who were around in that time will remember that they periodically floated rumors that the Nicaraguans were getting MIG jets, jets from Russia. At that point the hawks and the doves split. The hawks said, ‘ok, let’s bomb ‘em.’ The doves said, `wait a minute, let’s see if the rumors are true. And if the rumors are true, then let’s bomb them. Because they are a threat to the United States.’ Why, incidentally were they getting MIGs. Well they tried to get jet planes from European countries but the United States put pressure on its allies so that it wouldn’t send them means of defense because they wanted them to turn to the Russians. That’s good for propaganda purposes. Then they become a threat to us. Remember, they were just 2 days march from Harlingen, Texas. We actually declared a national emergency in 1985 to protect the country from the threat of Nicaragua. And it stayed in force. So it was much better for them to get arms from the Russians. Why would they want jet planes? Well, for the reasons I already mentioned. The United States had total control over their airspace, was over flying it and using that to provide instructions to the terrorist army to enable them to attack soft targets without running into the army that might defend them. Everyone knew that that was the reason. They are not going to use their jet planes for anything else. But the idea that Nicaragua should be permitted to defend its airspace against a superpower attack that is directing terrorist forces to attack undefended civilian targets, that was considered in the United States as outrageous and uniformly so. Exceptions are so slight, you know I can practically list them. I don’t suggest that you take my word for this. Have a look. That includes our own senators, incidentally.

Honduras – The Appointment of John Negroponte as Ambassador to the United Nations

Another illustration of how we regard terrorism is happening right now. The US has just appointed an ambassador to the United Nations to lead the war against terrorism a couple weeks ago. Who is he? Well, his name is John Negroponte. He was the US ambassador in the fiefdom, which is what it is, of Honduras in the early 1980’s. There was a little fuss made about the fact that he must have been aware, as he certainly was, of the large-scale murders and other atrocities that were being carried out by the security forces in Honduras that we were supporting. But that’s a small part of it. As proconsul of Honduras, as he was called there, he was the local supervisor for the terrorist war based in Honduras, for which his government was condemned by the world court and then the Security Council in a vetoed resolution. And he was just appointed as the UN Ambassador to lead the war against terror. Another small experiment you can do is check and see what the reaction was to this. Well, I will tell you what you are going to find, but find it for yourself. Now that tells us a lot about the war against terrorism and a lot about ourselves.

After the United States took over the country again under the conditions that were so graphically described by the press, the country was pretty much destroyed in the 1980’s, but it has totally collapsed since in every respect just about. Economically it has declined sharply since the US take over, democratically and in every other respect. It’s now the second poorest country in the Hemisphere. I should say….I’m not going to talk about it, but I mentioned that I picked up Nicaragua because it is an uncontroversial case. If you look at the other states in the region, the state terror was far more extreme and it again traces back to Washington and that’s by no means all.

US & UK Backed South African Attacks

It was happening elsewhere in the world too, take say Africa. During the Reagan years alone, South African attacks, backed by the United States and Britain, US/UK-backed South African attacks against the neighboring countries killed about a million and a half people and left 60 billion dollars in damage and countries destroyed.  And if we go around the world, we can add more examples.

Now that was the first war against terror of which I’ve given a small sample. Are we supposed to pay attention to that? Or kind of think that that might be relevant? After all it’s not exactly ancient history. Well, evidently not as you can tell by looking at the current discussion of the war on terror which has been the leading topic for the last month.

Haiti, Guatemala, and Nicaragua

I mentioned that Nicaragua has now become the 2nd poorest country in the hemisphere. What’s the poorest country? Well that’s of course Haiti which also happens to be the victim of most US intervention in the 20th century by a long shot. We left it totally devastated. It’s the poorest country. Nicaragua is second ranked in degree of US intervention in the 20th century. It is the 2nd poorest. Actually, it is vying with Guatemala. They interchange every year or two as to who’s the second poorest. And they also vie as to who is the leading target of US military intervention. We’re supposed to think that all of this is some sort of accident. That is has nothing to do with anything that happened in history. Maybe.

Colombia and Turkey

The worst human rights violator in the 1990’s is Colombia, by a long shot. It’s also the, by far, the leading recipient of US military aid in the 1990’s maintaining the terror and human rights violations. In 1999, Colombia replaced Turkey as the leading recipient of US arms worldwide, that is excluding Israel and Egypt which are a separate category. And that tells us a lot more about the war on terror right now, in fact.

Why was Turkey getting such a huge flow of US arms? Well if you take a look at the flow of US arms to Turkey, Turkey always got a lot of US arms. It’s strategically placed, a member of NATO, and so on. But the arms flow to Turkey went up very sharply in 1984. It didn’t have anything to do with the cold war. I mean Russian was collapsing. And it stayed high from 1984 to 1999 when it reduced and it was replaced in the lead by Colombia. What happened from 1984 to 1999? Well, in 1984, [Turkey] launched a major terrorist war against Kurds in southeastern Turkey. And that’s when US aid went up, military aid. And this was not pistols. This was jet planes, tanks, military training, and so on. And it stayed high as the atrocities escalated through the 1990’s. Aid followed it. The peak year was 1997. In 1997, US military aid to Turkey was more than in the entire period 1950 to 1983, that is the cold war period, which is an indication of how much the cold war has affected policy. And the results were awesome. This led to 2-3 million refugees. Some of the worst ethnic cleansing of the late 1990’s. Tens of thousands of people killed, 3500 towns and villages destroyed, way more than Kosovo, even under NATO bombs. And the United States was providing 80% of the arms, increasing as the atrocities increased, peaking in 1997. It declined in 1999 because, once again, terror worked as it usually does when carried out by its major agents, mainly the powerfu