Brilliant Interview: “The Paranoia of the Superrich and Superpowerful”

Huge efforts have been devoted since to inculcating the New Spirit of the Age. Major industries are devoted to the task: public relations, advertising, marketing generally, all of which add up to a very large component of the Gross Domestic Product. They are dedicated to what the great political economist Thorstein Veblen called “fabricating wants.” In the words of business leaders themselves, the task is to direct people to “the superficial things” of life, like “fashionable consumption.” That way people can be atomized, separated from one another, seeking personal gain alone, diverted from dangerous efforts to think for themselves and challenge authority.

– Noam Chomsky from his amazing essay, How the Magna Carta became a Minor Carta

I remember that back when I was younger, whenever I heard the name Noam Chomsky the words “anti-American radical” would pop into my head.  This is despite the fact that I had never read anything he ever wrote, nor ever heard him speak.  Looking back, I realize that this is how powerful brainwashing functions  The most effective propaganda is the one that makes you think your opinions and biases come from your own mind.  No matter what you think you think of Noam Chomsky, this interview is a must read.  He even exposes fake liberals for the frauds they are.

From the Huffington Post:

Question: Does the United States still have the same level of control over the energy resources of the Middle East as it once had?

Chomsky:  The major energy-producing countries are still firmly under the control of the Western-backed dictatorships. So, actually, the progress made by the Arab Spring is limited, but it’s not insignificant. The Western-controlled dictatorial system is eroding. In fact, it’s been eroding for some time. So, for example, if you go back 50 years, the energy resources — the main concern of U.S. planners — have been mostly nationalized. There are constantly attempts to reverse that, but they have not succeeded.

Take the U.S. invasion of Iraq, for example. To everyone except a dedicated ideologue, it was pretty obvious that we invaded Iraq not because of our love of democracy but because it’s maybe the second- or third-largest source of oil in the world, and is right in the middle of the major energy-producing region. You’re not supposed to say this. It’s considered a conspiracy theory.

That led to a lot of very angry and infuriated reactions, but the most interesting ones were, as usual, on the left liberal end of the spectrum. Matthew Yglesias, a well-known and highly respected left liberal commentator, wrote an article in which he ridiculed these views. He said they’re “amazingly naive,” silly. Then he expressed the reason. He said that “one of the main functions of the international institutional order is precisely to legitimate the use of deadly military force by western powers.” Of course, he didn’t mean Norway. He meant the United States. So the principle on which the international system is based is that the United States is entitled to use force at will. To talk about the United States violating international law or something like that is amazingly naive, completely silly. Incidentally, I was the target of those remarks, and I’m happy to confess my guilt. I do think that Magna Carta and international law are worth paying some attention to.

Take a look at the year-end issue of Foreign Affairs, the main establishment journal. Its big front-page cover asks, in bold face, “Is America Over?” It’s a standard complaint of those who believe they should have everything. If you believe you should have everything and anything gets away from you, it’s a tragedy, the world is collapsing. So is America over? A long time ago we “lost” China, we’ve lost Southeast Asia, we’ve lost South America. Maybe we’ll lose the Middle East and North African countries. Is America over? It’s a kind of paranoia, but it’s the paranoia of the superrich and the superpowerful. If you don’t have everything, it’s a disaster.

The United States is in favor of stability. But you have to remember what stability means. Stability means conformity to U.S. orders. So, for example, one of the charges against Iran, the big foreign policy threat, is that it is destabilizing Iraq and Afghanistan. How? By trying to expand its influence into neighboring countries. On the other hand, we “stabilize” countries when we invade them and destroy them.

It’s so deep that it’s going to be hard to disentangle it. And if anyone questions that, it leads to near hysteria and often to charges of anti-Americanism or “hating America” — interesting concepts that don’t exist in democratic societies, only in totalitarian societies and here, where they’re just taken for granted.

Well said sir.

Full interview here.

In Liberty,

Follow me on Twitter!


 Add your comment
  1. interesting analyses of the world we are in

  2. noam? he aint anti american he is just a libtard

    got about half way through good god that man runs on and on………..he like all leftests TELLS you what to think about the subject rather than presenting it for you to draw conclusions from.
    i understand how based what you highlighted he sounds good (he is a linguist after all) but the problem with noam is that he is NEVER talking about what he claims as his subject , it is ALWAYS a vehicle and he is taking you on a trip. in this case he is atacking property rights and atempting to make the case that in the past we had a “commoners paridise” living the life of riely in the “commons” and if we just give up this obsession with owning the products of our own labor we could have a “workers paridise NOW!!

    the commons this the forest charter that bla bla bla………to ME i wonder if the forest charters creation of the first “public lands” CAUSED and enabled there “privatization” away from the comoners who had up untill that time used and maintained them , and in to the hands of courtiers and there cronies who then sold them off the second they nedded some cash to pay themselves!! a similar thing has happened in the socialest countries that have privatized recently the gooberment came around and confiscated every thing and now that there failing thee selling off the assets rather than returning them to the owners or there famlies

    what Chomsky FAILS to see is that up untill they actually chartered there forests to the “public domain” the people who used them had owned what they had been maintaining BECAUSE of the fact that they were the ones doing the maintainence , and they had the right to defend there intrests based on this fact !! and after the “charter” nobody could use or maintain any of it with out a permit from a beuracrat same as with the BLM and forest service lands in the states today.
    the isue is that sombody ALWAYS “owns” things and all placing somthing in the public domain accomplishes is to hand what ever it is over to a beuracrat as a custodian.
    the public domain is maintained in the public intrest by not allowing any one from the public to have access TO it. and insted it gets leased out to mining and timber harvest exploitation companies for free and if a “common” rancher tries to graze his cattle on “public” lands he gets his herd confiscated by ice agents.

  3. “…I remember that back when I was younger, whenever I heard the name Noam Chomsky the words “anti-American radical” would pop into my head…”

    I was the same way about Oliver Stone. Then, I watched ‘JFK’ after having read ‘JFK and The Unspeakable.’ That viewing confirmed to me that I had been brainwashed about ‘the left’ all my life.

    I am now open to hearing ‘leftist’ views, many (but not all) of which make sense and resonate with my newfound libertarian perspective.

  4. Left and right are a false paradigm invented by TPTB. Problem, solution, answer. Hegelian Dialectic. There is only truth and untruth. Noam is spot on.

Leave a Reply

1 Trackback

  1. Brilliant Interview: “The Paranoia of the Superrich and Superpowerful” | Honest Money (Pingback)