28 Dezember 2012

Books which I have read.

The Art of Deception by Kevin D. Mitnick and William L. Simon
The Art of Intrusion by Kevin D. Mitnick and William L. Simon
The Rat on Fire by George V. Higgins (2nd time)
Ghost in the Wires by Kevin D. Mitnick and William L. Simon

27 Dezember 2012

Excerpt. Transcript. Sideways2004.


1.     Just write another one. You have lots of ideas, right?
2.     No, I'm finished. I'm not a writer. I'm a middle-school English teacher. I'm going to spend the rest of my life grading essays and reading the works of others. It's okay. I like books. The world doesn't give a shit what I have to say. I'm unnecessary. I'm so insignificant, I can't even kill myself.
3.     What's that supposed to mean?
4.     You know, Hemingway, Sexton, Woolf, Plath, Delmore Schwartz. You can't kill yourself before you've even been published.
5.     What about that guy who wrote Confederacy of Dunces? He committed suicide before he got published, and look how famous he is.
6.     Thanks.
7.     Don't give up. You're going to make it.
8.     Half my life is over, and I have nothing to show for it. I'm a thumbprint on the window of a skyscraper. I'm a smudge of excrement on a tissue surging out to sea with a million tons of raw sewage.
9.     See? Right there. Just what you just said. That's beautiful. A thumbprint on a skyscraper. I couldn't write that.
10. Neither could I. I think it's Bukowski.

Excerpt. Transcript. YoungAdult2011.

-->
1.     You love it. You love it.
2.     I'm gonna grab a beer. You want a drink?
3.     Oh, just a water.
4.     Can you give me another Summer Ale?
5.     Sure.
6.     It's fine. I'll just ["]pump and dump["] after the show. Don't worry I'm not trying to get my kid hammered [intoxicated].
7.     Wow, look at that.
8.     Ah, yeah, Fun-quarium. Always chills her out. Yeah. Yeah. Yes. Yes, it does. He's starting to get smiles.
9.     Cute.
10. He's like Buddy's clone.
11. No, I see you in there.
12. Really?
13. A lot of you, in fact.
14. Thanks.
15. Here you go, ladies.
16. So how's it going? I know you're writer. I saw a nice article about you in the Sun.
17. Yes, I'm a[n] author of a young adult series. It's distrubingly popular.
18. Huh, huh.
19. I like your decor. Is it shabby chic?
20. Pier One?
21. A little bit Goodwill.
22. Buddy and I used to go thfting all the time. Remember that? The nineties? Oh my God, Beth. We had this huge silly t-shirt collection. It was like a dumbest thing ever.
23. Yeah, nineties are awesome.
24. I used to sleep in his t-shirts and boxers. I think I still have a few.
25. Hey, I still have my one of ex-boyfriend's t-shirts. I can't bring myself to get rid of them.
26. What? Which one?
27. Like I'd tell you.
28. What's the chart?
29. Beth teaches ["]special needs["] kids.
30. A lot of my kids learn emotions cognitively. It doesn't come naturally come to them the way it does for you and me. So we need to show them this is what happy looks like, this is what anxious looks like, and so on.
31. What about neutral? What if you don't feel anything?
32. That's kind of how they are a lot of the time, so, yeah, don't need to teach it.


1.     Our school is ugly. Looks like a factory.
2.     It actually used to be a rubber fabrication plant back in the twenties.
3.     You know everything.
4.     These woods were like ["]Hump City["] back in the day. I remember being here with a few different guys.
5.     I never knew you were such a slut.
6.     I was normal.
7.     So how are things with old Buddy, huh? How's the master plan unfolding?
8.     Well, actually, he called me today and asked me if I wanted to participate in his baby's naming ceremony. I don't know. There's still so much that's unspoken, but. He's involving me in his child's life.
9.     Buddy is a married man. By all accounts, happily.
10. Yeah, happily married man go to bars alone with ex-girlfriends all the time. They call them privately, and they make out with them on the porches.
11. He did not make out with you.
12. You weren't there. We ["]made out["]. It was intense and passionate. He gave me his sweat shirt.
13. Yes, I noticed. They probably noticed in space. And FYI, you look completely insane wearing it. I don't know what Buddy is doing with you or you think he's doing with you. You need to move on.
14. You're one to talk. All you care about is some scuffle that happened 20 years ago. You lean on that crutch, you lean on excuses. And you and I both know you use this whole thing as an excuse to nothing with your life.
15. "Scuffle". You don't know shit about what happend to me. Those ["]jocks["] that you used to blow [to perform fellatio] during lunch, they shattered my legs, bashed in my brains, mangled my cock, so that I have to piss and cum sideways until the rest of my life. Then they left me for dead. You know, things aren't too great down south. I can barely get off by myself, let alone with another person.
16. You know, what's done is done. You can't keep dwelling on the past, Matt.
17. Are you fucking kidding? Talk about dwelling in the past. Here you are, back in Mercury, like a loser. Trying to score with a happily married man.
18. Buddy's not happy, okay? So just stop saying that.
19. You're hardly the authority on happiness, Sylvia.
20. You know what, Matt? It really is a shame you're like this because if you had a good personality, none of this other stuff would bother people.
21. Why don't you use my cluth again as a metaphor? That was brilliant, all right?. That was masterful. Or no, save it for you little teenage stories, all right? Because god knows you don't know shit about being an adult.


1.     Mavis?
2.     What?
3.     Are you okay?
4.     I'll be fine if I can get a real drink around here.
5.     I'll get some..
6.     Fuck you. Fuck you. You fucking bitch. Oh my God. You should see your face. It's a joke. Are you just gonna stand there like a big lump? I love your sweater.
7.     I'll get you rag.
8.     Yeah, go get me a rag. You got one of those lying around. Fucking burp clothes, whatever. You know the funny thing is? I could have this party a long time ago. This exact same party. Buddy and I were together for four years and we were inseparable. Jen knows. Right, Jen? Tell them.
9.     You wanna clean up?
10. Don't bother, it is silk. It's fucked.
11. Mavis, sweetheart.
12. Mom, I'm trying to tell a story here. Yeah, Buddy got me pregnant at twenty. [Age20] And we were gonna keep it. We were gonna have a little baby, a little naming party. and fun-quarium, all of that. I had Buddy's miscarriage. which I wouldn't wish for anyone. Maybe if things were a little more hopsitable ["]down south["] in my broken body. Buddy and I would be here right now with teenager and probably with more kids. Because we always found each other, always. Right, Jen? What the fuck?
13. It's a new drum set for Beth. What's wrong?
14. Nothing.
15. What do you mean, nothing? Are you one of those kids who need a fucking chart to learn feelings? Stand up for yourself. Why are you covering for me?
16. That's enough, Mavis. You're drunk.
17. Oh, I've been drunk since I've been back, mom. And nobody gave two shit until this one got all bent out of shape.
18. Mavis, what the hell is going on?
19. Why did you invite me?
20. I didn't invite you. My wife did. Beth practically forced me to call you. She feels sorry for you. We all do, Mavis. It's obvious you're having some mental sickness, some depression. You're very lonely and confused. So Beth made me invite you here even though I knew it was a mistake. I knew it.
21. You're lying.
22. He's not.
23. Well, what about now? You hate me now? Cause it should be easy, because I fucking hate you. Look at you. What is wrong with you people?
24. Mavis, honey.
25. You know, I came back for you. For you. And I hate this town. It's a hick, lack town that smells of fish shit. But I came back. Just wanted you to know that.

23 Dezember 2012

Excerpt. Transcript. DVD Commentary. TheLimey1999. An important question and a bad reviewer.

-->
1.     An important question.
2.     Dobbs: I do think, you know. I think, it's. I tell people that say to me, "Do you like this movie?" As a completely disinterested, objective film-goer, "I think it's a good movie." I think, if I knew nothing more about it and had nothing to do with it, as a film-goer, That's a good movie. I'd recommend it to my friends. As a screenwriter, I do think it's crippled.
3.     Soderbergh: First one is the only one that matters.
4.     Dobbs: What do you mean?
5.     Soderbergh: The objective ["]film-goer position["]. That's the only one that matters. That's the only one I think about. Don't you think there are scenes, directorially, I think are great. I think, "Gee, I hate cutting that." But I cut it because the movie has to come first? Don't you think the same thing?
6.     Dobbs: I do think it's your Achilles's Heel. I don't think it's just this film or previous film. I think it's a, it's a problem that you have. I think a lot of your films could use extra ten minutes. Certainly this one. I mean, I think it's a good film. I really do. But I think it would [have] be been a much better film. I think it would have ["]won over["] few other bad reviews.
7.     Soderbergh: First of all, I'm not bothered by bad reviews, for one. Secondly, I'd rather, I'd rather have a character be perceived as thin or shallow than have a character that who I think has been, is approached to in a sort of reductive fashion and explain more than, you know, I think I would like to see explain. So I do tend to air on the ["]side of less["]. That just reflects my taste and what I like to see on a movie.
8.     Dobbs: No, I agree with you on the one hand. I just don't know it's been executed properly. I mean, uh, in terms of character explaining himself, you can hardly do worse than all of his cockney slang stuff. (I agree.) I think there's far too much of. I was careful to have only have one instance of cockney slang. Terry Valentine's house where he says, I'm gonna have butchers in the house. You and Terrence Stamp, between the two of you, fell in love with that. And a lot of people have fallen in love with that.


1.     Soderbergh: Now here's a scene a lot of people commented upon, which you indicated clearly in the script. Camera stays outside as Wilson goes in. Because this is so much interesting to see him come out with blood on his face.
2.     Dobbs: Yeah, tell me about it. I've read enough of review that prasied the reveiwal (wrong word) direction. Most notably, that motherfucker at Variety. Yeah, brilliant direction of Steven Soderbergh.

21 Dezember 2012

Chomsky. Transcript. Hot Type with Evan Solomon.

-->
1.     28Jul2002
2.     Canadian Broadcasting Program, Hot Type with Evan Solomon
3.     Is the United States of America leading terrorist State? Due to war in Afghanistan, American (unclear) proves George Bush qualifies as war criminal? Well, according to Noam Chomsky, America's most famous dissident in (unclear), Yes. We met him in Cambridge and talked about many things including his new book, 9/11. In the hysterical days following SeptemberElevenAttacks, when George Bush reduce the world in two camps, Either you're with us or you're against us. Two voice of dissent distinguish themselves. First, Susan Sontag. And then, Noam Chomsky. Both refused to buy into George Bush's reductive world view. They reminded Americans their own Government criminal actions around the world. Noam Chomsky is, of course, MIT Linguistics Professor, who famously popularised the concept of ManufacturingConsent. For years, he's written about how the West uses propagandastic press to coerce its own citizens and how it uses covert forms of violence to maintain power around the world. Chomsky was overwhelmed with media requests about SeptemberEleven. So his new book, 9/11, is a collection of interviews he gave after the event in the following months. Interestingly, 9/11 has been a best-seller despite the fact that it has total lack of publicity. I met Noam Chomsky in Cambridge about post-NineEleven world and how things have changed since then. But I began by asking him to explain how the war in Afghanistan, as an example, how the US, in his mind, is a leading terrorist state.
4.     [omitted from braodcast 1, start]
5.     I want to start off by reading a quotation from your most recent compendium of interviews, 9-11. You wrote, "If US chooses to respond to the attacks of September 11th by escalating the cycle of violence, which is most likely what bin Laden and his associates hope for, the consequences could be awesome." Now, US did.
6.     They didn't.
7.     You don't think they did?
8.     You have to remember when that was. That was late September. At that point, the Bush administration was talking as though they were going to carry out a massive bombing campaign against the civilian population with no thought about the consequences. They were being told at the time, from every source, European leaders, intelligence agencies, I'm sure their own as well, that, if they did that, it would be a gift to bin Laden. That's exactly what he wanted. The French Foreign Minister called it an Afghan trap.
9.     But they did go into Afghanistan.
10. No, they didn't. They did it in a way that would keep the attack on the population silent. They focused the bombing on military forces, Taliban military forces primarily, not on a massive attack. They didn't carry out a massive attack against a civilian population. Actually, they did, but it was indirect. It was through increasing the threat of starvation and death from disease. Their own estimates were that they were putting a couple of million people at risk of starvation, and that's probably correct. But that's silent, you don't see people die of starvation.
11. But did they pursue? I mean, you said that originally, after the SeptemberEleven attacks, that the United States ought to treat this as a crime, not as a war. George Bush then called it a "War on Terrorism." Now first, what's the distinction between treating it as a crime and war and how have those approaches affected what's happening?
12. Well, that's what I said then, but that has since become a very public position, not by me, but by conservative mainstream opinion. So for example, let's take the January issue of Foreign Affairs [magazine] the main establishment journal. There's an article by the leading Anglo-American military historian, Michael Howard, very conservative, very respected, all the right credentials. He thinks British Imperialism was wonderful and the American version was even better, but he points out the same thing. He says, if there's a crime, a major crime, crime against humanity, the way to deal with it is by careful police work, to identify the perpetrators and then, since this is an international crime, request international authorization, which was never received or asked for, to bring them to justice. And then trial in an independent court.
13. And that's the right way?
14. An independent court will give a fair trial. Now that's a position from the right wing in the main establishment journal in the United States.
15. And you support that?
16. That's what I said last September. Yes, I think that's the right way to deal with crimes.
17. Now what if I say to you Bush has pursued a somewhat similar policy?
18. [omitted from broadcast 1, end]
19. October 12th, I guess, a couple of days after the bombing started, Bush publicly announced to the Afghan people that we will continue to bomb you unless your leadership turns over to us. People who we suspect are carry out crimes, although we refuse to give any evidence, probably because they don't have any. We dismiss without any comment, the offers of your leadership. Negotiations of extradition. Notice that that's a textbook illustration of international terrorism. That is, by the US official definition. That is, the use of threat and force and use of violence, in this case, extreme violence, to attain political ends through intimidation, fear, and so on. That's the official definition and it's a textbook illustration of it. Three weaks later, by the end of October, warheads were changed. They were first announced, as far as I can find out, by British Defense Minister, Michael Boyce, Admiral Boyce, British Defense Minister. He informed the Afghan population that we will continue to bomb you until you change your leadership. That's even more dramatic illustration of international terrorism if not regression. That was the, that was the the goal that was followed. This has nothing to do with finding criminals and bringing them to Justice. It's totally different issue.
20. If the United States is a leading terrorist State, and if, as you say, Britain is another example of a terrorist State, how do you distinguish between that kind of what you described as terrorism and what they are saying Osama bin Laden who is terrorist. Make a distinction.
21. That's very simple. If they do it, it's terrorism. If we do it, it's counter-terrorism. That's Historical universal. If you look at Nazi propaganda, the most extreme mass murderers ever. If you look at Nazi propaganda, it's exactly what they said. They said they were defending the population and legitimate Governments in Europe, like Vichy, from the terrorist, terrorist partisans who are directed from London. That's the basic propaganda line. Like all propaganda, no matter how vulgar, it has an element of truth. The point is, they did carry out terror. They were directed from London. Vichy Government is not as legitimate as half the US installed around the world. So, yes, it has minor element of truth to it. And that's the way it works. If somebody else carries it out, it's terror. If we carry it out, it's counter-terror. I think perhaps one of the most dramatic examples right at this moment is the place where I just was a couple of weeks ago, South Eastern Turkey. South Eastern Turkey is the site of one of the, some of the worst terrorist atrocities in 1990s. This is the.
22. Attack on the Curds.
23. Attack on the Curds. Left of couple of millions of refugees. Much of the countryside devastated. Tens of thousands of people killed. Every barbarian form of torture you can dream of. It's all well documented. Human Rights reports. How did they do it? They did it with huge full(?) of US arms. It peaked at 1997. In the single year of 1997, in that one year, the arms transferred to Turkey from the United State were higher than entire Cold War period. Up until insurgency started, counter-insurgency started. But look at the way it's treated. Look at the way it's treated. This massive international terrorisms, run, supported by United States, is considered a great triumph for counter-terrorism. So if you read State Department's reports on terror, they praise Turkey for its success in showing how to counter terror. Front page article of New York Times praises Turkey for showing how to deal with terror. Turkey was selected as the country to provide interna, the forces, for what they called international force for Afghanistan. Actually, it's Kaboul alone. It's Turkey that's being offered, it's being paid by the United States, extensively to carry out the repression of terror thanks to their achievement in countering terror. Namely by carrying out some of the worst terrors in 1990s. Massive ethnic cleansing and atrocities with US support. This takes, this is really achivement of an intellectual culture to be able to do this. It illustrate very well to answer your questions on terror and counter-terror. If some enemy states did this, we'd be, you know, not just outraged, we'd be bombing.
24. [omitted from broadcast 2, start]
25. Is Bush justified in calling Bin Laden a terrorist when, as you say, he's running a terrorist State himself?
26. Yeah, I agree that he should call him a terrorist.
27. But you say even Jonathan Swift would be baffled at the irony of that?
28. To say that bin Laden is a terrorist, a murderous terrorist is certainly correct, but what about Clinton? I just described one of his minor escapades in Turkey. This example is particularly striking, not only because of the massive atrocities, but because of the way it's treated, and because remember this was at the same time when there was an orgy of self-congratulation among Western intellectuals because of their magnificence in opposing terrorism by bombing Serbia because of what Milosevic had done in Kosovo.
29. [omitted from braodcast 2, end]
30. All right, when we come back, Noam Chomsky says that, nations such as United States should acknowledge their own crime before talking about Right and Wrong. And he says a lot more than that. So ["]stick around["] for more Noam Chomsky.
31. Let's talk about Middle East, for example, where Sharon says we are experiencing terrorist bombings, and therefore we have to have big operation in the West Bank and root out terrorism. And people say, "Hey, you are violating human rights". Israelis say, "There's no equivalency between suicide bombings and protecting our security". Palestinans says "There's no equivalency between suicide bombings and the occupation."
32. This is the 35th year of a harsh and brutal, vicious occupation, supported uni-laterally by the United States. Constant terror and atrocities. Suppose Palestinians say, "Well, we're under terrorist attack for 35 years, therefore we have a right to carry out suicide bombs."
33. Which is what they said.
34. Do you accept this? Does anybody accept it?
35. Nobody accepts it.
36. Then, how come everyone accepts the Israeli's claim to be doing it, which is much weaker claim, because, after all, there is no symmetry in the situation. They are the military occupiers. Palestinian is not occupying Israel. And this hasn't just started now, it has gone on years ago.
37. So, that does, in your mind, justify....
38. No, of course not. It doesn't, anybody.
39. It invalidates both sides.
40. Those who defend suicide bombing, and they are very few, they don't have a ["]leg["] to stand on. Those who defend Israeli atrocities, including the US Government, most intellectual opinion, good bit of West, generally. They don't have a ["]leg["] to stand on, either. They have a much weaker position. We are back to Turkey again. Take the Powell mission. Powell is praised because he's such a wonderful diplomat. He succeded, he went to Yasser Arafat who's imprisoned in a dungeon, where he can't even flush the toilet. And extracted from him the statement from him, codemning terror. Did anybody request, suggest that Powell should have requested, suggest that Sharon condemn Israeli atrocities? Did anyone suggest that Powell asked George Bush to condemn the fact that he's being sending Israel apache attack helicopters which has been devastating Jenin?
41. But the UN's been condemning...
42. Oh, no, no. You don't understand my point. Did anybody suggest, can you find a word in the press anywhere, just anywhre, just Powell should have requested condemnation of Israeli terror of Sharon and US backing of their terror by Bush? That's a thought that couldn't even enter anybody's mind. And the reason is because of our profound commitment to terror and violence. When it's commited by our clients and by ourselves that it's so deep that we can't even think of the question.
43. You asked after 9/11, that we ought to look into the mirror. We being American or the West, Look at the mirror. At our own. Was that a way of saying, "People like bin Laden are angry at us for a good reason". In another words, Is there a way to justify... (Another typical attempt to distort meaning of a sentence.)
44. No, that's not what I was saying. Statement of mine you just quoted is a very conservative statement. In fact, it was articulated by George Bush's favorite philosopher, Jesus Christ, who pointed out, famously, define the notion of hypocrite. Hypocrite is a person who focuses on other fellow's crimes and refuses to look at his own. That's the definition of hypocrite by George Bush's favorite philospher. When I repeat that, I'm not taking a radical position. I'm taking a position which is just elementary Morality.
45. But even if he is a hypocrite...
46. Not he, everyone.
47. Okay, even if...
48. Let me ask. Another question. See, here's an experiment. Try to find a phrase in massive commentary on 9/11, which is not hypocritical in the sense of George Bush's favorite philosopher. Find one phrase. I don't think you can do it.
49. Before.. I don't want to get Gnostic here and religious on it. But I do want...
50. This is not Religion. It is elementary Morality. If people cannot rise to the level of applying to ourselves the same standard we apply to others, they have no right to talk about Right and Wrong, or Good and Evil.
51. Let's talk about even in Right. Look, there's nobody pure. But an argument has been made, I know that US commited atrocities. However, they did oust more brutal regime than Taliban. There was a celebration. There was a war aim.
52. There wasn't even a war aim. There wasn't even a war aim. There wasn't even a war aim.
53. But, is that a Moral thing to do? They did get rid of a brutal regime. There was  a celebration.
54. Fine, let them bomb Israel and get rid of brutal regime there. Let them bomb Uzbekistan and get rid of brutal regime there.
55. You're saying that Talibans and Israelis got rid of United States?
56. No, they're not saying they're brutal regimes. Goal was not to oust the Taliban. That was not a war aim. That was war aim that was picked up several weeks after the bombing started, okay? Let's go back. Suppose th.., there are dozen, I can list all brutal regimes around the world, which ought to be overthrown, but not by somebody bombing. However, let's go back to the late October. When, after three weeks of bombing, when the US and British client decided to shift the war aims to overthrow the Tabiban regime.
57. [omitted from braodcast 3, start]
58. Well, how do you proceed to do that? There are differences of opinion. For example, there was an Afghan position on this right at that time, late October. There was a meeting sponsored by the United States in Peshawar, Pakistan of a thousand Afghan leaders, tribal leaders, some of them came in from Afghanistan, others were in Pakistan. These are political leaders, tribal leaders, others supported and backed by the United States. Now they disagreed on all sorts of things, but they did agree on one thing, namely they unanimously condemned the bombing and said it was undermining their efforts, which they thought could succeed to overthrow the Taliban regime from within.
59. Two weeks before that the US favorite Abdul Hak went into Afghanistan, turned out he was killed because he didn't get any Western support, but he want in to Afghanistan to try to organize opposition to the Taliban. Right before he went in, he had a long interview with a publication distributed by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, in which he bitterly condemned the US bombing. He said the same thing as the 1000 tribal leaders. He said it's undermining them. He said the US is doing it just to show off their muscle, they don't care what happens to Afghanistan. They're undermining attempts which will succeed, he thought, to undermine the Taliban regime from within and overthrow it. The leading women's group in Pakistan, RAWA, which has been fighting courageously for years for women's rights, took exactly the same position. So there are ideas about how to overthrow the Taliban, did anybody pay attention? No, because exactly as Abdul Hak said, the US and Britain wanted to show their muscle.
60. [omitted from broadcast 3, end]
61. There was a meeting sponsored by United States in, Peshawar, Pakistan. About a thousand Afghan leaders, who unanimously condemned the bombing. They said it was undermining their efforts, which they thought would succeed to overthrow the Tabiban regime from within. US was doing just to show off their muscle. [sound manipulation]
62. Now...
63. The question of overthrowing regimes, that arises. I think the Afghans are right. Regime should be overthrown from within. And, in this case, it was probably very likely that it would [have] succeed succeeded. There was a small, brutal group. Highly unpopular, plenty of opposition to it, which could have been organised from within. And that's the way to overthrow a regime. If we want to overthrow a regime of Uzbekistan, now our great favorite but happens to be not very different from Taliban. The way to do it would not be to bomb Uzbekistan but to support internal Democratic forces and let them do it. That generalises around the world.
64. Robert Kaplan, who writes about Foreign Policy. I spoke to him about his book, Warrior Politics. I put some of your points to him. He said, about the distinction between terrorist States, you call Israel, America, and the terrorist states America calls Taliban. He said, "I wish Noam Chomsky had been with me in Roumania in 70s or 80s, just one of the seven or eight Warsaw States. Which is one of the several prison systems with 700 000 political prisoners. I don't choice a Adult choice of Foreign Policy as made under distinctions. Argument that Chomsky makes has no distinctions because there's a difference between ((quantity and the kind of dictators that America supported) and (the quantity and kind of things we went in Communist world for 44 years.))"
65. So, let's take his example. Roumania, Ceaușescu, hideous regime.
66. Yeah.
67. Which he forgot to tell you that United States supported. Supported right til the end as did Britain.
68. [omitted from broadcast 4, start]
69. When Ceaușescu came to London he was feted by Margaret Thatcher. [Of course.] When George Bush the First [George HW Bush] came into office, I think the first person he invited to Washington was Ceaușescu. Yes, Romania was a miserable, brutal regime supported by the United States right til the end, as Robert Kaplan knows very well, so the example he gave is a perfect example.
70. It wasn't supported by the States in the 70s though?
71. In the 70s, in the 80s, right to the end of Ceaușescu's rule. It was supported by the United States. The reasons had to do with great power politics. They were sort of breaking Warsaw Pact policies and so on, but the very example he picks illustrates it and we can proceed onward.
72. [omitted from broadcast 4, end]
73. So the example that he gave is a perfect example. [sound manipulation] And it's a small example because we support much more brutal regimes.
74. [omitted from broadcast 5, start]
75. It has nothing to do with Cold War issues.
76. [omitted from broadcast 5, end]
77. I gave you example in South Eastern Turkey. Several million refuges, tens of thousands of people killed, country devastated, that's rather serious. It's a, Nobody accused Milosevic in Kasova. East Timor... We supported... Forget... Indonesia.
78. Indonesia.
79. Indonesia, Souharto, one of the worst killer and torturist in the late 20th century. United States and Britian supported him throughout. "He's our kind of guy.", as the Clinton administration said in 1995. Horrible atrocities. In fact, when he came in the office in 1965 with a coup, CIA compared it to Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. It led to total euphoria in the United States and Britain. Massive support. When he carried out even worse, more, comparable atrocities elsewhere, couple of hundreds of thousands of people killed then, couple hundres of thousands later. Full support. Continued right through the end of his rule. In fact, continued past his rule. In late 1999, when they were rampaging and destroying (what's left of (east of Timore)), US and Britain continued to support him. And I can continue through the world like this.
80. Kaplan says that there is a distinction. Everyone has got some blood on their hands. He says, "Ah, we have significantly less blood."
81. Less blood?
82. "Because we are soft Imperalist."
83. Really?
84. "Not State terrorist."
85. Like, when we supported his example, Ceaușescu in Roumania, right til the end, that's good? How about killing several million people in Vietnam? How about killing hundred of thousands of people in Central America in the 80s, leaving four countries devastated beyond, uh, uh, you know, beyond, maybe beyond recovery.
86. That qualifies US intervening in any other way?
87. No, it doesn't. No, it doesn't. The fact that bin Laden is a terrorist, or let's say, Taliban are a terrorist State, that fact doesn't disqualify [qualify] them from bombing Washington [D.C.]. What disqualifies [them] from doing that is even Mahhatma Ghandi shouldn't do it. Kaplan can't understand trivialities. Triviality here is, nobody accepts ultra right-wing jingoist, like Kaplan, is comparing atrocities by various countries. What honest people are saying is, it seems to be incomprehensible, [is that] we should keep to the elementary Moral levels of the Gospels. We should pay attention to our own crimes and stop commiting them. This would be true even if we were killing even one person, okay? And it's even more true when we are killing millions of people.
88. Let's bring it to the bigger picture. Because, the question is. We all agree with the Gospel.
89. He doesn't. He doesn't. He certainly doesn't.
90. Hobbsian world, this is what he says, nasty, if we leave people alone, they'll kill each other. That's why what you need is what he calls organising hegemony, overwhelmed (overwhelming) will and power. Which is sometimes. Which is always asked, he says.
91. And why is it us? Because we have the power. And we have a massively subservient intellectual class, of which he's an illustration, which would support US atrocities, no matter how awful they are.
92. He says, Real Politic. That Chomsky's often on another land with his Gospel. That he says, "Look..."
93. Forget Gospel. I'm talking about the most elementary Morality. If a person doesn't understand that, they have no right to talk, okay? If you don't understand you [should] pay attention to your own crimes, you have no right to talk.
94. He talks about Machivellian virtue. Sometimes, we do bad things to protect our Democratic, good institution, and Just society. How do you...
95. How are we protecting our Democratic institutions by supporting mass slaughter in South Eastern Turkey in the last few years? Was that supporting our Democratic institutions?
96. Was it supporting?
97. Our Democratic institutions.
98. Not ours, but Kaplan would argue that nation State has a right to use any means necessary to protect its sovereignty.
99. Oh then, he's justifying Milosevic, he's saying Milosevic had a right to do anything he wanted to repress Kosovars in Albania, is that what he's saying?
100.                [omitted from broadcast 6, start]
101.                I think he would not say that.
102.                Why not?
103.                He would say that violates virtue.
104.                Oh, so when they do it, it violates virtue, but when we do it it's virtuous?
105.                Should there be an organizing hegemony,
106.                [omitted from broadcast 6, end]
107.                do we need constabulary, a force, a central force, in this case, it's America, because it's superpower to, sometimes, to use Unjust means in the service of Just causes?
108.                What are the Just causes? What was the Just cause in, for example, slaughtering Kurds in South Eastern Turkey, what was the Just cause? What was the Just cause in supporting Souharto when he wiped, when he killed a couple of hundres of thousands of landless peasant in Indonesia, went on, become one of the biggest torturers in the world and then destroy, slaughter a third of the population of East Timore. What was the Just cause? What was the Just cause when we invaded South Vietnam forty years ago, this is (the 40th anniversary of (the public announcement of the US attack on South Vietnam)), ending up killing millions of people, leaving the country devastated, they still die from chemical warfare, what was the Just cause? What was the Just cause when we fought a war, to a large extent, against the Catholic Church in Central America in 1980s, killing hundreds of thousands of people, every imaginable kind of torture and devastation, what was the Just cause? Can I continue? Yeah, the Just cause, for people like Kaplan, is "We did it therefore it is Just cause." You can read that in the Nazi archives, too.
109.                [omitted from broadcast 7, start]
110.                It's no great secret that we function by self-interest. Self-interest is part of Foreign Policy. We're here to protect our policy, protect the interests of our policy, in this case of the Americans. (Finally his expresses what he really thinks.)
111.                Was the self-interest of the American people served by slaughters in southeastern Turkey, or by destroying Vietnam, or by turning El Salvador and Guatemala into cemeteries? Was the self-interest of the American people served by that? No. The self-interest served by that is foreign policy elites and the power centers they represent, which are not protecting the American people, they're protecting their own power, profit, dominance, and hegemony, like others around the world. And they count on intellectuals of the Robert Kaplan type to applaud any atrocity they carry out.
112.                [omitted from broadcast 7, end]
113.                All right, when we come back, Noam Chomsky's always controversial views on Israel and his idea for solving problems with international law. So, stick around for more Noam Chomsky.
114.                Hitchens says, "We've seen the enemies and the enemy isn't us. It's the Isalmic Fascists."
115.                Okay.
116.                "We don't want to live with them. We don't want to negotiate with them. We must destroy them. Ergo, war against Taliban. Justified. War against Al Aqsa Brigades. Justified." He has different distinction. But "We see the face of the enemy and we should do everything to root them out." How do you respond to that argument?
117.                I respond to that by saying that they are many evil forces in the world. If we want to stop atrocities. I think it's a great idea to reduce the level of atrocities and violence around the world. The easiest way to do it is simplest, it is to stop participating in it. If we stop participating in it, we will [have] already reduce [reduced] the level of violence and atrocities enormously. If we ever reach Moral level, minimum Moral level of terminating our own massive participation in atrocities, then we can move to another question, "What do we do about atrocities of the others?" And I think it's right to deal with them.
118.                [omitted from broadcast 8, start]
119.                So, for example, in the case of, I don't want to go off in hysterical rhetoric about we've seen the enemy and this and that, that's childish games that you see in fairy tales. If we're talking about the ["]real world["] again, we're back to what Michael Howard was talking about.
120.                [omitted from broadcast 8, end]
121.                Yes, there's an enemy. There are people who carry out crimes against humanity. And there are ways to deal with crimes. Not by, uh, uh, bombing another country and putting millions of people at the risk of starvation. That's not a way to deal with crimes. When the US was condemned for international terrorism in Nicaraguara, and then vetoed, and dismissed condemnation by the World Court, of couse, and escalated the crimes, and vetoed the security of counsel of resolution calling out in observant of international law. The right reaction for Nicaragua was not to say "We have seen the enemy. And we must destroy them, therefore let's set off bombs in Washington." But, if it's wrong for them, it's wrong for us. Again, by elementary Moral standards. So we should ask, "What was right for them?". And what's right for them which would be what's right for us. I think they couldn't do what's right for them because we blocked it. We're too powerful. But we could do what was right for them but we never even considered it because we never rise to that minimal Moral level.
122.                [omitted from broadcast 9, start]
123.                And unless we do, we have no right to talk about good policy, bad policy, Right or Wrong.
124.                We don't have the right to even talk about it?
125.                Of course not. If you can't rise to the most elementary Moral level, you shouldn't even talk about it.
126.                So there's no real policy.
127.                Yes, there is. See, I admire right wing fanatics who ["]come out straight["] and say, "Look, I have the power and nobody's going to stop me. I'll do what I want." That's admirable. They're honest, okay? And, in fact, we have two choices, really. We really have two simple choices. Either we can say, Look, I'm going to be willing to enter the Moral agreement. I'm going to be willing to rise to the most minimal Moral level, that of the Gospels, in fact. I'm going to be willing to do that, and, in that case, I'm going to apply to myself the same standards I apply to others. That's one choice. The other choice is simple. I'm a Nazi, I've got the force, I've got the power. I'll do whatever I want. If you get in my way, I'll smash you.
128.                But isn't it a little more complicated? I mean, look..
129.                That's the choice.
130.                Can't it be two rights?
131.                Can be, yeah, there can.
132.                [omitted from broadcast 9, end]
133.                Let's take a look at the Middle East. Let's look at the facts. The facts are, for thirty five years, I repeat, for thirty five years, there has been a harsh, brutal, miserable military occupation. There has not been a political settlement. The reason that there has not been a political settlement is because the United States, uni-laterally, has blocked it for 25 years.
134.                [omitted from broadcast 10, start]
135.                Just recently, Saudi Arabia produced a highly praised plan for political settlement. The majority of the US population supports it. The majority of population also thinks the United States ought to be more active in the Middle East. They don't know that it's a contradiction in terms. The reason that's a contradiction in terms is the following: In the Saudi Arabia plan is a repetition of a series of proposals, which go back to 1976 when the UN Security Council debated a resolution calling for a settlement, in accord with the Saudi plan, to state settlement on the internationally recognized borders. With arrangements to guarantee the rights of every state in the nation to exist in peace and security within secure and recognized borders. That was January 1976. OK, that was actually in accord with official US Policy. Except for one thing. It called for a Palestinian State in the territories; Israel wouldn't leave the occupied territories. That was vetoed by the US. It was supported by the Arab states, it was supported by the PLO, supported by Europe.
136.                Before they even recognized Israel as a state, though.
137.                This was to exist as a State within secure and recognized borders. Nobody talked about recognizing the new Palestinian state, nobody talked about recognizing Israel. Look, is there a possible political settlement today? Has there been one for the last 25 years?
138.                [omitted from broadcast 10, end]
139.                It's supported by the entire world, including the majority of the American people. The answer to that question is, Yes. There is a political settlement that has been supported by virtually the entire world. Including the Arab States, PLO, Europe, Eastern Europe, Canada.
140.                Didn't Barack put that on the table?
141.                No, he did not.
142.                He did not?
143.                Also supported by the majority of American people. It has just been re-iterated by Saudi Arabia. US has uni-laterally blocked it for 25 years. What Barack put on the table. Population doesn't know this because people like Western medica in Canada and in United States don't tell them. You can check and see, like, how often they reported what I just said. Don't bother checking it. The answer is, Zero.
144.                (Solomon expresses that this is contradiction by facial expression.)
145.                Barack proposal in Camp David, Barack-Clinton proposal, in the United S, I didn't check the Canadian media. In the United States, you cannot find a map, which is the most important thing, of course. Check in Canada, see if you can find a map. You go to Israel, you can find a map. You go to scholarly sources, you can find a map. Here's what you find when you look at a map. You'll find that there's this generous, magnanimous proposal, uh, guaranteed, provided Israel with sailant, east of Jerusalem, including the city of MaledDumin (?), which was established primarily by the later Gov. of Clinton in order to byset the West Bank. That sailant almost goes to Jericho. Breaks the West Banks into two cantons. Then there's a second sailant, the north that going to the Israeli settlement of ariel which bysets the northern breaks the two cantons, so we got three cantons in the West Bank virtually separated. All three of them are separated from the small area of east Jerusalem, which is a center of Palestenian commercial, and cultural life, and communication. So you got four cantons. All separated from the west, from Gaza. So that's five cantons. All surrounded by Israels and infrastructure development, and so on. All separated from Isreali settlement, infrastructures, and so on, which also incidentally guarantee control of the water resources in the region. Last comment. This does not rise to the level of South Africa forty years ago. When South Africa established the Bantustans. That's the generous, magnanimous offer.
146.                Okay.
147.                There's a good reason why the maps aren't shown. Because as soon as you look at the map, you see it.
148.                All right. However, that's the characterisation of it. But let me just say Arafat didn't even bother putting counter-proposal on the table.
149.                That's not true.
150.                They negotiated that // afterwards. I guess my question is, If they don't continue to negotiate...
151.                [omitted from braodcast, start]
152.                 They did. That's false.
153.                That's false?
154.                [omitted from broadcast, end]
155.                That's totally false. Not only is it false, not a single participant in the meeting says it. That's a medica fabrication.
156.                Arafat didn't put a counter-proposal on the table?
157.                They had a proposal. They proposed the international consensus. Which has been accepted by the entire world. The Arab States. PLO. The Majority..
158.                Sorry.
159.                Sorry, they proposed settlement which is in accord with overwhelming consensus
160.                I guess my question is,
161.                and it's blocked by United States.
162.                [omitted from broadcast 11, start]
163.                That Arafat didn't put a counter-proposal...
164.                Yeah, they had a proposal. They proposed the international consensus, which has been accepted by the entire world, the Arab states, the PLO. They proposed a settlement which is in accordance with an overwhelming international consensus, and is blocked by the United States.
165.                If you don't talk...
166.                Yeah, they did talk. They talked. They proposed that.
167.                Once they walked out of Camp David,
168.                They didn't walk out of Camp David...
169.                Both camps...
170.                No, no, both sides walked out of Camp David.
171.                All right, once Camp David disbands, the radicals take over the process, my question is, how do...
172.                No, no, the radicals didn't take over the process.
173.                You don't think that the Sharon, the right-wing Israeli...
174.                No, Barak stayed in power for months. Barak cancelled it. That's how it ended.
175.                [omitted from broadcast 11, end]
176.                When we come back from this break, Noam Chomsky says the United States is not only blocked peace in Middle East, it's actually escalating violence there. And who's guilty for these kinds of crimes? George Bush, Bill Clinton, JFK, Eisenhower, all the American presidents. And a lot more, so come on back, once again, for Noam Chomsky.
177.                The problem with people in Middle East now. People say that, "It's spun out of control".
178.                [omitted from broadcast 12, start]
179.                No, there's three sides. You're forgetting the United States. The radicals in the United States who have blocked this proposal for 25 years, continue to block it.
180.                [omitted from broadcast 12, end]
181.                How do you get back to. How do you get back?
182.                First way to get back is by trying the experiment of minimal honesty. Let's try that experiment. If we try the experiment of minimal honesty, we look at our own position. And we discover what I just described. That, for twenty five years, United States has blocked political settlement, which is supported by the US population and by the entire world. Except for Israel. Virtually. I mean, there are marginal exceptions. The first thing we do is to accept honesty to look at that. We take a look at Camp David and we see the same. The United States was still propos.. demanding Bantustans-style settlement and rejecting the overwhelming international consensus and the position of American people. We then discover that the United State immediately moved to enhance terror in the region. So let's continue. On September 29th, Ehud Barack put massive military presence outside Al Aqsa Mosque. Very provocative. When people came out of Mosque, young people started throwing stones, Israeli Army started shooting. In the next couple of days, There's no Palestenian fire at this time. This is all in occupied territories, Next couple of days, Israel used US helicopters, Israel produces no helicopters, used US helicopters to attack civilian complexes, killing about a dozen people. Wounded several dozen people. Clinton reacted to that, on October 3rd, by making the biggest deal in the decade to send Israel new military helicopters, which has just been used for the purpose I described. Of course, we continue to be. US press co-operated with that by refusing to publish the story. To this day, they have not published the fact. It continued. When Bush came in, one of the first acts was to send Israel a new shipment of the most advanced military helicopters and arsenal. That continues right up to a couple of weeks ago, new shipment. You take a look at reports from, say, Jenin. from Peter Beaumont in London Observer. He says that the worst atrocity there was the apache helicopters, buzzing around, destroying and demolishing everything. This is enhancing terror. We may easily continue. We can take, also.
183.                (Solomon raises his left hand.)
184.                Let me continue. On December 15th, 14th, the Security Countil tried to pass a resolution, calling for what everyone recognises to be obvious means for reducing terror, namely, sending international monitors. That's a way of reducing terror. This happend to be in the middle of a quite period, which lasted for about three weeks. US vetoed it. Ten days before that, there was a meeting in Geneva of the high contracting parties of the 4th Geneva Convention which has unanimously held for thirty five years, that it applies to Israel. The meeting condemned the Israeli settlement as illegal, condemned the list of atrocities, willful destruction of property, murder, trial, torture, so on, and so forth.
185.                Okay.
186.                All right, What happend to that meeting? I'll tell you what happend to that meeting. US boycotted it. Therefore the media refused to publish it. Therefore no one here knows that the United States, once again, enhaned terror by refusing to recognise the applicability of the conventions which may be virtually everything the United States and the Israel are doing there. A grave breach of Geneva Convention. So it's a war crime.
187.                (Solomon raises his hand.)
188.                Just a minute. These conventions were estalished, in 1949, in order to criminalise the atrocities of the Nazis in occupied territory. They are customary international law. The United States is obligated, as a high contracting party, to prosecute violations of those conventions. That means to prosecute its own leadership for the last 25 years.
189.                If we had, if we were functioning by the Geneva Convention. Who would we then prosecute as a war criminal. Would George Bush be a war criminal?
190.                Of course.
191.                Would Sharon be a war criminal?
192.                They're all acting in....
193.                Would Arafat be a war criminal?
194.                He's a criminal but not a war criminal.
195.                What's the difference?
196.                Difference is war crime has a technical definition. It's crime carried out by a State.
197.                Would he be guilty of the crime against humanity?
198.                Probably.
199.                He would?
200.                Minor crimes, compared with us.
201.                Tony Blair?
202.                Obviously.
203.                Obviously. Most leaders in the Arab States?
204.                They're criminals, but not war criminals. They're horrible criminals, including the ones we support. Like all the States, every State we ever supported is a brutal terrorist State. Crime against their own society. Technically, they're not war crimes. They're just crimes.
205.                [omitted from braodcast 13, start]
206.                We're the ones who support the military. It's us alone. I mean, others, marginally. But primarily the United States is supporting the military, and therefore is in grave breech of the Geneva Conventions because of the activities it's carrying out there. Grave breech of the Geneva Convention is a war crime. Now, I'm not suggesting we have a Nuremberg trial in which we hang American leaders. I'm suggesting something much simpler. That the American, that Western intellectuals rise to the minimal level of honesty in which they tell people this, okay? In which they let the population of the United States know that their leadership is engaged in grave breeches of the Geneva Convention which are war crimes. The majority of the population opposes it, they just don't know the government is doing it. And they don't know the Government is doing it because there are intellectuals like Robert Kaplan who tell them, "Oh, well, we're really nice guys, it doesn't matter if we don't." Let's try to let the population know the facts. I'm convinced, myself, that the decent instincts of the American people will be such that they will terminate these crimes.
207.                Let's talk about enforcing international law. There is an argument that says, "All right, let's try to enforce international law in which case, all sorts of major power figures, Bush, Blair, Sharon, whoever, might be held accountable." Now, someone says, "That's wonderful. Instead of invading and doing uni-lateral invasions and using military force, let's try to function according to Law." Someone says, "That's wonderful, dictators love to hear that." Because, they say, "Unless you force international law with the barrel of a gun, right, History may decide to convict us, but the slaughters like Rwanda will go on, Milosevic will go on, because no one will back it up", and therefore a guy like Kaplan says, "Luckily, America's barrel of the gun is the only thing that can enforce international law." (He does not understand Chomsky's argument.)
208.                Except that everything you just said is a total falsehood and certainly Robert Kaplan knows that. So, in the case of, say, Rwanda, and incidentally, this goes back 20 years. I mean, 20 years ago, I was writing about atrocities in Burundi, in Rwanda, which were going on because the West refused to do anything about them, because they basically didn't care or supported them. But in that case, there was, under international law, a response. Namely, a resolution of the UN Security Council justifying the use, which already existed incidentally, of force to prevent the atrocities. That was in accord with international law. The U.S. and the West refused to enforce international law. In the case of Kosovo, yes there was international law, but let's take a look at facts. The most hawkish member of the coalition was Britain. The British have since released their internal parliamentary records. We now know that even in late January, even after the Racak Massacre, the British government, including Robin Cook, regarded the guerillas as the main source of atrocities. Main source. We have extensive evidence from the US State Department, NATO, OSCE [Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe] monitors about what happened in the next period. The answer is, Nothing changed. What happened is Britain and the United States decided, for their own reasons, to bomb Serbia, knowing that that was going to lead to an escalation of atrocities, obviously. And yes, they bombed Serbia, starting on March 24th, and that's when the atrocities escalated and massive ethnic cleansing began. And now the super hypocrites in the West are indicting Milosevic for crimes which he committed, He's undoubtedly a war criminal, for crimes that he committed in reaction to the bombing which they knew was going to precipitate.
209.                But if everybody...
210.                Is that humanitarian intervention? No, it's not. It's great power politics, undertaken incidentally for exactly the reason they publicly gave. Clinton and Blair explained very clearly, this is to maintain NATO credibility. That's gangersterism, not humanitarianism.
211.                [omitted from broadcast 13, end]
212.                Very popular phrase, now. Samuel Huntington, Clash of Civilisations. A book, writers like Bernard Lewis, What Went Wrong. There might be a clash of civilisation between Alama culture and Western Judeo-Christian culture. They resent us. There's an enourmous amount of hatred. It goes back in History. Because of resentment.
213.                You want to know the answer to that question? Bernard Lewis certainly knows it. He's not telling you. First of all, he's not telling you what happend in the 19th century. He didn't talk about what Lord Palmerston and the British did to Egypt, for example. Let's be more recent. Yes, there's hatred against us. Why? It's easy to find out. US is a very free country. We have enormous internal, declassified records, so let's look at them. In 1958, US Government faced, we know from internal records, three major crisis in the world. North Africa, Middle East, and Indonesia. All with oil-producing States. All Islamic States. President Eisenhower, in internal disccusion, observed to his staff, that I'm quoting it now, "There's a campaign of hatred against us in the Middle East. Not by the Governments, but by the people." National Security Countil discussed that question and said, Yes. And the reason is there's a perception in that region that the United States supports status quo Governments which prevent Democracy and development. We do it because of our interest in Middle East oil. Furthermore, it's difficult to counter that perception because it is correct. Furthermore it ought to be correct. We ought to be supporting brutal and corrupt Governments, which prevent Democracy and development, because we want to control Middle East oil. And it's true that it leads to a campaign of hatred against us. Now, until Bernard Lewis tells us that, and that's only one piece of a long story, we know that he's just a vulgar propagandist, not a scholar. So, yes, as long as we are supporting harsh, brutal Governments, blocking Democracy and development because of our interest in controlling the oil resources in the region, we know there will be a campaign of hatred against us.
214.                [omitted from broadcast 14, start]
215.                Didn't he say there's no Democracy there anyway because it's not their culture?
216.                Fine. But notice, first of all, the total irrelevance of that claim to the campaign of hatred against us, which is exactly what the National Security Council described. If we did permit Democracy and development, which we're blocking, that might overcome that, okay? But we're not permitting Democracy, and we have Bernard Lewis telling us, "Well, it's because of their bad culture, it's not because of our input, it's not because of what the US Government says." I mean, we are supporting un-Democratic regimes because we want their oil. "Don't pay attention to the facts. Pay attention to self-serving theology that I'll present to you." And Bernard Lewis knows the earlier History. If you want to go through that, we can go through that. So, we ask what happened in the 1820s when the United States and Egypt both began their internal economic development programs in rather similar ways. Both based on textiles, both had cotton, both had cultural producers. The United States had kicked out the British so it was able to continue. The Egyptians had not kicked out the British, therefore the British intervened forcefully, and quite consciously and openly, you can read it in public documents, to block internal economic development in Egypt, because as they said, we're not going to permit a competitor in this region which we run, and they did, too, by force.
217.                So the clash of civilizations is a created...
218.                No, it's a fabrication.
219.                Countries in that area have an overwhelming hatred for what they perceive is the West. In fact, you say there's History justifying these things... (Another attempt to distort meaning of sentence.)
220.                I didn't say History justifies it, History gives many of the reasons for it. If you want to look at lots of other reasons, there are plenty of them. So, part of what Bernard Lewis said is correct. So, when he talks about things internal to the region, Yeah, that's true. What he's ignoring, however, and what he knows perfectly well, is that there's an overwhelming outside force which has exacerbated those problems and has created new problems of its own. And he won't tell you that because that would be looking back at ourselves, and you're not allowed to do that. You're only allowed to look at the crimes of others. You must be very careful never to look in the mirror. To say, instead, it's all there for you, bad genes, bad culture, and so on. It's not the fact that we didn't do anything, it's just irrelevant that the British crushed Egyptian efforts at economic development. And that this went on for another century, that the US took it over, that's just kind of an irrelevance. They would have been bad anyway.
221.                [omitted from broadcast 14, end]
222.                What State does function according to what you call minimum levels of honesty? Is there a State...
223.                None. States are power centers. The only thing that imposes constraints on them is either outside force or their own populations.
224.                Internal criticism. Critical dialogue.
225.                That's exactly why intellectuals we're talking about are so adamant at preventing (people (in the United States and Britain)) from learning the most elementary facts about these things.
226.                Is it even possible? If you say no State functions...
227.                It's not impossible, it happens. United States is, for example, far more civilised country than it was forty years ago. Let's just take that. March nine, This March happend to the fortieth anniversary of the public announcement of Kennedy administration that US Air Force is bombing South Vietnam. It also initiated chemical warfare to destroy crops, initiated napalms, started driving millions of people to concentration camps to separate them from guerillas they knew they were supporting. This is all public. Did we commemorate the fortieth anniversary? No. Why? Because forty years ago, nobody cared. If the Government announes, okay, we're gonna start bombing another country, start using napalm, start chemical warfare to wipe out their crops, and drive them to concentration camps. Fine. Not a problem.
228.                Now there's more protest.
229.                Yes. Because the country has gotten more civilised. No US President today, or for the last twenty years could conceivably do what Kennedy could do with total impunity forty years ago. The reason is because there was massive popular protest, oppposed by the intellectual classes, of course, who hate it. But it did, it led to all sorts of things, including to opposition of aggression and violence. It also spawned to contemporary Civil Rights Movement, Feminist Movement, Environment Movement, and all sort of other things. And it imposed important constrains on State violence. In fact, that's how we got rid of Slavery. That's how we got rid of Feudalism.
230.                So are we moving toward emancipation towards these things? You're optimistic of it?
231.                Yes. Over time, there has been agonizingly slow progress, but very real. Always opposed by intellectuals who support violence and atrocities, and try to justify them, and try to prevent the populations from knowing about them. But, fortunately, their control is limited.
232.                What would the State look like at the end?
233.                At the end? End is a long time.
234.                What would it look like?
235.                At the end, I think States ought to be dissolved. I think they're illegimate structures. But that's a long time.
236.                Is the end of the nation State that you foresee in your vision?
237.                I don't foresee anything. What I'm saying is that, as long as people, ordinary people are able to free themselves from doctrinal controls imposed on them by their self-appointed veterans and mentors. As long as they're able to do this, they'll continue to be able to struggle for peace, and Justice, and freedom, limitation on violence, constrains on power, as they have been doing for hundreds of years, and I don't see an end of that. Where will it end up in the long run? I can tell you where I would like it to, but I wouldn't even dream about that. Immediate problem is to free ourselves from shackles imposed, very consciously, by the kind of people you're talking about, who don't want the facts to be known. And for very good reasons. Because, people know the facts, they're not gonna tolerate them. Therefore you have to prevent people from knowing. You have to indoctrinate them. You have to tell them stories about how we are really good guys. If we use violence, it must be for the general good because we represent the course of History. Yeah, that's the job of propagandas for power and violence. And it's a task of populations to free themselves from those, the kinds of controls and domination.
238.                Pleasure to see you. Always.