since 2003 2003 has writtef books, and one of those books was "consequences of capitalism capitalism." here's professor chomsky from 2021 talking about one of his more recent books. >> just came out from pew research, major polling agency in which they asked people, they gave people a choice of 15 serious problems, asked them to rank them in terms of urgency. divided by republicans and democrats. among republicans, the very last one at the bottom was global warming. at the top was illegal immigrants and the debt, the debt incidentally became a problem last november 4. up until then the debt was fine. republicans were creating it to enrich very rich people so there was no problem. november 4, biden took it over, might use to help others, for people. major problem. it's not that the people who said they actually believed it, it's what they hear in the bubble in which they are contained. you listen to the murdoch tv station, fox news, read the murdoch press, that's what you hear. when you're stuck in that bubble that's what you believe. so the real problems are illegal immigrants, terrible problem. the debt suddenly became a problem. and at the bottom of the list is destroying the environment in which life can be sustained. all of these are signs of the collapse not only of the arena for rational discourse but just general social collapse, the social order is collapsing. didn't just happen by itself. it happened because of a plague that was set in motion 40 years ago. we discussed it a lot in the book. it's the plague of neoliberalism which actually started in the '70s, massive business campaign to institute it. but it took off with reagan and thatcher. and if you look at their prescriptions, perfectly obvious what's going to happen. so reagan's inaugural address said the government is the problem, not the solution. decisions have to be taken out of the hands of government. well, they don't stop being made. where are they going to be made? in the private sector. they are going to be made by powerful corporate tyrannies which is what corporations are, i'm accountable to the public. the government of course has a flaw. it's partially accountable to the public, could be controlled somewhat by the public. private tyrannies are free, no accountability. the second point was milton friedman, the economic guru who pronounced that corporations have one responsibility to their owners, shareholders, period, and management. nothing else. corporate rates are a gift from the public. there's plenty of advantages that come from incorporating. it's the gift. but there have any responsibility, just to themselves. put these two things together and decisions over to private tyrannies who have no responsibility other than to enrich themselves. margaret thatcher comes along and says there's no society, just individuals. somehow managing on the market that they're supposed to survive in. the first step that both reagan and thatcher took was to destroy any possible defense against this assault. their first steps first were to attack labor unions with illegal measures like strikebreakers. that opened the door to corporations to do the same. the one way people have to defend themselves is by organizing, taken away. put all this together, do you have to be a genius to figure out what's going to happen? actually, 40 years later it was studied by the rand corporation, super respectable american corporation. they try to estimate the transfer of wealth, robbery we should call it, the transfer of wealth from the lower 90% of the population, middle-class and working class, to the very top, which turns out to be a fraction of 1%. their estimate was about $50 trillion during the 40 years of neoliberalism. it's a vast underestimate. it includes other things which are now on the front pages. when reagan came in he opened the spigot to businesses to do whatever they like. tax havens have been illegal before that, and blocked all the treasury department. opened it up. there's probably another tens of trillions of dollars. changed the rules on corporate management, which the government set, allowing ceos to be compensated with stock options instead of salaries. that means anything you can do to raise the stock, like buybacks, not great, may ruin the corporation but it is good for you to get a higher income. that is the result. also executives were permitted to pick their own board, the board that would determine their salary. what do you think is going to happen? okay, just take a look at the figures. i mean, ceos salaries just skyrocketed carrying all of top management along with them, extended to the public sector, university presidents, hospital, and so on. meanwhile, the majority of the population gets by phone payday to payday and a precarious existence. it's a major assault on the population. and it's happening all over the world. australia, europe. not as severe as the united states, but severe. the effect of that is people are angry, disillusioned, resentful, very easy prey for demagogues of the trump variety who says i'll save you, you know. and it will in in this trust for everything. why should i believe what the centers of disease control says about the pandemic? they are probably just run by crooks in washington. i don't believe anything they say. so you have a breakdown of the social order. it's happening over much of the world. >> host: life from his home in tucson, arizona, where he is and america's professor at university of arizona is noam chomsky. professor chomsky, what issues, what's on your mind these days? >> guest: well, there's lots of things going on in the world right now. background, one of the major ones is of course the war in ukraine. there's many others, and there are background issues. we are, like it or not, the human species is racing to imminent disaster. there are two huge problems. one is the growing threat of nuclear war, which would basically an modern civilization as we know it. the other is the destruction of the environment. inexorable. we know it has to be done. we are not doing it. if we don't turn that corner soon we will reach an irreversible tipping point and it will be a matter of slow moves towards catastrophe, a revocable catastrophe that, in addition to what is right on the front pages, the background of it. there is going to be on everyone's mind. nd of it. there is plenty to be on everyone's mind. >> professor chomsky, you have been active for decades on nuclear war, economic policies, social justice, what is the progress you think you have made, or that the world has made? noam: there has been, over long periods, there has been progress. we happen to be -- we happen to have been, for the past 40 years, in a period of serious regression. but, there are ups and downs before. if you think back to what society was say, in 1960, 60 years ago, this was a society in which we literally had laws against miscegenation, which were so extreme that the nazis refused to accept them. the one drop of blood loss. -- laws. the rights of women were still not recognized. it was not until 1975 that women had the legal right, guaranteed legal right to serve on the federal juries. that means, to be regarded as peers, as persons and not property. which they basically were in british common law that the country to go over. they were, in many respects, minimal rights were not respected. well, that has changed. that is an improvement. beginning in the late 1970's, there was a shift in the nature of the state capitalist system, which was described in the previous comment, the move towards the neoliberal system that has been quite harsh for the general population here, and across the world. an enormous concentration of wealth and a precarious existence for many, which has led to understandable feelings of anger and resentment, distrust of authority, contempt for institutions. that can take positive forms. let's have changes for the better. there are such elements that can also take very dangerous forms. i am old enough to remember 90 years ago when there was, as today, a very serious threat, the threat of the depression, deep depression, much worse than anything today. my extended family was first immigrated, new increments -- new immigrants, first-generation immigrants, working-class mostly. they were, and this was -- there were two ways out of the depression. one was taken by the united states. the u.s. led the way towards a social democratic revival, committed to and -- by a revived militant labor movement. organizing, militant labor tactics, led the way to the new deal measures which pioneered postwar social democracy, an enormous lift for the population. that was one way out. the other way out was what happened in europe, which sank to the depths of fascism. those were the ways out. actually, there are residences today -- residences -- it would be utterly ironic if the united states continues to unravel and move towards a kind of proto-fascism, while europe hangs onto the -- of social democracies that have resisted the neoliberal assault. and perhaps revise these very positive tendencies. it doesn't have to. the choice is in our hands. meanwhile, there are imminent problems. the war in ukraine is on the front page headlines. it is not the only one. literally millions of people are facing starvation in afghanistan. millions of people facing imminent starvation. people who a little bit of money can't go to the markets where there is food, to buy food for their starving children because the banks are shut. they can't get access to the money. where is the money? new york. the u.s. refuses to release to the people of afghanistan their own money. the banks are supposed to be fiduciary institutions. you place your money in them, with the assurance that it is yours to attain when you need it. not in this case. the u.s. government has stepped in, not just in this case, but others too, to block people from getting their own money. there is a pretext for this. the pretext is, we have to assure that victims of 9/11 have a right to compensation from afghans who had nothing to do with 9/11. the rural people of afghanistan who are starving had nothing at all to do with 9/11. in fact, those with good memories will recall that the taliban offered total surrender, which would have meant handing over to the united states the suspects in the 9/11 attack, the al qaeda suspects. remember, at the time, they were suspects. the fbi informed the press months later that they suspected them, but did not have definitive evidence. but, the taliban offered to turn them over. the u.s. reaction was, we do not do surrenders. romney. echoed by george bush. rumsfeld, i am sorry. echoed by george bush. george w. bush. now, the afghan people have to starve to death because we hold their funds. and there are other things happening in the world. thankfully, there seems to have been an agreement for a two month reduction of fighting in yemen. the worst humanitarian disaster in the world, according to the united nations food -- united nations. the saudi government, which is the main force responsible for the disaster, along with the united arab emirates, saudi arabia had been blockading, intensifying its blockade of the only port in which food and oil can be imported into the starving country. the official death toll last year was 370,000 people. the actual death role is unknown. again, the united nations warns that hundreds of thousands of children are facing imminent starvation. the saudi and emma rossi -- emirate air forces cannot function without u.s. equipment and u.s. intelligence. u.s. trading. we are assisted by britain, a few others, that the u.s. is in the lead. these things can be changed. the things that can be uppermost in our mind. what can we do? what can we do about suffering, major problems in the world? whether it is existential problems the existence of the species like global warming or nuclear war, or whether it is the terrible, miserable suffering of the people of ukraine, under brutal and violent aggression by the russian army. people starving to death in afghanistan. or yemen. we can mention other things, but what can we do about all of those things? that is what we have to be asking ourselves. that is what should be on everyone's mind. >> this is your chance to talk with noam chomsky. if you have been interested in public policy for the last 50 or 60 years, chances are you have heard of professor chomsky, perhaps even read some of his hundreds of books. the numbers are on the screen. for those of you of the east and central time zones. 8201 for the mountain and pacific time zones. you can also send a text message. please encode -- please include your first name and your city. we also have several social media ways of getting a hold of us. we will scroll through those on the screen. i want to quote professor chomsky from one of your most recent books, requiem for the american dream. you say that some of the problems of government in the u.s. today stem from an excess of democracy. why do you say that? noam: actually, i did not say that. i quoted it. the quote was from a very important study, about 40 years ago, 50 years ago, 1975, it is the first study of the trilateral commission. the trilateral commission is an international commission of liberal internationalists. you get a rough idea of their political stances by the fact that the carter administration was drawn almost completely from within the ranks. so, that group of people in the united states, they -- their counterparts in europe and japan, liberal internationalists were the trilateral commission. they came out with a very important report called, the crisis of democracy. they were responding to the activism of the 1960's, which considerably civilized society. and led to the developments that i mentioned briefly before. the trilateral commission warned that there is a crisis of democracy. the crisis is what you quoted, an excess of democracy. there is too much democracy. what is happening, they described during the 1960's, is that segments of the population that are supposed to be passive and obedient began to try to enter the political arena to press their own demands. these are what are often called special interests. young people, old people, working people, women, farmers, minorities, these people are not supposed to be making noises in the political arena. there supposed to be quiet, obedient, apathetic, show up every couple of years to push a button, go home. and then go home and let their betters decide for them. what to do. well, that excess of democracy, they said, is putting too much of a burden on the state. so, we must have, what they call moderation in democracy. people should return to their passivity and obedience. they also talked about particular sectors of society, like the universities. they said the universities and the churches are not doing their job of indoctrination of the young. their phrase, not mine. we have to do better indoctrination of the young so that they are not out there in the streets protesting the vietnam war and calling for civil rights, or women's rights, other things which are too much. so, that is the liberal internationalists. there's actually another major argument that came out at about the same time also in response to the activism of the 1960's. the powell administration. it was meant to be secret. this was a man who richard nixon appointed to the supreme court, justice powell. powell issued a memorandum to the chamber of commerce, to the business world, and it was in a way similar to the trilateral commission report. but, much harsher. the document was intended to be confidential but it surfaced pretty soon. it is available is -- it is available publicly. this memorandum urged the business community to take up a forceful reaction to the attack on business that was going on in the 1960's. they said businessmen were being persecuted, the rate of profit is declining. we are under attack. the universities have been taken over by crazed radicals led by herbert marcuse a, who of course nobody had ever heard of. the business world is under attack by ralph nader, who is demanding that automobiles have safety measures built in them. and moving for consumer rights and consumer safety and other domains. so it, the -- so, the business world cannot tolerate these attacks. it went on to say look, we have the resources, we have the money, we can fight back. we can refuse to accept this attack on our power and privilege. in fact, that resonated. that was part of the background which led to the neoliberal reaction of today. -- as quoted in earlier remarks were for the program, the roughly $50 trillion robbery of the middle-class and working-class that has taken place in the past 40 years, since it started in the late quarter years and escalated under reagan and thatcher. and spread around the world, under u.s. power, structural adjustment programs which were imposed by the imf, which is under u.s. domination. which had a devastating effect on much of the global south. more than i can talk about now. but, going back to excess of democracy, that was the phrase from the trilateral commission report. which i did write about when it appeared, and have referred to sense. but, those two documents said a kind of -- set an ideological framework. one from the liberal internationalists. another from the business run right-wing. they kind of set the frame in which, over the coming years, the neoliberal programs were developed. imposed. we have been living under that assault for 40 years. with pretty harsh effects. you're actually harsher effects in other countries. -- there are actually harsher effects in other countries. what actually happened in the late 1970's, there was what was called -- pretty high inflation in the united states. the carter administration responded to it. with a very short rise in interest rates, which increased under the reagan years. well, during the 1970's, countries like mexico, other countries in the south had been urged by the world bank, the u.s. run world bank, they had been urged to take out extensive loans. mostly from u.s. banks. citibank. citigroup, the conglomerate. many others. they were deep -- they were deeply in debt. when the high interest rates were introduced, their debt is linked to u.s. interest rates. so, they were in deep trouble. they couldn't pay. they began to default. they had to take loans from the international monetary fund, which imposed harsh conditionality's. they had to cut back social spending, cut back efforts and development -- efforts in development, and other similar measures which devastated the populations. it had horrifying effects and much of the third world. yugoslavia, which had been more or functioning country, fell apart under the impact of the structural programs which intensified ethnic conflicts and laid the background for the horrors that will -- that took place in the early 1990's. the worst case was actually rwanda in the 1970's. there already had been significant conflicts between hutu and tutsi. my friend edward herrmann and i had written about it in the 1970's. in the 1980's, rwanda, like other countries, was hit very hard by the structural adjustment programs. and the society, which was already very fragile, collapsed. the conflicts that existed were extensively intensified. i won't go into details, but that's part of the background of the horrendous developments that took place a few years later in the 1990's. actions have consequences. maybe you do not anticipate them, but you should. that was the third world, the global south, the rich countries like the united states, it's pretty much what was described by the rand corporation. it is all part of the neoliberal reaction to the former period of what is called sometimes, regimented capitalism. state capitalism based on new deal measures. it is worth remembering how far we have moved from those days. take dwight eisenhower. the last conservative president, in the traditional sense of the word conservative. eisenhower, if you read his statements, sounds like a flaming radical today. eisenhower said that any person who does not accept new deal measures, the measures of social welfare developed in the new deal, and continued in following years, anyone who does not accept these measures does not belong in our political system. that's eisenhower. anyone who denies working people the right to unionize, a firm essential rights, such a person does not belong in our political system. well, that was the 1950's. it continued for some years into the 1960's. and then we get into the reaction, which escalated under reagan. compare eisenhower with what you hear today from the remnants of what remains of the party that he represented. it is quite a change. it tells us a lot about the regression of the past 40 years. >> let's get some of our collars involved. let's begin with barbara in oak bluffs, massachusetts. barbara, go ahead and ask your question. caller: thank you, peter. think admit -- thank you mr. chomsky for your amazing career. continuing with president eisenhower, his famous statement about the emergence of the military industrial complex. so, we have watched decades of grotesque spending on weapons, but now we see this conflict in ukraine where tiny musicians -- munitions like stingers, javelins, switchblade drums, other types of drones, these tiny micro weapons are able to take out the -- macro weapons of the tanks, jet fighters and the naval ships. what do you make of this transition to micro warfare and its implications? >> thank you. noam: it heralds a new era of warfare, which is more dangerous and more threatening to everyone. let me just ask a slightly different question, if you do not mind. i mentioned before that we should be concerned, constantly, with what we can do and what we should do. well, one thing we should do is send weapons. there is an argument for that. ukraine is under foreign attack from a brutal military force, which has no mercy. they have a right to defend themselves. but, there is another question. what is our goal? do we want to escalate the war? more ukrainians dying? more destruction? or, do we want to move towards a peaceful negotiated settlement? one of the most respected individuals in the u.s. diplomatic corps, ambassador chas freeman, highly respected individual with a wonderful record. a couple of days ago, he came out in an interview and said, u.s. policy seems to be to fight the russians to the last ukrainian. that is the policy. -- formulated no feasible goals that can lead to an exit from this tragedy. so, we can keep pouring in arms. we are good at that, to escalate the fighting. more ukrainians will day -- will die, more russians will die and it goes nowhere. just further escalation. well, is there a possible diplomatic settlement? yes there is. chas freeman outlined it once again. everyone knows what it is. the settlement, this has been going on for 30 years, i should say. it didn't just start today. the settlement is, in rough help on, and neutralized ukraine, not part of a military bloc, and an internal settlement that will guarantee the rights of the russian-speaking minority, provided some form of federal solution like switzerland, belgium, others, in which minority groups have a degree of autonomy in their own regions. it is actually formulated in an agreement called minx -- minsk two. some version of that has to be the possible outcome. and as friedman stressed, if we don't want to just fight to the last ukrainian, we have to offer vladimir putin an escape hatch. he has to have some way to escape from this with what amounts to suicide. if we send our current message, you are going to face war crimes trials, there is nothing you can do about it, sanctions will continue no matter what happens, we are telling him to fight onto the last ukrainian. that might sound bold. a winston churchill impersonation, it sounds heroic. for the ukrainians, it is a death warrant. we have to come out with a proposal. we have to support, i should say, the proposals that are on the table and have been for a long time. for a settlement that offers putin some kind of escape, like it or not, that is a necessity. it will have to be based on neutralization of ukraine and some kind of diplomatic arrangement for a degree of autonomy for the russian oriented areas. those things are on the table. the u.s. is not supporting them. the u.s. actually has an official policy, unfortunately, it does not seem to have been reported in the united states press. at least, i can find it. but, the policy is there. you can read it in government documents. i have quoted it repeatedly in things i have been writing. the policy was set in september, 2021. september 1, 2021. there was a joint statement of the u.s. and ukraine. this is months before the russian invasion. the document is basically a policy statement of the united states, reiterating and amplifying the policy that had been in effect for many years. it is worth reading. first it says the door to ukrainian entry in to nato is wide open. we are inviting you to join nato. it says, the united states will intensify the sending of advanced military weapons to ukraine. it will continue with joint military efforts. in ukraine. it's called nato, but it means the u.s. ukrainian military operations. all of this placing weapons within ukraine, aimed at russia. all of this is part of the enhanced nato admissions program. you should really look at the exact wording, i am paraphrasing. but, it is roughly that. well, that is a call for the horrors that have followed. it did not just start then. it has been going on for 28 years. you look back to the george h w bush administration. the first president bush. 1990, 1991. the soviet union was collapsing. there were intensive discussions with george bush, james baker, secretary of state, his russian counterpart mccalla gorbachev -- mikhail gorbachev. the question was, what would be the shape of the post-cold war world with the soviet union collapsing? well, there were several visions. gorbachev's vision was what he called a common european home. from the atlantic, from lisbon all the way to vladivostok. no military blocs, mutual accommodation. this was an extension of a program of charles de gaulle in earlier years. that emmanuel macron has recently been pressing something similar, a common european home from the atlantic to the urals, incorporating russia within a european and maybe eurasian, peaceful system with no military blocs. that was one vision. the other one, and disco spec 50 or 60 years, the u.s. vision called atlantis, based on the atlantic alliance, based on nato and europe, which the u.s. dominates and controls. that is a dip -- that is a deep issue in world affairs that goes back to the second world war. will europe be subordinate to the united states? within the atlantis nato framework? or, will it move towards a european common home, along the lines of the goal of --? gorbachev's proposals in 1990. well, the u.s. had no interest to oppose the european common home. but, it did have a compromised version. and that was what was agreed. bush, baker in the united states , germany, gorbachev in russia, nato -- germany would be unified and would join nato. which is quite a concession on the part of the russians. recall their history. germany alone had practically destroyed russia several times in the past half-century. to allow a unified germany to join a hostile military alliance was not a small step. gorbachev agreed on a condition. the condition was that nato would not move 1 inch to the east beyond germany. it fact, nato forces would not even go to east germany. that was the condition. perfectly explicit, unambiguous. you want to see the actual wording? look it up in the online national security archives, georgetown university. which has a record, an authoritative record with the official documents. no ambiguity. well, gorbachev agreed to that. the bush-baker administration adhered to it. they adhered to it. clinton came in years later -- the first to use of diminished -- the first few years of the administration he also agreed. by 1984, with his eye on domestic politics, clinton began to offer hints of east european countries joining nato. in 1997, presumably with his eye on the 1998 vote, clinton invited several east european countries on the borders of russia to join nato. well, boris yeltsin, then president, was very close to clinton. in fact, clinton had intervened to have him elected in 1996. yeltsin bitterly objected to this. sorted gorbachev. so did every russian leader. u.s. statesman george kennan, jake matlock and former ambassador to russia under reagan, leading russian specialists in the government, numerous others. henry kissinger. numerous others pointed out to washington they are making a terrible mistake. i should say that includes the current cia director william burns. and former cia director stansfield turner. william perry from secretary of defense under clinton, was so outraged he practically resigned in protest. 50 specialists in russia wrote a warning later -- warning letter to clinton saying, this is extremely dangerous and you should not be doing it. you are just calling on russia to become militant and aggressive instead of accommodating and a common european home. well, clinton went ahead. george w. bush later tore it to shreds. 2008, he invited ukraine to join -- that was actually vitord -- vitoed by germany and france. everyone i quoted, how u.s. diplomats and russian specialists and so on, understood perfectly that for russia, there are some definite red lines that no russian leader will tolerate. none. yeltsin, gorbachev, anyone. and that is ukraine and georgia, within the russian strategic heartland, joining a hostile military alliance. they will never accept that. the u.s. foraged ahead. september, 2021 policy statement amplifies it. it states it explicitly. we will go ahead and we will continue to arm ukraine. if you want to imagine what that is like from the russian point of view, understood well by high u.s. level statesman -- high-level u.s. statesman, it is if -- it is as if mexico were to join a chinese run military alliance and carry out joint exercises with the chinese army. place weapons in mexico. aimed at washington. we wouldn't tolerate that. it would never. not mexico, not anywhere in latin america. remember the cuban missile crisis? inconceivable. notice that this is no infringement on the sovereignty of mexico. mexico is essentially neutral. it is not part of any military alliance. it has restrictions. it cannot do what i just described. it cannot join a chinese run military alliance and carry out military operations with the people's liberation army. get training and advanced weaponry from chinese military experts, place weapons on the border aimed at washington. nobody bothers to say this. it is perfectly well understood. notice that what i have just described is the september 2021 u.s. official policy. well. none of that justifies russian aggression, which is a kind of crime that ranks with the u.s. invasion of iraq, the headlight-stall invasion of poland, other examples of what the nuernberg trails called supreme international crime. crimes of aggression, not defense. nothing justifies that. but, to understand is not to justify. to understand is important. if we care about ukrainians, and even if we care about world peace. because this thing could escalate, easily, to a major conflict with the u.s. and with nato which could go on to a terminal nuclear war. so, we should try to understand and recognize. understanding is not justifying. the people i mentioned like henry kissinger and william perry, william burns, cia director and many others, are not -- is no longer with us -- would not be justifying russian aggression when they explain the background for it, and in which we play a role and continue to play a role. by not joining, today, in offering and developing diplomatic options supporting those that are already on the table. going back to ambassador freeman. that was his point. crucial point. as long as our position, and that -- is finished, putin, you are done. war crimes trials, permanent sanctions, no way out for you. we are telling putin, as freeman said -- and i am closing hymn -- we are going to fight you to the last ukrainian. that is not something we should be doing. we should be moving towards peace. we spend a lot of time talking about the kinds of weapons we can provide. ok. worth doing it. but, the real thing we should be talking about is how can we move towards a peaceful settlement which will end this horror? not to the last ukrainian. >> your watching book tv on c-span two. joining us is noam chomsky, which since his first appearance on this program has written dozens more books. the next call comes from marine in toms river, new jersey. caller: professor chomsky, i am a great admirer of yours. it is a pleasure to speak with you. i wondered about your thoughts and any optimism about the recent starbucks locations. in newark, they had unionized. and now, the amazon warehouse in staten island is euthanizing -- unionizing. do you think that would have any effect in emboldening people throughout the country to actually start unionizing and recognizing they can take this power into their own hands? >> thank you, marion. professor chomsky. she was talking about amazon unionizing and if you think that is a good sign and other thoughts about those types of issues. noam: labor has been under better -- better -- attack throughout this whole liberal period. you may recall that reagan's first action was to attack unions. using, what were internationally regarded as, illegal means. scabs, permanent replacement workers. it was it an attack on the labor movement. margaret tat -- margaret thatcher, who is carrying out the same programs in england, hope -- opened her programs the same way. a major attack on unions that opened the door to private corporations. saying ok, we can do it too. # >> launched anti-union activities also using internationally banned methods like scabs and so on. the laws were changed to make labor organizing much harder. there is a national labors relations board that's supposed to protect workers rights, it was barely functioning. bill clinton came along, another major attack on labor. the nafta, the agreement with mexico and canada was bitterly attacked by the labor movement. actually, they were in favor of a north -- of an agreement, but not this one. labor came forth with a proposal, the labor action committee, proposal for a north american free trade agreement which would be based on the principle of high wages, high growth. they were seconded by the office of technology assessment, congress's research bureau, which has since been disbanded. congress doesn't seem to want independent information, but it existed then and they came out with a proposal for nafta, very similar to the labor movement proposal efforts to build a high growth, high wage trade system. clinton went through with the corporate based system, low wage, low growth, but great for profits. well, that was nafta. that was later extended to the, what's called the world trade organization agreements which have the same properties that go into the details, it's a bitter attack on the labor movement. in fact, we have some evidence about how great an attack it was a couple of years after nafta, a study was undertaken under nafta rules by kate branson brenner, she's a labor historian at cornell university, after nafta rules, undertook a study of the effect of nafta on union organizing. turns out that the effect was dire. the nafta, along with the refusal of the government to apply labor laws, led to a very sharp reduction in union organizing by illegal means. a business couldn't -- if there was an effort at organizing, a business could put up a banner saying transfer operation mexico could call in workers for obligatory meetings and would tell them go ahead with this union organizing, we're going to move to mexico. they didn't intend to do it, but the warning was enough. meanwhile, a major industry had developed of strike breaking. there are now major industries working on what used to be called scientific methods of strike breaking. lots of techniques. many of them illegal, but it doesn't matter if you have a criminal state that doesn't enforce the law. the effect of all of this over the years has been a sharp decline in the labor movement. this is happening at a time when workers want to unionize. they look at workers preferences, majority want to be in unions, but unionization decline every year, again, last year. density of unionization declines, under attack from a state corporate program of attacking labor. that's what it amounts to. well, going back to the amazon strike, it's a dramatic break from that, despite the enormous advantages that corporate business system has been different by state criminality, which is what it is, despite the enormous advantages, amazon workers in statton island managed to win an election and they'll be immediately under attack by amazon by the kind of means as described. but it's a small victory. there are a couple of others. there are signs, small signs of revival of labor actually started in nonunionized areas in red states, like my state, arizona, west virginia, began with teachers. teachers who are not unionized began to strike for not just for higher wages, but for better conditions for children. part of the programs has been to defund, defund education to try to destroy the public education system. in fact, under the trump years, we had a secretary of education who was openly committed to destroying the public education system. public education is one of the great achievements of american democracy back in the late 19th, earlier 20th century, united states pioneered, led the world in developing public education, mass public education, a enormous contribution to democracy and to the health of society. it's an american achievement at the university level, too. the grants for universities, unfortunately, taking away native american land wasn't pretty, but these land grants will enable the establishment of major universities. state the great-- the united states has great state universities. mit, where i taught all my life, was actually a land grant university. the -- that was an enormous contribution. during the neo liberal period, it's been under sharp attack. i quoted the crisis of democracy, calling for more indoctrination of the youth that are attack on the educational system. there was also defunding, funding for state colleges and universities has sharply declined. also at the k to 12 level. all part of the effort to destroy one of the major contributions of the united states towards democracy and public welfare and it's still continuing. well, teachers began to strike in the red stakes, west virginia, arizona, calling for better funding for schools so a teacher doesn't have to sit in front of 60 kids unable to teach because there's no resources and no possibility of dealing with the children. teachers were fighting not just for better salaries, which they richly deserve, but for better conditions for children and schools. they got a lot of -- i happened to be living in arizona now and drive around tucson where i live. there were signs on lawns all over the place, supporting the teachers. scenes on businesses, support the teachers. they won referendum. arizona passed a referendum, calling for more funding for the schools, which they badly need. the republican legislature won't do it, so the battle continues. but this is a major growth of labor organizing, which extended. it has extended to the major labor movement. not enormous statistically speaking, but there have been scattered victories, starbucks, there was a general motors victory, the amazon is the latest, but there's a long way to go. the national labor relations board has to be reconstituted so that it actually carries out its legal responsibility of defending workers from illegal attacks by business, which have devastated the labor movements since reagan. well, the biden administration has actually been trying to do it, but it's been blocked by 100% rock solid republican opposition joined by a few right wing democrats, so it can't get through, just recently, very good representative appointment who was pro labor was blocked sft. and there's a big battle to overcome. i should remember as i said, old enough to remember the early 1930's and it's kind of similar, the labor movement in the 1920's had been crushed. the united states has a very violent labor history, much worse than europe. the woodrow wilson red scare, the worst repression in american history had crushed the vibrant, militant labor movement. 1920's, there was almost nothing left. early 1930's in the wake of the depression, began to revive. they were organizing, militant labor actions, sit-down strikes. under that impetus, it was a sympathetic administration. you got the new deal measures, which have greatly improved lives of americans enormously, and led the world to the post where, social democratic movements. well, maybe it will begin today, but it's going to be a battle, a major battle. amazon victory is a striking example of what could be done, but it's going to be a long haul. the attack on labor continues right now relentless, bitter, and it will take plenty of dedication and commitment to beat back and overcome it. >> we have about an hour left with our guest, noam chomsky this afternoon and we're going to continue to take your calls. noam chomsky has appeared on c-span 28 times. national reputation sprang forth in 1967 when he wrote responsibility of intellectuals review for books and 1989 he gave a lecture on thought control in modern society. here is a portion of that. >> well, the title of this talk as i suppose you saw somewhere is necessary illusion, thought control in democratic society. the title is intended to be paradoxical, it should be. thought control and indoctrination are inconsistent with democracy, therefore, one can't have control in a democratic society. there is a standard view about this matter. the standard view is expressed, for example, by supreme court justice powell, who speaks of what he calls societal purpose of the first amendment, that is enabling the public to a certain meaningful control over the political process. now, he happens to be speaking about the media and their crucial role in affecting this societal purpose and similar remarks could be made and should be made about the educational system, about publishing, about intellectual life generally, but the media are particularly important in providing free access to information and opinion and therefore, allowing a democrat sick process to function in a meaningful i with a -- way. and the new york times on sunday called their traditional jeffersonian role as a counter balance to government powell. if one takes jefferson seriously, as he may or may not have taken himself, he would have presumably gone farther not just counter balancing government's power, but other kinds of power, as well the kinds that developed in the post jeffersonian period. the corporate power, which is the dominant feature of modern social life. well, all of this seems obvious, even thoughtlogical, what else could be democracy. but it's worth bearing in mind there's a counterview, probably the dominant view among liberal democratic theory, it goes back to the origins of democracy, and the english revolution of the 17th century, the english revolution of the 17th century. at that time great concern was expressed over popular agitators, itinerant printsers and removing the cloak of mystery behind which the parliament and the king with carrying out the struggle you read about in the history books. now, these people were, in their words, they were people who wanted to be represented not by lords and gentry, but by men of their own kind, men who know the people's sort, quoting from pamphlets. >> one historian warned, by revealing the workings of power they will make the people so curious and arrogant they will never mind humility enough to submit to a civil rule, which is a big problem. well after these radical democrats have been crushed by about 1660, john locke wrote that day laborers and tradesmen, spinsters and dairy maids must be told what to believe. the greatest part cannot know and therefore, they must believe. now, these concerns arose once again during the american revolution, as they typically do during popular revolutions, and it was not until the 1780's, that the radical democrats and the american revolution were crushed and there was no more any thought that people would be represented by people at that time men of their own kind who know the people's source. they would be represented by those qualified to rule over them of whom they were permitted to make a selection, the modern democratic political system which follows the principle laid down by the founding fathers, that those who own the country, ought to govern it, quoting john jay. now, all of this comes right to the present. i won't try to go through the history, but the rich tradition expressing the same views comes right down to the present in the modern version, neebler, a revered moralist and foreign policy analyst, explains in his words, rationality belongs to the cool observer, but because of the stupidity of the average man, he follows not reason, but faith and this faith relies upon necessary illusion -- i thank him for offering me my title -- office necessary illusion and over simplification that have to be provided by the myth makers, by the cool observers, folks like us, smart guys who know how to serve power. walter littman, dean of american journalists two years either talked about the manufacture of consent which has become a self-conscious art and a regular organ of popular democracy. that's appropriate because the common interest largely elude the public opinion entirely and only managed by a specialized class. the same concerns to explain a good deal of the fear of radical movements abroad, right up to the present, so, for example, in the early 19th century, the czar of russia was deeply concerned about the contagion of revolutionary ideas coming from american democracy, which might undermine the conservative world order that he and others were presiding over, and a century later, the roles were reversed, but the same ideas were expressed, at the time when woodrow wilson sent troops to join the western and intervention, against the bolsheviks, his secretary of state, echoing the czar a century earlier, warned that the bolsheviks, and quoting, were the urge to become masters. and the same ideas in the public relations industry, the patron saint of the modern industry, edward bernaise, received his from the commission he was a member of and later developed the concept engineering of consent which he says is the essence of democracy and is something which he practiced, for example, in demonizing the democratic capitalist government of guatemala, when he was working for the united free company in the early 1950's, paving the way for the cia coup, which turned into the hoist. and the public relations industry from the very beginning from the early part of the century described the task as controlling the public mind, educating the american people about the economic facts of life to ensure favorable climate of business and what littman calls the public interest. >> the public mind is the only danger to the company, an at&t executive commented about 80 years ago and those problems have been addressed ever since with the role of the pr industry. there's also an academic twist to this. in fact, it's a major theme in the academic social sciences. one of the leading american political scientists, this sort of major figure in the field of communications, harold lastwell, wrote an interesting commentary on this in 1933, in the name encyclopedia and those were more honest days, people called things what they were, he wrote an entry under propaganda, explained we must not succumb to democratic dogmaisms, many being the best judges of their interests. they're not. the best judges are the elite to impose their will for the common good and the means are a whole new technique much control largely through propaganda and it's necessary to do this because of the ignorance and supersition of the masses and then he explained why it's particularly important in a democracy. it's not the case as the naive might think that indoctrination is inconsistent with democracy rather than the whole line of thinkers observed, it's the essence of democracy. point is that in a military state or a futile state or what we now days call a totalitarian state it doesn't matter much what people think because you've got a bligen over their head and you've got to control what they do and with the behavior, care what they think at all. you control what they do. but when the state loses the bludgeon and you can't control people by force and the voice of the people can't be heard, it may make people so arrogant they don't submit to a lifl rule and therefore, you have to control what people think for their own good, of course, to ensure that they don't get out of control. >> and that was noam chomsky in 1989, one of 28 appearances, professor chomsky has made on c-span over the years. he joins us now live from his home in tucson, arizona, and the next call for him is from michael in miami. michael, please go ahead and ask your questionments yes, hello, and thank you, mr. chomsky, for your humanity and your scholarship. my question, if you answer yes, i believe the reason you're doing so is because we here in the south and i'm calling you from broward county, which is probably the school district that is under most attack by a governor and by a lot of the forces you've described in covering everything. i don't know if people who haven't read all of-- >> michael, what's your question. >> oh, sure, it has to do with-- we've had our governor come out and say that he wished to increase natural covid herd immunity in order to increase what he viewed as a benefit. but it's the very definition when you're pushing something like herd immunity for social disease that's the definition of criminal eugenic genocide and using students-- so covid herd immunity is the question, governor desantis in florida. noam chomsky. >> yeah, the question is about the governor, covid immunity? >> covid herd immunity, yes, sir. >> herd immunity. >> well, there is, unfortunately a powerful anti-vaccination movement in the united states. desantis has played a role in it in his not refusing vaccination, but not following policies advised by serious health officials, not florida, but elsewhere, and i think this is seriously prolonging at significant crisis. about a million americans have already died. the hospitals are overflowing with mostly unvaccinated patients. of course, provide a pool for future more mutations. we have the means to, if not eradicate, greatly control and diminish the harm caused by the coronavirus infections and also, to prevent, at least to limit the possible mutations, which could be much more harmful than what exists now. the means exist, but they have to be followed. if they're not followed, there'll be more suffering, more pain, more deaths, more crushing of hospitals, many hospitals have literally had to suspend normal operations just because of the overflow of largely unvaccinated patients who are filling up the covid wards. in a minor way, i've even specioused-- experienced that myself, but it's been serious. so i think it's a major problem, there's a lot to do. there's more to say about this. it's critically important to get vaccination advanced in the large regions of the world which have not had access to vaccines, they're only limited access. the rich countries, europe and the united states, and the early part of the -- there plague tended to monopolize the vaccines for themselves. actually the european record is worse than the u.s. record in this biden administration has taken some steps to try to break through the monopolizization, goes back to the world trade organization rules, those are called free trade agreements. they're not free trade. they provide extreme protectionist measures to ensure very high profits for pharmaceutical corporations, for mega media corporations and others, what are called intellectual property rights, exorbitant patent rights which allow them to way overcharge and make extraordinary profits, answer though, in the case of the pharmaceutical industries, much of the research and development is actually done at public expense, including the moderna vaccine. but the rules of the mislabeled free trade agreements allow them to have basically monopoly pricing rights. well, the germans have been even more adamant in protecting this than we have. but the effect has been to deprive large parts of the world of the vaccines that they need. this is a threat to us as well. not just to them. it means, again, a large pool of unvaccinated people which provide the virus opportunities to mutate, as it does rapidly, and nobody knows what the next variant might be. we've so far been kind of lucky in that the variants that have appeared over the years have either been highly lethal, but not very contagious, like ebola, or highly contagious, but not very lethal like omicron, can't guarantee that that will continue. the point is, going back to what i said before, the question is, what can we do? well, what we can do is apply the means that are available, intensive vaccination, protected spaces for people who want to be safe for -- from the infection, distancing, masks, many mechanisms that can be used to reduce the spread of infection. and to ameliorate the crisis, largely overcome it. so we have to pursue those measures, florida, under desantis, does not have a good record on this. >> and jim of from california, you're on with noam chomsky. >> thank you for taking my call and professor, a great honor to talk to you. my question is basically the internet, your thoughts on it. it's not been that long since it came into being, last 20, 25 years, it seems to have taken over the world. so thank you very much. >> professor. >> didn't quite catch it, i'm sorry. >> the impact of the internet over the last 20, 25 years. >> the impact of the internet. >> yes, sir. >> that's quite a story. i was actually present at the origin of what is now the internet. that was in the 1950's. i was at the research laboratory of electronics at mit, which is where the early ideas were formulated. it became what was called the ornet, and later turned into the internet. it's interesting to remember that almost-- the internet was overwhelmingly like computers, generally, developed on public funding. it was a publicly, largely publicly created achievement. later, it was privatized and handed over to private for profit, but that was many years later into the '90s. the internet has now become a major phenomenon. well, it has mixed consequences. the internet does allow us to discover things that we otherwise would not have known. it offers tremendous access to information. i mean, for years i've worked on -- many years, 50 years, back to the article you mentioned, been working on how the media operate as a kind of combination of an information and indoctrination system, a combination of both. well, i used to have to go to the library and look up -- work with microfilm machines to try to find out what was in the new york times two years ago. now i can do it by clicking a button. you can find things that you never would have found. like i quoted before a crucially important document, crucially important, september, 2021, u.s. government policy statement on ukraine. you can find that on the internet. you're not going to find it in the media, even if you went to the libraries, you wouldn't find it. but now you can pick it up from the white house official page on the internet. and that magnifies. it's tremendous source of potential information and enlightenment, but i stress potential. it matters how you use it. and unfortunately, it's often used to limit understanding and to restrict information. there's a natural tendency, can understand it, partially share it, to turn at once towards the internet sites which reinforce your own positions. i know i'm going to hear the kinds of things i like, so i'll turn to that. and that tends to create bubbles, small bubbles of self-reinforcing doctrines and ideas, where people become not only ignorant in what the outside, but even immune to it because they're hearing and getting reinforced by what they want to hear. that's a very widespread phenomenon. i think we're all familiar with it and it's quite dangerous. it's undermining the possibilities of interchange and interaction across the society, which are a prerequisite for a functioning democratic society, based on an informed electorate, aware of the views of others, understanding the views of others, able to move forward. that's the basis of the healthy society. that's pretty much what it was like during the exciting new deal period. during the 1960's, it was also true over a very wide range of the-- at the time mostly younger population. i was in my 40's at the time, so, i was one of the old folks, but the -- this is deteriorating so while the internet could be a mechanism of liberation and enlightenment, it can also be an instrument of control, indoctrination, divisiveness, breakdown of social order. it has all of that potential. it's kind of like a lot of technology, take a hammer, a hammer doesn't care whether you use it to build a house or whether torture or uses it to crush somebody's skull. the hammer is indifferent and a lot of technology is like that. the internet is an example. can be an enormous force for enlightenment, liberation, mutual aid and mutual understanding, but we have to make that decision, the internet is not going to make it for us. >> john is calling in from el paso, texas. please go ahead, john. you're on book tv. >> i hope you don't mind if i change my question. i first ask if-- was going to ask if the united nations could solve the problems in yemen and afghanistan and ukraine, but now i'm really concerned with whether or not you think that economic sanctions are an act of war. >> did you catch that, professor? >> well, it's worth remembering that sanctions -- if sanctions are carried out by the united nations, they're legal. we can ask whether they are advisable, but they're at least legal. most of the sanctions are carried out by the united states, actually more than half the world's population is now under one or another form of u.s. sanctions. this has no legal authority. the united states is using sanctions wildly to punish people. sometimes with some justification, maybe, sometimes not, but it should -- we do not want a world, at least i don't want a world, in which one power, which happens to have enormous force behind it, is capable of deciding who gets sanctioned. that's not a livable world. sometimes the sanctions are grotesque. take cuba. for 60 years cuba has been under direct attack by the united states, began with the kennedy administration. kennedy carried out a major terrorist war against cuba, not much discussed here, but it was real and very serious. it's part of what led to the missile crisis that almost destroyed us. then harsh sanctions were imposed. well, they continue. when russian support was withdrawn and cuba faced really serious problems because that was the limited support it was getting under the harsh u.s. sanctions regime, at that moment, the clinton-- bill clinton outflankled the republicans from the right, from the right, by increasing the sanctions, increasing the torture, and then came the helmsburton law which made it worse. u.s. sanctions or were called third party sanctions, others have to adhere to u.s. sanctions, even if they oppose them. and in the case of cuba, dramatically, the whole world opposes them strenuously. you take a look alt -- at the votes. the annual votes on cuba sanctionings. they're condemned every year, the last vote was 184-2, two were the united states and israel, which has to follow u.s. orders, client state. actually it doesn't even observe the sanctions, but has to vote with the united states. why do other countries observe the u.s. sanctions even though they oppose them? because they're afraid of the united states. it's a frightening country. europe opposes the sanctions, it opposes the iran sanctions vigorously, but it has to go along because you can't step on toes of the united states. it's dangerous. in fact, the united states has the capacity to throw countries out of the international financial system, which mostly runs through new york, and can carry out other measures. nobody's willing to face that. so, countries can't provide, say sweden, medical equipment to cuba. they can't sell something that uses nickel, that they imported from cuba. what's the reason for this? well, one of the good things about the united states is it's quite an open society. much more so than others. we have a lot of information about what our government is doing. not perfect, but a lot, a lot of material gets declassified, unlike other countries. that's a very good thing. so, we can look back to the records of the kennedy and johnson administration in the 1960's and ask, why the torture of cuba, and it is torture. well, the reason is, i'm quoting, successful defiance of u.s. policies going back to the 1820's, to the monroe doctrine, which established the u.s. right to dominate the hemisphere, to turn the hemisphere into a sphere of influence as it's called for the united states. well, back in the 1820's, the united states wasn't powerful enough to implement it, britain was much more powerful and impeded the u.s., but over time as predicted by u.s. leaders, john quincy adams, others, british power waned, american power increased, and finally the u.s. was able to impose the monroe doctrine. cuba was acting in successful defiance of u.s. demand to dominate the hemisphere and to determine what happens here. so, we have to torture them, make them suffer bitter will -- bitterly and brutality and europe joins in and the whole world joins in because they're afraid of the united states. that's sanctions and same with the sanctions on iran. there was an agreement, jcpoa, the joint agreement on nuclear weapons signed under the obama administration, 2015. iran lived up to it completely. u.s. intelligence confirms that iran completely lived up to the agreement. it sharply limited iran's capacity to develop nuclear systems, whether they intended to develop nuclear weapons, we don't know, they said they weren't. maybe they were. but anyway, this limited it. president trump dismantled it, tore it to shred, violating security council orders. security council had ordered that all countries maintain the jcpoa. trump decided i don't like it, i'm going to tear it apart so he destroyed it, and then he punished iran for the u.s. violation of security council orders by imposing harsh sanctions on iran. europe bitterly opposed that, but they have to conform for the reasons i mentioned. that's maintained, now maintained by the biden administration. there is a chance that we might be able to restore the agreement, tricky thing. well, we can look through the rest of the world. sanctions are-- there are u.n. sanctions which again, one can debate whether they're right or wrong, but at least they're legitimate. but, u.s. sanctions have no legitimacy, nor would those of other countries, if other countries were capable of imposing them. to a limited extent. not much, but it's mostly a u.s. weapon and we could-- we should look into them closely. take the -- there are some about which we have extensive evidence if we want to learn, to take the clinton administration, clinton-blair, u.s.-u.k. sanctions iraq in the 1990's. very harsh sanctions. they were administered through the u.n., but they were basically u.s.-british sanctions. well, the first administration -- there were distinguished international diplomates who administered the sanctions. the first was an irish diplomate, dennis halliday. he resigned in protest because he said the sanctions were genocidal. he said they're bitterly harming iraqi civilians, hundreds of thousands of children are dying, and many others are-- the economy is being destroyed and they're not harming saddam hussein. in fact, he's gaining because the population is suffering and has to shelter under the umbrella of the brutal government, which did have an effective rationing policy. so it's strengthening the tyrant, harming the population to the point where it's genocidal. so he resigned. he was replaced by another distinguished international diplomate, hans, he had researchers all over the country finding, observing what was happening, knew more about iraq than anybody in the west. he resigned in the protest because as he put it, these sanctions are genocidal. he reiterated and strengthened what dennis halliday had said. he also published an important book, it's called a different kind of war, in which he described in detail the brutality and sadism of the u.s.-british sanctions and what they were doing to the population while they were strengthening the tyrant. well, we're not a fascist country, so the book isn't technically banned, but try to find it. i don't think there's a single review in the united states or in britain. it's silenced. it's there and worth reading. you can find out in detail, extensive detail what sanctions are like when they're applied in a brutal and sadistic manner and they-- you can't prove it, but kind of suggests, and i think there's some plausibility to this, that the sanctions may have saved saddam from being overthrown from within. that happened to a lot of tyrants, brutal u.s.-backed tyrants. marcos in the philippines, duvalier in haiti. cha chesaco in romania, the worst of the gangsters in the soviet system very strongly supported by the united states until virtually the day of overthrown. one after another were toppled by internal revolts. the same thing happened in south korea, possibly could have happened in iraq, but not under the conditions of the sanctions, which so punished the population and demoralized them, and so forced them to shelter under the saddam umbrella that there was no possibility of overthrow the government. can't prove it, but that might have happened. well, that's one case of sanctions where we can learn a great deal from the book. it's very detailed and instructive, but we can only learn it if we try. if we decide we want to accept the indoctrination, okay, then it doesn't matter that it's a free country. well, there are other cases you can look at. the usual discussion of sanctions is do they achieve their ends, so, discussion of the-- there's a lot of criticism of the iran sanctions, public criticism in the united states because they didn't work, they can't force iran to accept u.s. demands. it's not the right question. the right question is, what right does the united states have to destroy the agreement in violation of security council orders and then to punish iran because we destroyed the agreement? that's the question that should be asked. what right do we have to compel others to adhere to our decision to punish iranians because we withdrew from the agreement? those are the questions that could be asked and similar questions can be asked in other cases. cuba is the obvious one, venezuela, others. and remember, u.s. sanctions are so widespread they reach over half the world's population. i -- before in the earlier part of the discussion i closed chas freeman, again, one of the most highly recorded, rightly highly recorded of the u.s. diplomatic corps, ambassador, he also in the same interview i described goes into the illegality and the cruelty of the sanctions. it's worth listening to and worth reading about. >> and in professor chomsky's book, there's a chapter the u.s. is a leading terrorist state. we have five minutes left with our guest. kathy, go ahead. >> i just the one issue that weighs heavily on my mind is immigration and i have a feeling it's only going to get worse because of the climate, because of global warming and i don't know if there's anything we can do to get it better. i don't think we should turn these people away because they're desperate situation, it's not easy to leave a place they're unfamiliar and go somewhere, but i don't know if you agree, also, that it's going to get worse because of the global warming and what we can do, thank you. >> thank you, ma'am. >> i sort of half got it, but not sure i got it completely. can you repeat the essence? >> she is concerned about immigration and thinks it's going to get worse because of global climate change. >> well, immigration is an interesting question. we don't have much time, but one thing we might do is look at the u.s. record on immigration. the u.s. is in an unusual position. it has extraordinary advantages, very low population density, enormous resources, huge empty spaces, so what's our history on immigration? well, up until the 20th century immigrants were welcomed from europe, white immigrants. why? not a pretty story. we were wiping out and exterminating the indigenous populations, country was being opened up for settlement, they kneeleded lots of white faces to come in and settle it. 1920 are orientals were blocked, there was an oriental exclusion 1882. 1924, the u.s. imposed its first strict immigration restriction. the words weren't used, but in effect, it was aimed at italians and jews, that's the effect on the design of the immigration act of 1924. many jews ended up in extermination camps because they couldn't get into the united states. happens to include the remnants of my extended family, but that's the least of it. this law stayed until 1965. other arrangements were made which are worth discussing, enough time for it. today the u.s. has a-- it's not alone, europe is even worse. europe is even more brutal at immigration policies than the united states. europe has spent centuries devastating and destroying africa. it's now working hard to ensure that people escaping, trying to escape from the wreckage of european savagery can't make it to european shores. europe even has military installations in central africa to try to -- sub saharan africa to try to prevent miserable refugees to make it to the mediterranean where they might enter european shores so if you want to feel good about it, europe is even worse, but our policies are horrendous. people who are fleeing from the destruction of their societies by u.s. terror under reagan in the 1980's, murderous terror operations killed hundreds ever thousands of people, hundreds of thousands of refugees, orphans, widows, much of it has extended. people are trying to escape the honduras that was a military coup in 2009, condemned by almost the entire continent, accepted by obama and hillary clinton who basically supported it, turned honduras into more of a horror chamber than it's been, but to a huge wave of flight. we now turn them back at the border, or separate parents from children at the border under trump. it's degraceful. the pope, pope francis properly said that the refugee crisis is not a refugee crisis, it's a moral crisis of the wealthy, of the rich, of the west. well, the question that it's going to get much more extreme, we are now intensifying the threat and danger of global warming, which will be devastating. it will lead to huge flight, countries like, say, bangladesh are going to become unlivable. most of south asia is literally going to become virtually unlivable. large parts of africa. what are the people going to do? they're going to have to flee, and hundreds of millions of people will be trying to flee. not so great here either. in arizona where i live, there's a long drought that may have very severe consequences, but it's nothing like the poorer countries of the world. they're going to be shattered by this and yes, there will be enormous immigration problems. the way to deal with it is to stop immediately our assault on the global environment. we are destroying the environment which can sustain life on earth. we must start immediately following the strong advice of the scientific community. ... that we cut back fossil fuels right away. a certain percentage every year, right away until we end use of fossil fuels within a couple of decades. we're finish. ok. >> professor we're going to have to end it there. we will close with quick text message to you. you speak and a spoken for decades with conscience, woven throughout the remarks and writings in the matter of dr. chomsky. professor chomsky has two tw books come out this year. one is chomsky, a new world in our hearts, and notes on resistance. both coming out this year and noam chomsky has been our guest for the past two hours on "in depth." >> "first ladies: in their own s looking at the role of the first lady, their time and white house, and the issues important to them. >> it was a great advantage to know what it was like to work in schools because education is such an important issue, both for governor but also for a president. and so that was very helpful to me. >> using material from c-span's award-winning biography series first ladies. >> i am very much the kind of person who believes that you should say what you mean and mean what you say and take the consequences. >> and c-span's online video library. we will feature first ladies lady bird johnson, betty ford, roslyn carter, nancy reagan, hillary clinton, laura bush, show obama, an melania trump here watch "first ladies: in their own words" saturdays at two p.m. eastern on american history tv on c-span2 or listen to the series as a podcast on the c-span now free mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts. >> saturday night april 30 "the daily show" host trevor noah headlines the first white house correspondents' association dinner since 2019. president biden is also expected to attend making this a first time since 2016 that a sitting president has made an appearance. our television coverage begins at 8 p.m. eastern on c-span. we will have sights and sounds from inside the ballroom and highlights from past dinners ahead of the speaking program. coverage on c-span.org and the c-span now video out begins live at 6 p.m. eastern where you could watch celebrities, journalists and other guests walk the red carpet as they arrived for the dinner. the white house correspondents' association dinner live saturday night april 30 on c-span, c-span radio app, c-span.org and the c-span now video app. >> weekends on c-span2 are an intellectual feast. every saturday american history tv documents america's stories, and on sundays booktv brings you the latest in nonfiction books and authors. funding for c-span2 come from these television companies and more including comcast. >> do you think this is just a committee center? it's way more than that. >> comcast is partnering with 1000 community centers to create wi-fi enabled lift zones so students from low income families can get the tools they need to be ready for anything. >> comcast, along with these television companies, supports c-span2 as a public service. >> next it's booktv his monthly "in depth" program with author, historian and hoover institution senior fellow victor davis hanson. his books include a second world wars, the case for trump, and most recently the dying citizen in which he argues that the idea of american citizenship and the ideals associate with it are disappearing.dito >> host: it was in 2004 that victor davis hanson was first on this program works at the time he has written an additional seven books so we invited him back to speak about those. his most recent book is called the dying citizen, and doctor hansen, in this book you write that quote, history is not static their civilizations experience in this detours and regressions, and abrupt

Related Keywords

Honduras , Australia , Afghanistan , United States , United Kingdom , China , California , Yemen , Whitehouse , District Of Columbia , Russia , West Virginia , Ukraine , Mexico , Arizona , Massachusetts , Newark , New Jersey , Georgetown University , Switzerland , New York , Georgia , Philippines , Texas , Iran , Washington , Cuba , Florida , Toms River , Rwanda , United Arab Emirates , Canada , Guatemala , Haiti , Germany , West Well , Iraq , Belgium , Saudi Arabia , Sweden , Broward County , France , Venezuela , Romania , Americans , America , Saudi , Ukrainians , Chinese , Russian , Germans , Britain , East Germany , Afghan , Ukrainian , Iraqi , Soviet , British , Arab Emirates , Russians , American , Cuban , Boris Yeltsin , States Desantis , Henry Kissinger , Powell , George Bush , Miami Michael , Roslyn Carter , James Baker , Noam Chomsky , John Quincy Adams , Margaret Thatcher , John Jay , Dennis Halliday , Jake Matlock , Nancy Reagan , Emma Rossi , Ralph Nader , Davis Hanson , Dwight Eisenhower , Chas Freeman , Woodrow Wilson , States Europe , Edward Herrmann , Betty Ford , George Kennan , Mccalla Gorbachev , John Locke , Mikhail Gorbachev , George W Bush , George Bush Rumsfeld , Walter Littman , Laura Bush , Hillary Clinton , Turner William Perry ,