[applause] [cheers] [applause] >> a bit of housekeeping, pre-signed books available from garcia street books in the lobby. for those of you in the eldorado hotel which i understand is standing room only, please come after the event to get books. well, it evening, santa fe. [cheers] >> buenos tardes welcome to one of the most anticipated events of this or any other year. noam chomsky. [applause] [cheers] >> backstage i held of this flyer that said sold-out, which will be ammunition for his enemies. but rest assured that noam chomsky has never sold out. [applause] [cheers] thanks to the foundation in pursuit of cultural freedom series which organized this event, thanks also to lanin to digitize this audio archive which numbers close to 250 recordings. go to alternative radio.org. thank you to lanin. [applause] and alternative radio was spotted because of noam chomsky. i wrote him a letter he wrote back. we started corresponding and after a while i suggested that we do an interview. he said yes of course. that was 31 years ago. it is an honor for me to introduce noam chomsky. how to introduce someone who needs no introduction? well, do something different, i thought, tell a story. there is a powerful tradition called the and elephant in the dark. it is an esoteric inner dimension of islam. many have told this story and i have added a bit to it. it is called the elephant in the dark. some men and women have never seen an elephant blindfolded and are asked to touch different parts of the elephant and identify what they are touching. so one touches an ear and says this and another touches the tail and says confidently but it's got to be a rope and another touches the task and says it's a sphere. and another says with great confidence that it is a pillar. and they start to bicker among themselves, adamantly insisting to the other that they were right. the voices were getting louder and louder. then along comes a stage he says guys, chill out. and i can hardly imagine that he would say that you should chill out, but kind of modernizes it a little bit. [laughter] let me remove your blindfolds. see, it's an elephant. they were all flabbergasted. for many of us all over the world, noam chomsky is that stage. the guide. never showboating or grandstanding about laying out what he sees backed up with documentation. he doesn't tell you what to do that he teaches by example. the next step is up to you. you have to be able to figure out your path societal involvement and action. for decades he has been illuminating the dark crevices of a rapacious system and imperialist foreign policy. and always in a calm and soft voice. listen for the irony. by any measure he has led a most extraordinary life and he is a pioneer in the field of linguistics. to call his effortless writing prolific or huge understatement. if records are kept for such categories as giving lectures and interviews, writing books and articles, noam chomsky would be the world champion. at 86 years old he is a rebel without a cause and as they say in gish [inaudible] and yes, here comes that four letter word children cover your ears love. he is deeply loved by many. and it's no wonder because he has been there to nicaragua, palestine, colombia. this evening he is here for us. brothers and sisters please welcome noam chomsky. [cheers] [applause] [cheers] >> thank you. [applause] [cheers] >> it is now 70 years since the end of the most horrific war in history. it ended with the use of an ultimate weapon which can bring human history to an end a day that i happen to remember very well. we have been living under that shadow ever since. twenty years later to leading figures russell, einstein, they issued an appeal to the people of the world, calling on them to make a choice that is stark and dreadful and inescapable, shall we put an end to the human race or shall mankind renounce war to they recognized that war can very quickly turn into terminal nuclear war. in 1947 atomic scientists establish the famous doomsday clock, setting it seven minutes to midnight. midnight being the end. last january it was advanced to three minutes before midnight and that is a threat level that had not been reached for 30 years at a grim moment to which i will return. the accompanying explanation in both the two major threats to human survival, nuclear war nuclear weapons and unchecked climate change. condemning world leaders who were endangering every person on earth by failing to perform their most important duty and insuring and preserving the health and vitality of human civilization. the russell and einstein appeal differs from the current declaration into current respects and one is that it did not include the threat of environmental catastrophe which 50 years ago was not sufficiently understood. secondly it addresses not just this but the political leadership and that the difference is of some significance, that there is substantial evidence that with climate change, nuclear weapons planning international policies generally, the population seems to be much more concerned than the political leadership who does not regard the most important duty to be insuring and preserving the health and vitality of human civilization as ample evidence reveals. it's hardly a secret that even in the most free and democratic societies that the governments respond only in limited ways to popular will for the united states it is well-established in academic scholarship that a considerable majority at the lower end at the well is disenfranchised and the views are simply ignored by policymakers, one moves of the scale and of the very top, which means a fraction of 1% the policy is pretty much determined that being the case the attitudes at the top of the ladder of very great significance. these are revealed dramatically with the ceos as of last january at the davis conference in switzerland, the masters of the universe as the business world describes them and this was just at the moment when the doomsday clock was advanced to three minutes to midnight. the poll revealed that climate change to not merit inclusion among the top 19 risks that concerned ceos. wars still is at the top of the ranking of the perceived risks was regulation and that is the prime method for addressing environmental catastrophe. overriding concern was with prospects for their companies. that is not surprising. whatever their individual beliefs are in their institutional role, the ceos are constrained with policies that are designed to pose extraordinary and undeniable threats to the continued existence of humanity and the words of this declaration. given the enormous role in determining state policy is less surprising that policy lachine public opinion on the concerns that move the clock so close to midnight. the effects are before our eyes every day. last sunday's wall street journal is a typical example, there is a weekend review section that features an article entitled fossil fuels are going to save the world, really, the lead story in the news section headlined u.s. produces ready new oriole way. in what they call a notion of oil from u.s. shale is american energy companies are poised to unleash while they lead us to the precipice. scientists are well aware that most of the oil must be left in the ground if there is to be some hope for grandchildren but who cares as long as there are spectacular profits for tomorrow. and on international affairs as well the popular opinion converges significantly from that of the decision-making class among many other examples is the considerable majority of the united states that have held that the united nations, not the united states, should take the lead in international crises and such views are such remote views from opinion that they are barely articulated publicly. a good part of the reason is the nature and as often is the case it is the critical end of the spectrum that is the most informative. here is an on the former director of the carnegie endowment for international peace of the current issue of the new york review of books reading. u.s. intellectual journal here is what she writes. american contributions to international security, global economic growth freedom and human well-being have been so self-evidently unique and have been so clearly directed to others benefits that americans have long believed that the u.s. announced to a different kind of country where others push their national interests, the u.s. tries to advance universal principles. well, the comment should be superfluous and what is important is that this is what many in so-called enlightened circles actually believe and it's quite an astonishing fact in our free society where information is readily available and the impact on policy is not obscured. nuclear weapons policy reveals very dramatically how governments and also it largely dominates governments regarding the principle where there is their most important duty to ensure health and civilization. when we inquire we discover that regrettably governments have this silly not even considered security of their own populations is a particularly high priority. and so it's rather enlightening to review the record albeit with high points or maybe low points. until it's began when the united states had overwhelming wealth and power and a remarkable security. there was, however, a potential threat. there was a standard scholarly review of nuclear policies. including the national security adviser to presidents kennedy and president johnson, he had access to the highest level of document and he quoted and said that the timely development of listed missiles during the eisenhower administration is one of the best achievements of the eight years. yet it is well to begin with the recognition that both the united states and the soviet union might be in much less nuclear danger today if the missiles had never been developed. he even had a remarkable comments and said i am aware of no serious contemporary proposal in or out of either government of ballistic missiles should be banned by agreement. there was apparently no thought of trying to prevent the sole serious threat to the united states the threat of utter destruction. whether the institutional imperatives of state power prevailed, much as in the case of the ceos for whom the fate of the species is of little concern that it doesn't even enter into the ranking of risks. and furthermore this seems to arouse little interest or comment and i've never seen a reference to them. could the development of the missiles have been prevented? there might have been opportunities. one suggestive indication is a proposal by stalin in 1952 offering to allow germany to be unified with free elections on condition that it not join the hospital military alliance especially in light of the proceeding half-century. stalin's proposal was taken seriously by the respective political commentator james warburg but apart from him it was ignored and ridiculed. a recent scholarship has just begun to take a different view. the soviet scholar taking the status of his proposal to be in unresolved mystery, washington wasted little effort rejecting embarrassingly unconditional situations and was stolen genuinely ready to sacrifice the newly created german democratic republic on the altar of real democracy with consequences for world peace and for american security that could have been enormous. one of the most respected cold war scholars published a review of research in soviet archives and he observes that many scholars were surprised to discover that the sinister head of the secret police propose that the kremlin offer the west to deal on the unification and neutralization of germany, agreeing to sacrifice east german communist regime to reduce east-west tensions and improve opportunities and opportunities that were squandered it's actually a shocking decision that is being relived right now. under tces of the early fit these it is not impossible that agreement may have been reached that would have protected the security of the u.s. population from the gravest threat on the horizon. but the option was not considered, another indication, that is how security plays into the state policy to heighten the extraordinary significance of this failure, it was just at that time that the doomsday clock was moved two minutes to midnight, the closest it has ever been. and right at the borders of russia and ukraine, tracing right back to the end of the cold war. the crucial issue at that time in 1990 had to do with nato. now that the alleged threat of russian invasion had disappeared, one might believe that nato would have dissolved and its quite the contrary they expanded radically. mckillip over child agreed to allow unified germany to join nato, but there was a quid pro quo, mainly that they would not expand 1 inch to the east and that's the phrase that was used in high-level internal discussions referring to east germany and they were at once expanded and corba job nashville nationally objected and these were only verbally committed and the unspoken implication is that you are naïve enough to accept his agreement with the united states it's your problem. and clinton came along and expanded nato to the borders of russia and is another leading scholar recently pointed out in a major establishment journal that the indications that the ukraine might be assimilated into the western system, possibly even into nato, could not fail to be threatening to any russian leader. we only need to know how the united states would have acted at the height of the soviet power if the warsaw pact had taken over most of the hemisphere and now we are preparing to join the rush and run military alliance. the ukrainian parliament voted 330-eight to rescind what had been a adopted by the ousted president and they committed the ukraine to deepen cooperation with nato in order to achieve the criteria required for membership in this organization. the growing crisis concerning the ukraine is no slight threat and it is unavoidable one by diplomatic steps should guarantee ukrainian neutrality on the steps that are not being taken. other developments reveal the low priority a signed with epic security and when nikita khrushchev took over he recognized that russia could not compete much early with the united states and that if russia hoped to escape the economic backwardness and the devastating effect that the arms race would have to be reversed. he proposed sharp mutual reductions in offensive weapons. the incoming kennedy administration considered his offer instead turning to rapid military expansion. the policies are summarized by the distinguished relations scholar undertaking the largest strategic and unconventional peacetime buildup that the world has yet seen even as nikita kirchoff was trying to carry off and follow the strategy of minimum deterrence. even though we had the balance greatly favoring the united states once again the u.s. decisions really harmed while enhancing state power. it was revealed in 1962 when khrushchev sent missiles to cuba. that was partially an attempt to write add-ons and partially because of the clear threat it was kind of released from our history but very much alive in real history. it was what are their slush and are called the most dangerous moment in history.. and they had careful consideration with no time to go through the details but it's worth remembering that at the key point of the crisis in 1962 kennedy received a letter from khrushchev offering to end the crisis peacefully with the withdraw of russian missiles from cuba and u.s. missiles from turkey. and these were missiles propelled to set in motion which means that they were at first strike weapons and not intended for attended for a deterrent and they were also obsolete weapons and the u.s. had already issued this in order to act on them because they were being replaced by even more lethal weapons. and so that was kennedy's choice. shall we publicly withdraw obsolete missiles from first missiles from turkey on the border of russia which are being replaced by lethal missiles or should we refuse. he refused. his own subjective estimate of war was between one third and one half and in my view that is one of the most appalling decisions in history and even more appalling is that kennedy is praised for his cool courage in handling the crisis. well, 10 years later, henry kissinger called a nuclear alert and this was in the last days of the 1973 israel and arab war the purpose was to warn the russians and not to interview with the diplomatic maneuvers. this was designed to ensure his victory so that the u.s. could still be in control of the region unilaterally in the maneuvers were delicate and we learned a lot about them from recent declassified sources and the united states and russia had jointly imposed a cease-fire but kissinger secretly informed israel that they could ignore it, hence the need for a nuclear alert to frighten russians away. fortunately they were frightened away. the security of the population was a matter of little concern as usual. ten years after that the reagan administration launched operations to probe russian defenses that meant simulating air and naval attacks against russia. the actions were undertaken at a tense moment at that time and missiles were being installed in western europe, five to 10 minute flight time from moscow and also reagan had announced his "star wars" program which is presented here with every strategic analyst on all side sides that understands that missile defense is a first strike weapon. if it ever work which it might not come it could not stop a first strike. but it could conceivably strike a retaliatory strike which means that it is a first strike weapon installed at the time and all of this very seriously caused great alarm in russia especially with simulated attacks which led to a major war scare in 1983 that was the last time that the doomsday clock reached three minutes before midnight in 1984. newly released russian archives reveal that the danger was even more severe than historians had previously assumed. there is a recent comprehensive u.s. intelligence study, which comes through the evidence now available and concludes that this was for real and they conclude as well that the u.s. intelligence under estimated russian concerns and the threat of russian preventative nuclear strike which would have been the end. recently we have learned that it was even more dangerous than that. in the midst of these world threatening developments russia's early warning system detected an incoming missile strike from the united states sending the highest level of alert of the officer on duty the russian officer on duty decided that it was a false alarm and he did not transmit the warnings that violated protocol. that was the difference between survival and extermination. russian air defense systems are much less sophisticated than those of the united states. they pretty much rely on radar which means line of sight and detection of incoming missiles and u.s. systems rely on satellites so the russian systems have a much more tense alert that is of us back in the cuban missile crisis, a russian submarine commander blocked the launching of torpedoes which could have set off a terminal nuclear war. there were three russian submarines and two other commanders had authorized the launch when the three summaries were under attack by the u.s. destroyers during the missile crisis. according to the protocol the agreement of all three was required yet another sign of how thin is the thread that we grasp for survival. there are killing estimates of the failures of u.s. systems which i dimension were far more reliable than the russian ones and there's a reason review of several years of data on u.s. accidental reports of soviet military strikes hundreds of these, right in the years of the greatest dangers come in 1979 through 1983, the author of the review concludes that nuclear war is the black swan that we can never see except in the brief moment when it is killing us we delay a woman hating the risk at our own peril and now is the time to address the threat. because now we are still alive. the former commander, and general lee butler recently reviewed his long career as a strategic weapons planner who wrote that he had been among the most avid keepers of the faith and nuclear weapons but now it is his burden to declare with all the conviction that i can muster that in my judgment they served us and they outlined the reasons like the ones i have mentioned. by what authority these leaders in the nuclear weapons states usurped the power to take kate the odds of life on our planet, most urgently wide as such breathtaking audacity persist at a moment when we should stand trembling in the face of folly and united in our commitment to abolish the deadly manifestations. and general butler went on to conclude that we have so far survived by some combination of skill and luck and divine intervention and i suspect the latter in the greatest proportion. plainly these are not risks that would be accepted by any decision-maker but they are being accepted by decision-makers that are perfectly sane just as the devastating risks are being phased with eyes open and ignored by the masters of the universe and its deeply pathological and it must be cured and quickly if we are not to put an end to the human race in their words. thank you. [applause] [applause] >> you again? [laughter] >> the lights are superbright. >> what is it like being a sage? >> pardon? >> a sage? [laughter] >> i promised i would do something different. you ended the cheerful talk. we have an institutional logic that is deeply pathological that must be cured if we are not to put an end to the human race. how do we go about doing that? >> it is all in our hands. and actually there are ways to end the threat of nuclear weapons. as many of you know it is an obligation of the nuclear weapons states to carry out good-faith efforts to eliminate nuclear weapons totally and that his article number six of the nonproliferation treaty of 1970. that is the legal obligation as the national court of justice ruled years later in 1996. those efforts could be carried out. unfortunately we are going in the opposite direction. president obama has recently announced a trillion dollar program to modernize and upgrade nuclear weapons in a capacity with other powers acting more or less similarly there are other policies being conducted right now and i mentioned the ukraine, but it's not the only one that is bringing this global situation to the point where it might be a perhaps intended strike. it has been known for many years that if the power launches a nuclear strike it will be destroyed by the effects of the nuclear explosions and there's no escape between what could lead to virtual extermination. the steps that are being conducted are in the opposite direction and there have been some potential, unfortunately aborted efforts to implement steps that would reduce the danger. one major threat right now has to do with iran. in the united states it is commonly claimed by officials and commentators and others that iran is the greatest threat to world peace. it's interesting to compare this to global opinion. there's scores of global opinion taken by u.s. polling agencies one of the most recent a year ago that asked people around the world which country is the greatest threat to world peace. the united states won by a huge margin and no one else was even close. the second was pakistan which was probably slated by the indian vote. [laughter] >> fortunately the press refused to report them. but they are facts nevertheless. here it is iran the greatest threat to world peace and it's in interesting question that we can ask as to what the threat is. but let's say that there is a threat, is there a way to end it? yes, there are ways to end it. i don't know if you want to go into it. >> i think we want to kind of stick to the five-minute rule. [laughter] >> as i said. but there have been potential steps which have been blocked by the united states and that is unfortunate. in the case of nuclear weapons we know how to end the problem. it's a matter of implementing policies that are understood, policies that could be carried out if there was pressure to carry them out. the population cares about survival. leaders typically do not. they care about power. we can influence those decisions in countries like this particularly where we have a more free and open society. it's not so obvious, there are measures that can be undertaken to mitigate the threats and maybe overcome them. but again, policies going in the opposite direction and what i voted from "the wall street journal" is unfortunately pretty difficult. you read it in the business pages across the spectrum. "the new york times", the financial times plenty of euphoria about how the united states can become the saudi arabia of the 21st century it can achieve energy independence, we can flood the world with oil all great and wonderful, the price of oil is going down, which is great, it's good for american consumers who can drive more. all of these marvelous things are simply very straightforwardly driving us to a precipice which will fall over and will be extremely harmful and may be devastating for generations not very far away the generation of our grandchildren. much worse in the poorer countries but also here. >> senator cardin of arkansas is one of the many intellectual giants in that legislative body. recently announcing that we do have a great deal to fear from iran because they control a lot of. >> yes, if you read "the washington post", you will discover that senator tom cotten who has a real pedigree graduating from harvard he is positioning himself to be the future of foreign-policy specialists of the republican party taking the mantle of john mccain and lindsey graham. he has other interesting warnings. when he was running for senate in arkansas, he warned the citizens of arkansas that the mexican drug cartels are linked to isis. join together they are working to send terrorists across the border and into the united states where they can kill citizens of arkansas. and of course all of this is part of it and so on. >> move that clocked two minutes to midnight if that's true. benjamin netanyahu, he won a consecutive term his fourth overall, one individual says that he's good for the palestinians. why? is very clear. no palestinian state, no compromise. another individual says there are cosmetic differences between the two major israeli parties and the two state solution is actually a 10 state solution. a bunch of individuals inside the west bank. what is your view on what happened in israel? >> well, what happened, one question is how much difference between the parties and there is a minor sort of his party going past the admissions point. there is the third-largest which is pretty much excluded from any coalition on racist grounds, no coalition is going to accept this party is an important constituent. there are some differences. if you read his appeal of the electorate, there's a combination of outright racism and extreme fear mongering. so you have probably read in the paper about the electorate powers the air of citizens are being driven to the polls by leftists of the government, all in an effort to undermine his policy of defending israel from terrorists, so on and so forth that combination of fear mongering and racism does work. it worked in israel we are not unfamiliar with it here. and this has been drifting very far to the right. this is a major nuclear weapons state and a violent state that is carried out with lots of aggression, it is a direct violation of international law that is accepted by the entire world. with the exception of israel and the united states and it can be and is already a dangerous state and can be going forward. as to the conclusions i think -- i don't think that they are analyzing the situation accurately. it is widely argued not display them across the board israeli analyst, palestinians, there are two options that either a two state settlement in accord with the overwhelming international consensus which includes essentially everyone outside the united states and israel, that is one possibility. the other possibility is what is called a one state solution. where israel takes over former palestine and then there will be what is called a demographic problem with too many arabs in a jewish state. from the palestinians and palestinian supporters like you mentioned who regard this positively they say that then it will be possible to carry out with the civil rights struggle to call for the rights of palestinians within this one state. the problem is that these are not two options. the two options are quite different. the second option is there is no reasonable possibility that israel will take over the whole thing and face this demographic problem and the second option alternative to the two states is something quite different that is what is exactly happening before our eyes and there are policies implemented daily right before our eyes, we can see them, we can see where they are directed, they have been in motion for almost half a century, the purpose is clear what they are doing and the policies -- first of all israel is taking over and has taken over what it calls jerusalem and that is an area five times the size of his work jerusalem that include substantial areas of the west bank. taking it over and all the parties except for the very far out one's saying yes, this is in indivisible capital of israel and that is one thing. and then if you look at the development programs which are very obvious one of them is developing a court are to include a large town mostly during the clinton years which has a purpose to subdivide the west bank, the borders reaching to jericho, which will be less than this right at the border. so extending to the east pretty much bisecting the west bank and if you look there are other orders to the north including other towns are being named to break up further. in addition they are taking over everything that is within the so-called separation wall, the annexation wall the u.s. continues to support the policies and that is a large part of it that excludes the palestinians from farms and orchards and so on. furthermore israel is systematically taking over the jordan valley and that is roughly one third of the west bank and much of it is arable land, the palestinians are being steadily expelled sometimes some are thrown out. the traditional method for 100 years now of ultimately incorporating some regions inside israel and israel is carrying out a reasonable and intelligent situation intending to integrate anything that may be of value but to exclude the palestinian population. the area is that they are taking over don't have many palestinians and those that are there largely expelled. that will leave the palestinian population in limbo. no demographic problem, no one state. and there is no serious alternative that anyone has made a meaningful case for to think that there could be. if you think it through, you can see that it is extremely unlikely as was just described, the policies that are now being implemented. it's one thing in the hands of the, as long as the united states officially objects to these policies the official u.s. policy the u.s. continues to support them and it is providing the military at economic, diplomatic even the ideological support for them in the issues are framed in the united states which is quite different than the rest of the world. as long as the united states continues to support the policies there's no reason to expect them to withdraw from them, whether it is benjamin netanyahu or anyone else. there are some differences in the policies with extremely alarmist rhetoric and there is some differences but they are not fundamental differences. >> in new mexico under u.s. law native american land grant heirs have lost common lands and it has been said that many have been separated for commercial years, what hope you see for traditional people and the shared use of natural resources rather than exploitation for profit. >> again it's the same story, these are the decisions of the american population can make in the case of the united states and this has been going on for 500 years ever since the first english settlers came, there has been a study on the indian nations, exterminating, and that is history. there are two fundamental crimes in american history and one is expulsion or extermination of the indigenous population and of course the other is slavery with its impact still remaining. the united states is what is called a colonial society and that is unusual form of imperialism in which the imperial power settles the country that is being taking over and exterminate the population and that is an extreme form of imperialism the countries that sort of extend out of england through the united states, canada, australia, new zealand almost how this works, that's an unusual form and very dangerous. and yes they are fighting back and they do need support. but there is another point that ought to be made about preservation and that is back to climate change, the commons are the environment in which we live. if the commons are privatized and if they are handed over to exxon mobil and chevron and so on for the reasons that i just mentioned, we have a possibility of surviving. but if you look around the world almost everywhere it is the indigenous populations which are trying to protect them from destruction. .. >> >> it is very likely to destroy a the probability of decent survival. that is the most crucial aspect to his benefit day after the big climb in march is a timber the very next day the rockefeller brothers fund disinvested from fossil fuels with the significance of that as rockefellers' background. [laughter] is this the start of the major movement of divestment from fossil fuel corporations? and this is one of the cost -- hottest issues. >> guest: yes it is important it is symbolic but significant. these to the steps for the presidency and how important it is like everything else depends on people like you to do something about it but. >> host: i want to talk about two ships one fictional one real one the titanic:the pequot in "moby dick". i think right now this stage he talks about about a have tried to destroy "moby dick" matter what. so what do you think about that metaphor that "moby dick" is nature and a half is out of control capitalism in with titanic the reforms from the sectors of power is just moving the deck chairs saw on the titanic sorry to the thai yoda petraeus drivers. [laughter] >> guest: with models is and metaphors there is a point of some differences but you might say that hitler was ahab especially to the end of the war dedicated to continue the war if germany was destroyed if the germans did not succeed then is like a have been away but in our case it is somewhat different it is institutional logic not a matter of individuals because the ceos who voted if you ask them personally maybe they contribute to the sierra club over in favor of diapers -- divestment but as managers of major corporations they had a duty and the legal requirement to maximize profit and market share to ignore the externalities' or the impact of a transaction and others that does not enter into market capitalization. this externality is the survival of the grandchildren in the institutional role they cannot attend the problem because they have to maximize the profit share. there are changes how they operate that this over will be property of happens to be lethal and cannot continue. state power is not dissimilar but governments regard to their own populations and as a major enemy. they reveal the extent to which the u.s. government regards the u.s. population as an enemy that has to be monitored and controlled. edge you recall when the snowden revelations came out it was the first explained by the government that over 50 terrorist acts were presented by the nsa surveillance under inquiry the reduced it to maybe a dozen under further inquiry it was reduced at one. one case. [laughter] that someone had sent $8,500 to somalia and that was the yield of this massive program. [laughter] that is aimed at half the population to have their control and obedience and that is typical of governments but the leadership is committed to state power if you think through the record of nuclear policy of the record is worse but it is astonishing of disregard for the safety end welfare of a population to enhance state power. that is how they function. en to overcome those institutional pathologies is a lot harder than individual ones and in the case of ahab buchanan put him through psychoanalysis. [laughter] there are remedies but with institutional pathology it is far more serious but as far as rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic and isn't a bad image the there are some steps being taken with the development of solar energy's and there are major efforts to try to block it. but unfortunately it isn't the center of solar panels of china but these are sophisticated and cutting edge of advanced technology but some steps are being taken or environmental rules but by and large the primary thrust of policy is in that direction. >> host: years ago the philosopher said politics is a shadow cast our society by big business. how would you evaluate that shadow today in light of citizens united with other supreme court rulings? >> the comment was accurate by billy that extends way back in the '50s you may remember that said the united states is a one-party state of business party that has to factions democrats than republicans. [applause] that was pretty accurate at the time but less accurate today. is still a one-party state, the business party but there is only one faction. the republican party has pretty much departed from being a functioning parliamentary organization. that is unjust my judgment. [laughter] from very high respected conservative political analyst in a i the right wing thinktank appointed recently and accurately that the republican party is a radical insurgency no longer committed to parliamentary participation. we have seen a dramatically the last couple years and we're seeing here right now just look at today's newspaper with the description of the house budget, the right and budget to do with a slight of he and is balancing the budget but head does undermine medicare to privatize meaning it is the one part of the health care system that is not privatized with the inefficiencies and cost half to work through the high and the efficient system through the united states so privatizing the medicare to see what works to cut back medicaid under the guise of federalism or repealing the affordable care racked -- compact wilson intends of millions into an injured or cutting back food stamps. so they are in reaching the wealthy that is the one policy the republic'' lung dash republican radical insurgency to enrich the powerful and attacked the general population. they cannot win votes that way is what has happened so the managers have mobilized sectors of the population which have always been around but have never been mobilized as a significant political force as christian evangelicals a major proponent of the basis of the republican party today you see the iowa primaries coming up. the others are the people are afraid they're taking our country away from us which has a basis in fact,. the white population will become a minority pretty soon. so is a crime that cannot be tolerated so they were so frightened to carry guns into starbucks and there is legislation in nevada right no being debated to rollout guns into day care centers. maybe they are trained by isis. [laughter] that is a very strange country. [laughter] a large part of the population people can be mobilized of those issues but not notice the policies their leaders are pursuing her impacting them to support the super rich jim the corporations. [applause] that is one of the former to factions. what is the other? it is the democrats but moderate republicans. if you look at those programs there are few exceptions but if you look at the leadership council these to be called moderate republicans somebody like richard nixon would be at the left of politics and eisenhower is of the spectrum. eisenhower went so far to say nobody could even think of dismantling the programs once they are dismantled with a career republican programs our efforts to dismantle programs initiated under nixon. said during this period it is pretty extreme with the public attitudes towards the health programs for the u.s. health system is that the international scandal with twice the cost of comparable countries in relatively poor outcomes. the u.s. government spends about as much per capita as comparable countries that is a small part of the health costs because of all house to work through the privatized health system which is an efficient bin in the hands of the kind of bookkeeping and and administration were institutions that have no interest in health and insurance company is not predicated to health but making money so not surprisingly they try to make money. , who look back at the polling record of public attitudes on health care. for a long period since world war ii there has been sometimes considerable majorities with a large part of the population is in favor of national health care. through the late '80s a majority of the population thought there should be a constitutional guarantee for health care ahead and i think it was 40% thought it was already in the constitution. [laughter] that was the '80s think of when obama presented his affordable health care program you will recall at the very beginning of the program was a public option allowing people to make the choice of national health care. almost two-thirds of the population was in favor but it was dropped without discussion and never enter the discussion but united states has a unique law which bars the government from negotiating drug prices. you can negotiate other things but not drug prices. there much higher than comparable countries there haven't been many holes but with 80% opposition the power of the pharmaceutical corporations are so eager ms. there wasn't even an effort to introduce into obamacare with the attitudes fusspot -- of obamacare it has been negative even though for years it is strongly in favor of national health care. some of that opposition is because it didn't go far enough. but it is what you see reflected in the town hall comment where somebody said keep your hands off my medicare. people don't understand what the corporations are doing with a significant change of the expressed attitudes is a remarkable triumph of propaganda. and the way health care is to everyone's life. >> those numbers have been a zero for quite some time. i will take the moderator's privilege to go on if i may. [applause] this is the longest journey did you ever imagine the cards you would draw or having your books on display at airports? [laughter] >> guest: actually started to give public talks of these issues much too late in the early '60s of the early vietnam war and it was in somebody's living room or church with three or four people. none of us ever could have guessed at the time that a couple years later there would be the major anti-war movement. but with all the negative things that have happened within the liberal reaction the audiences are very different than the past with concerns and lots of issues covered fighting back in the '60s barely discuss sterno accepted has women's rights or gay rights there was no concern for environmental issues now would is substantial. over the years there has built long periods of extensive popular activism for the nuclear weapons. the general atmosphere of the public all of this is positive. there is one trajectory that is the constructive trajectory that i talked about in the question is which one will prevail? but that is in your hands. >> host: you were just in argentina meeting with some activist in spain. water your impressions? >> this was the international conference from around the world mostly south america but from spain or greece or others in their reflects the positive thoughts of the world. one of the major positive developments internationally for a long time was taking place in south america over the last 15 years. for 500 years south america had been dominated by foreign powers by the countries themselves were typical structures as a small european mostly white elite extremely wealthy in a sea of misery and poverty. they had the second hole in the riviera. there is little interaction with the south american countries but these were the most religious students of the neil liberal policies of the world bank and imf in treasury department. with the last tender 15 years for the first time it is the major change of of world affairs. south america used to be regarded as our backyard. they did whatever we told them know it is out of control with the hemisphere conferences united states is isolated. the primary reason obama made steps to normalize relations with cuba because we were isolated in the whole hemisphere. there were trying to get your arrangements before the south america's us it is such huge change what the conference was in south america with there were participants from greece. europe has been subjected to a program a savage economic program and to seriously undermine european democracy that has been devastating for the weaker countries. and is beginning to dismantle the chief with of the off welfare state it is economically and destructive had even the imf. so they are reaching the big banks with social programs in the reaction is first from greece which has suffered the most in the german banks that our responsible for this crisis to react in a savage way to prevent greece from taking steps that might extricate itself from the disaster imposed as it calls for restructuring of its debt. it is particularly ironic because in 1953 germany was permitted by the european countries to cancel major debts that is the basis for the german recovery why it is the dynamic center of europe. second germany practically destroyed greece during the second rule for. put this together they're not asking for a limited element of what germany was granted in 1953 and in the powers are flatly refusing in a very savage way. they may get away with it because greece is a weak country but spain is going to be hard it is a more powerful economy and in the last couple of years a new political party developed which is now running first in the polls and it is a party dedicated to reversing the austerity program sustaining and rebuilding the welfare state programs through the country to constructive derailment and those who caused the crisis were the spanish in the german banks but they want the population to pay nine believe in a capitalist society that if i lend money to you i know it is risky. [laughter] therefore i get a lot of interest. add a certain point if you cannot pay it is my problem in a capitalist society but the problem is your problem and your neighbors problem they have to pay for it to. that is the way we're system works and makes sense with class warfare but no resemblance to the market in that is what is going on but there is a struggle. to have sensible programs to win the next election it will monday ec for the german banks for those spanish initiatives. >> host: one last question and you grew up at a time when solidarity mitt something with mutual support and an active labor movement so what will it take in 2015 to rekindle the spirit of solidarity? >> remember the 30's. the labor movement was in the forefront to organize the s&l strakes a sympathetic administration so they were willing to accommodate to the pressures developing among the public labor movement spearhead that do lead to the legislation that was beneficial to the population of the economy. but through the to 1920's labor movement was destroyed and practically nothing left of in montgomery has a book full of the house of labour about the 1920's of life levi imprint active free radical labor movement's

Related Keywords

Vietnam , Republic Of , Arkansas , United States , Jerusalem , Israel General , Israel , West Bank , Nevada , Australia , Eldorado , Atláico Norte , Nicaragua , Turkey , China , New Mexico , Russia , Washington , District Of Columbia , Ukraine , Mexico , Iowa , Cuba , Jordan Valley , Switzerland , Spain , Greece , New York , Moscow , Moskva , Canada , Germany , Argentina , Iran , Colombia , New Zealand , Kremlin , Pakistan , Town Hall , Saudi Arabia , Somalia , Warsaw , L67 , Poland , East German , Americans , America , Mexican , Russian , Germans , East Germany , Spanish , Ukrainian , Soviet , German , Israeli , Palestinian , Russians , American , Cuban , Tom Cotten , James Warburg , Henry Kissinger , Ahab Buchanan , Lindsey Graham , Nikita Khrushchev , Benjamin Netanyahu , Lee Butler , Richard Nixon , John Mccain ,