Who Rules the World?

Product Information

The world’s leading intellectual offers a probing examination of the nature of U.S. policies post-9/11, and the perils of valuing power above democracy and human rights. In the 1950s, President Eisenhower and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles explained quite clearly the dilemma that the United States faced. They complained that the Communists had an unfair advantage: they were able to "appeal directly to the masses" and "get control of mass movements, something we have no capacity to duplicate. The poor people are the ones they appeal to and they have always wanted to plunder the rich." That causes problems. The United States somehow finds it difficult to appeal to the poor with its doctrine that the rich should plunder the poor.” Entrambi sostenevano (Edward Bernays e Walter Lippmann) che i cittadini devono essere <>, ossia marginalizzati e tenuti sotto controllo, nel loro stesso interesse ovviamente. La gente è troppo <> per consentirle di gestire autonomamente i propri affari. Quel compito spetta invece alla <>, che va protetta <>, dagli <>; insomma dalla <>, come la chiamavano i loro predecessori del diciassettesimo secolo. I cittadini devono essere <>, non <>, in una democrazia che funzioni a dovere.”

CONTROLAR EL DESEO DE DEMOCRACIA Todo eso ocurrió hace ciento cincuenta años; en Inglaterra, antes. Se han dedicado esfuerzos enormes a inculcar el Nuevo Espíritu de la Época y hay industrias fundamentales consagradas a la labor: relaciones públicas, publicidad y márketing en general, todo lo cual suma una parte enorme del producto interior bruto. Esas industrias se aplican en lo que el gran economista político Thorstein Veblen llamó «fabricación de deseos».14 En palabras de los propios empresarios, la labor consiste en dirigir a la gente hacia «cosas superficiales» de la vida, como el «consumo en moda». De esa forma la gente puede atomizarse, se pueden separar unos de otros, ya que solo se busca el beneficio personal, y se aleja a las personas del peligroso esfuerzo de pensar por sí mismas y enfrentarse a la autoridad. Edward Bernays, uno de los fundadores de la industria moderna de las relaciones públicas, denominó «ingeniería del consentimiento» al proceso de modelar opiniones, actitudes y percepciones. Bernays era un respetado progresista, al estilo de Wilson, Roosevelt y Kennedy, igual que su coetáneo, el periodista Walter Lippmann, el intelectual público más destacado de Estados Unidos en el siglo XX y alabó «la ingeniería del consentimiento» como «un nuevo arte» en la práctica de la democracia. Ambos reconocieron que la ciudadanía debe ser «puesta en su lugar», marginada y controlada; por su propio interés, por supuesto. La gente era demasiado «estúpida e ignorante» para que se le permita gobernar sus propios asuntos. Esa tarea tenía que dejarse a una «minoría inteligente», a la que hay que proteger «de las trampas y el rugido [del] rebaño desorientado» los «independientes ignorantes y entrometidos»; la «multitud traviesa», como la llaman sus predecesores del siglo XVII. El papel de la población general en una sociedad democrática que funcionara como es debido consistía en ser «espectadores» no «participantes en la acción».15 Y a los espectadores no se les debe permitir ver demasiado. El presidente Obama ha impuesto nuevos criterios para salvaguardar este principio. De hecho, Obama ha castigado a más gente que tira de la manta que todos los presidentes anteriores juntos, todo un éxito para un gobierno que llegó al poder prometiendo transparencia. Entre los muchos temas que no son asunto del rebaño desorientado están las relaciones exteriores. Cualquiera que haya estudiado documentos secretos desclasificados habrá descubierto que, en gran medida, su clasificación se concibió para proteger a las autoridades del escrutinio público. A escala nacional, la plebe no tenía que oír el consejo de los tribunales a grandes empresas: que deberían consagrar algunos esfuerzos muy visibles a buenas obras, de manera que una «opinión pública excitada» no descubriera los enormes beneficios que el Estado niñera les proporcionaba.16” Chomsky’s book is . . . a polemic designed to awaken Americans from complacency. America, in his view, must be reined in, and he makes the case with verve. . . . We should understand it as a plea to end American hypocrisy, to introduce a more consistently principled dimension to American relations with the world, and, instead of assuming American benevolence, to scrutinize critically how the US government actually exercises its still-unmatched power." —The New York Review of Books Chomsky doesn’t mention any of this. History did not stop with US crimes in Iraq. Nor in an increasingly multipolar world can the United States control everything.

As is the case with his other political writings, Chomsky’s chooses breadth over depth in Who Rules the World? It is written as an overview—from a radical perspective—of a range of different foreign policy issues. For this reason, whether or not Chomsky deserves to be included in more foreign policy syllabuses depends on the objectives of the course. Nonetheless, it is not difficult to see how Chomsky’s perspective on the motives behind foreign policy and how this relates to the situation on home soil has clear and particular relevance for American studies students, since they are expected to critically engage with both the domestic and foreign manifestations of American power. Despite his errant hypocrisies, we need more public intellectual iconoclasts like Chomsky in our society. it is more gratifying to bask in praise for courageously protesting the abuses of official enemies: a fine activity, but not the priority of a value-oriented intellectual who takes the responsibilities of that stance seriously.” The essential account of geopolitics right now, from one of our greatest living intellectuals - including a new afterword on President Donald Trump Riot police line up outside a closed branch of the National Bank of Greece during a general strike in protest against austerity measures. Photograph: Milos Bicanski/Getty Images

national territory، واستمر استخدامها مع اتساع نطاق المشاريع الأمبريالية للـ "الإمبراطورية الناشئة" - التسمية التي كان جورج واشنطن يطلقها على الجمهورية الجديدة - الممتدة إلى الفليبين وهاييتي ومناطق أخرى. لا تنس أيضاً أن التعذيب كان أهون الجرائم العديدة التي تمثلت بالعدوان والإرهاب والتدمير والخنق الاقتصادي التي وصمت التاريخ الأمريكي بوصمة عار سوداء، كما هي الحال بالنسبة لبقية القوى العظمى.” Ninety-five percent of Turks opposed that course of action and, to the amazement and horror of Washington, the Turkish government adhered to their views. Turkey was bitterly condemned for this departure from responsible behavior. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, designated by the press as the “idealist-in-chief” of the administration, berated the Turkish military for permitting the malfeasance of the government and demanded an apology. Unperturbed by these and innumerable other illustrations of our fabled “yearning for democracy”, respectable commentary continued to laud President George W Bush for his dedication to “democracy promotion”, or sometimes criticized him for his naivete in thinking that an outside power could impose its democratic yearnings on others.The more vulgar apologists for U.S. and Israeli crimes solemnly explain that, while Arabs purposely kill civilians, the U.S. and Israel, being democratic societies, do not intend to do so. Their” Gaza provides Palestine the only access to the outside world so once they are separated any autonomy that Isreal might grant to Palestinians to the West Bank would leave them effectively imprisoned between two hostile states, Isreal and Jordan. Isreal is in a fine position today to reverse its decade old policy of separating Gaza from the West Bank and observe a major ceasefire agreement for the first time. Chomsky cites the rise of the Islamic State (ISIS) in Iraq, which he says is “a direct outgrowth” of George W. Bush’s invasion. There is no doubt that the invasion and subsequent occupation and dismantling of the state were a disaster that greatly contributed to the rise of ISIS in Iraq, where it now controls the country’s second-largest city, Mosul. But that ascendancy is also the product of many other factors, such as the discriminatory and abusive laws and policies against Sunnis by the government of former prime minister Nouri al-Maliki. Its indiscriminate bombing of Sunni areas and other sectarian abuses after the withdrawal of US troops at the end of 2011, well before the rise of ISIS, led many Sunnis to see ISIS as a lesser evil.