Tuesday, March 16, 2010

Noam Chomsky on Obama's foreign Policy

Donate
A daily TV/radio news program, hosted by Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez, airing on over 800 stations, pioneering the largest community media collaboration in the U.S.
 
« Headlines | Next Story »

March 15, 2010

Noam Chomsky on Obama’s Foreign Policy, His Own History of Activism, and the Importance of Speaking Out

Chomskyweb_ok
We spend the hour with world-renowned linguist and dissident, Noam Chomsky. In a wide-ranging public conversation at the Harvard Memorial Church in Cambridge, Massachusetts, Chomsky talks about President Obama’s foreign and national security policies, the lessons of Vietnam, and his own activism. “You just can’t become involved part-time in these things,” Chomsky says. “It’s either serious and you’re seriously involved, or you go to a demonstration and go home and forget about it and go back to work, and nothing happens. Things only happen by really dedicated, diligent work.” [includes rush transcript]
Noam Chomsky, MIT professor speaking at the Harvard Memorial Church in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Rush Transcript

This transcript is available free of charge. However, donations help us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution.
Donate - $25, $50, $100, More...
AMY GOODMAN: Defense Secretary Robert Gates met with leaders of the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia last week to increase support for a new round of United Nations-imposed sanctions on Iran over its uranium enrichment program. While the Obama administration intensifies its efforts to win Chinese and Russian backing for tougher sanctions, France and Finland have indicated the European Union could consider unilateral measures against Iran if a UN resolution fails to materialize.

Well, as the United States, the EU and Israel step up the pressure on Iran, we spend the hour with the world-renowned linguist and dissident, Noam Chomsky, whose latest speech begins with a critical look at US policy towards Iran. An internationally celebrated professor of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Chomsky is the author of over a hundred books on linguistics, mass media, American imperialism, and US foreign policy. The New York Times called him perhaps “the most important intellectual alive today,” but his opinions are rarely heard in the mainstream media.

Well, I had a wide-ranging conversation with Professor Chomsky at Harvard Memorial Church in Cambridge, Massachusetts just a week ago. He talked about antiwar activism, the lessons of Vietnam, President Obama’s foreign and national security policies, and also the risks that Noam Chomsky himself took as an activist and someone who has consistently spoken truth to power.

We begin with an excerpt of Chomsky’s speech, a critique of the Obama administration’s push for tighter sanctions against Iran.

    NOAM CHOMSKY: My favorite newspaper, the London Financial Times, a couple of days ago identified Obama’s major foreign policy problem today as Iran. The occasion for the article was Hillary Clinton’s failure to convince Brazil to go along with the United States on calling for harsher sanctions and President Lula’s insistence that there should be engagement with Iran, commercial relations, and so on, and that it has a right to enrich uranium for producing nuclear energy, as do all signers of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Well, it was reported here, too, of course, and Lula’s position was considered sort of paradoxical. Why is he not going along with the international community, with the world? It’s an interesting usage, which is a very striking reflection of the depth of the culture of imperialism. Who is the international community? Well, it turns out, if you look, that the international community is Washington and whoever happens to agree with it at the moment. The rest are not part of the world. They’re kind of in opposition. Well, in this case, Lula’s position happens to be that of most of the world. You can think it’s right or wrong or whatever, but just as a matter of fact, for example, it’s the position of the former non-aligned countries, the majority of countries of the world and the large majority of their populations. They have repeatedly and vigorously supported Iran’s right to enriched uranium for peaceful purposes, reiterating that it’s a signer of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which does grant that right. So they’re not part of the world. Another group that’s not part of the world is the population of the United States. The last polls that I’ve seen, a couple of years ago, in those polls a considerable majority of Americans agreed that Iran has a right to develop nuclear energy, but of course not nuclear weapons. And in fact, as the poll demonstrated, the opinions of Americans on this issue were almost identical with opinions of Iranians on a whole range of issues. And, in fact, when the poll was presented in Washington at a press conference, the presenter pointed out that if people were able to make policy, could be that these tensions and conflicts would be resolved. Well, that was a few years ago. Since then, there’s been a huge mass of propaganda about the threat of Iran and so on. And it’s very likely, I would guess, that if the poll were taken today, those figures for the American population would be different. But that was 2007, three years ago. So, at that point, Americans were not part of the world. Most of the majority of people of the world were not part of the world. And Lula, by repeating their view, is also not part of the world. Could be added that he’s almost surely the most popular political figure in the world, but that doesn’t mean anything, either. So, what about the conflict with Iran and the threat of Iran? Nobody in their right mind wants Iran to develop nuclear weapons, or anyone, for that matter. So, on that, there’s complete agreement. And in fact, there are significant problems about proliferation of nuclear weapons. It’s not a joke. And Obama’s vision forcibly includes, stresses the need to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons and to reduce or maybe remove nuclear weapons. Well, that’s the vision. What’s the practice? Well, the practice became clear a couple of months ago. Once again, the Security Council passed a resolution, 1887—I think it was October—calling on—with criticism of Iran for not living up to commitments that were demanded by the Security Council and also calling on all states to join the Non-Proliferation Treaty and to solve all their conflicts within the framework of the Non-Proliferation Treaty without any threats of force. Well, that particular part of the resolution was not exactly headlined here, for a simple reason: it was directed at two countries, the two countries that are regularly threatening the use of force, the United States and Israel. The threat of force is in violation of the UN Charter, if anybody cares about that stale old stuff, even older than the ’60s. But that’s never mentioned. But every—just across the spectrum here, almost everyone insists that—the usual phrase is “we must keep all options open.” That’s a threat of force. And the threat of force is not just idle. So, for example, Israel is sending its nuclear submarines into the Gulf, firing distance—they’re undetectable, basically—into areas where they could fire nuclear missiles—of course, Israel has plenty of nuclear weapons—fire them at Iran. The US and others are—its allies are carrying out field operations, you know, the exercises, plainly aimed at Iran. And there’s a little hitch, because Turkey is refusing to go along, but that’s what they’ve been trying to do. So there are regular threats, verbal and in policy. Israel actually is sending the nuclear submarines and other warships through the Suez Canal, with the tacit agreement of Egypt, the Egyptian dictatorship, another US client in the region. Well, those are all threats—constant, verbal, actual. And the threats do have the effect of inducing Iran to develop a deterrent. Whether they’re doing it or not, I don’t know. Maybe they are. But if they are, the reason, as I think almost all serious analysts would agree, is not because they intend to use nuclear weapons and missiles with nuclear weapons. If they even loaded a missile was nuclear weapons, assuming they had them, the country would be vaporized in five minutes. And nobody believes that the ruling clerics, whatever one thinks about them, have a kind of a death wish and want to see the entire country and society and everything they own destroyed. In fact, US intelligence figures pretty high, who have talked about it, estimate the possibility of Iran ever actually using a nuclear weapon is maybe one percent, you know, so low that you can’t estimate it. But it’s possible that they develop them as a deterrent. One of Israel’s leading military historians, Martin van Creveld, a couple of years ago, after the invasion of Iraq, wrote in the international press that of course he doesn’t want to see Iran have nuclear weapons, he said, but if they’re not developing them, they’re crazy. The US had just invaded Iraq, knowing that it was totally defenseless. It was part of the reason why they felt free to invade. Everybody can understand that. The Iranian leaders could certainly understand it. So, therefore, to quote van Creveld again, “if they’re not developing a nuclear deterrent, they’re crazy.” Well, whether they are or not is another question. But there’s no doubt that the hostile and aggressive stance taken by the United States and its Israeli client are a factor in whatever planning that’s going on in top Iranian circles as to whether to develop a nuclear deterrent or not.

AMY GOODMAN: MIT Professor Noam Chomsky, speaking recently at Harvard University. When we come back from our break, I interview him about President Obama’s foreign policy. Stay with us.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: We return to Professor Noam Chomsky. I interviewed him at the Harvard Memorial Church in Cambridge, Massachusetts. I began by asking him for his assessment of President Obama’s foreign policy.

    NOAM CHOMSKY: When Obama came into office, or when he was elected, one high Bush official—I think it was Condoleezza Rice—predicted that Obama’s foreign policy would be a continuation of Bush’s second term. The first and second term of Bush were quite different. The first term was aggressive, arrogant, kicking the world in the face, even allies, and it had such a negative effect—this is in action as well as manner—that US prestige in the world sank to the lowest point it’s ever been. That was really harmful to the interests of those who actually set foreign policy—business world and corporate interests and, you know, state planners and so on. So there was a lot of criticism of Bush right from the mainstream in the first term. Well, you know, the second term was somewhat different. For one thing, some of the most extreme figures were kicked out. Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, a couple of others, were sent off to pasture. They couldn’t get rid of Cheney, because he was the administration, so can’t dismantle it. But a lot of the others went, and policy shifted more towards the norm, to the more-or-less centrist norm. And a little talk about negotiations, I mean, less aggression, and so on. And a more polite attitude toward allies. So that was more acceptable, and fundamentally it didn’t change, but it was more acceptable. And this prediction was that that’s what Obama would do. And I think that’s pretty much what happened. In fact, there’s a pretty interesting characterization of this, which sort of captures it, I think, pretty well. It’s anachronistic, but I think it applies. Back in 1962, at the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis, when the world really was coming, you know, dangerously close to a nuclear war, which would have been sort of the end—most dangerous moment in history, Arthur Schlesinger called it, Kennedy’s adviser—right at the peak of the missile crisis, US planners were considering measures which they knew might destroy Europe, and in fact, in particular, Britain. So they were kind of playing out these scenarios which led to the destruction of Britain, but they—and taking them very seriously, in fact taking the steps towards it. But they didn’t let Britain know. Britain is supposed to have a special relationship with the United States, and the British were pretty upset. They couldn’t find out what was going on. The prime minister, Macmillan, all he could find out was what British intelligence was picking up. So here they’re—the best and the brightest are making plans that might well lead to the destruction of Britain, but they’re not telling them. At that point, a senior adviser—I think it was probably Dean Acheson—of the Kennedy administration entered the discussion, and he defined the special relationship. He said the special relationship with Britain means that Britain is our lieutenant; the fashionable word is “partner.” And the British, of course, like to hear the fashionable word. Well, that’s pretty much the difference between Bush and Obama. Bush simply told them, “You’re our lieutenant. You do what we say, or you’re irrelevant.” In fact, that’s the word that I think Colin Powell used at the UN. “Do what we say, or you’re irrelevant. You’re just our lieutenant, and forget about it.” They don’t like to hear that. What they like to hear is “You’re our partner.” You know, “We love you.” And then, back in secret, we treat you as our lieutenant, but that’s OK. And I suspect that that’s the main difference. AMY GOODMAN: What about the antiwar movement in the United States? You’ve long been a participant in it, very active in Vietnam right up until today. But where do you see it in relation to the person that many of them devoted tremendous efforts to elect? NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, you know, there—actually, my view, which is not the standard one, is that the antiwar movement is far stronger now than it was in the ’60s. In the 1960s, there was a point, 1968, ’69, when there was a very strong antiwar movement against the war in Vietnam. But it’s worth remembering that the war in Vietnam started—an outright war started in 1962. By then, maybe 70,000 or 80,000 people had already been killed under the US client regime. But in 1962, Kennedy really opened an outright war, you know, sent the American Air Force to start bombing South Vietnam—under South Vietnamese markings, but everybody knew, it was even reported—authorized napalm, authorized chemical warfare to destroy crops and ground cover, started open—started the programs which drove ultimately millions of people from the countryside into what amounted to concentration camps, to try to—the words were “to protect them from the guerrillas,” who the government knew perfectly well they were supporting. Same kind of things you read now in Afghanistan, if you bother to read the fine print about the conquest of Marjah. But we had to drive them into concentration camps to protect them from the people, the guerrillas, they were supporting. That’s a war. You know, it’s a serious war. Protest was zero, literally. I mean, it was years before you could get any sign of protest. I mean, those of you who are old enough may remember that in Boston, liberal city, in October 1965—that’s three years after that, hundreds of thousands of American troops rampaging the country, you know, war spread to North Vietnam and so on—we tried to have our first public demonstration against the war on the Boston Common, usual demonstration place. This is October 1965. I was supposed to be one of the speakers. I couldn’t say a word. It was broken up, you know, violently. A lot of students marched over trying to break it up, hundreds of state police there. The next day, the Boston Globe, most liberal paper in the country, you know, devoted its whole front page to denouncing the demonstrators, not the ones who were breaking it up. You know, a picture of a wounded soldier in the middle, that sort of thing. Well, that was October 1965, you know, hundreds of thousands of troops there, war escalating beyond. Well, finally, after years, in 1968, you got a substantial antiwar movement, ’67, ’68. By then, South Vietnam was gone. It was virtually destroyed. And the same was true of much of the rest of Indochina. Well, the war did go on for a long time, with horrible effects, and we were unwilling to face the fact, even to report the fact. But nevertheless, the antiwar movement did have an effect very late. Well, compare Iraq. There were huge protests before the war was officially launched. I mean, we now know that Blair and Bush were simply lying when they said that they were trying to work for a diplomatic settlement. They had already started the war. OK, that came out in the famous Downing Street memos in England, but it hadn’t been officially announced, so—but there were huge demonstrations. And I think they had an effect. The US war in Iraq was horrible enough, probably killed about a million people, drove a couple of million out of the country, devastated the country, destroyed it, horrible cultural destruction and so on. It was pretty awful. Could have been a lot worse. It’s not what the US did in South Vietnam. Nothing like it. You know, no saturation bombing with B-52s, chemical warfare and so on. And I think it was retarded by the antiwar movement. The population here had just become more civilized. That’s one of those grim effects of the 1960s. AMY GOODMAN: And Afghanistan? NOAM CHOMSKY: Pardon? AMY GOODMAN: And Afghanistan? NOAM CHOMSKY: Afghanistan is an interesting case. I mean, Afghanistan was sold here as a war to retaliate—a just—it’s always called a “just” war—to prevent terror, you know, retaliate against a terrorist attack. I mean, it’s such a standard view that to take it apart, you know, requires more time than I’d be allowed. But the fact of the matter is that that was not the goal of the war. I mean, if the goal of the war was to isolate al-Qaeda, eliminate terror, there were straightforward ways to proceed. I mean, if you go back to that time, the jihadi movement itself was highly critical of the 9/11 attack. There were fatwas coming out from the most radical clerics, and, you know, Al Azhar University, the main theological center, denouncing al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden and the terrorist attacks—it’s not Islamic, we wouldn’t do that, and so on. Well, if you wanted to end terror, the obvious thing to do at that point is to isolate al-Qaeda, to try to gain support, even from the jihadi movement, and of course from the population they’re trying to mobilize. You know, terrorists regard themselves as a vanguard. They’re trying to mobilize others to their cause. I mean, every specialist on terrorism knows that. So you could have done it then, and you could have proceeded to identify the perpetrators, which, incidentally, they couldn’t do because they didn’t know who they were, and that was conceded later. But they could have tried to identify them, bring them to justice, you know, to trials—with fair trials and not torture, but fair trials, which would have probably sharply reduced, if maybe not—maybe even have ended Islamic terrorism. Well, they did the opposite. What they tried to do is to mobilize the population and mobilize the jihadi movement to support al-Qaeda. That’s exactly the effect of first invading Afghanistan and later invading Iraq. And it’s also the effect of Guantánamo and Bagram and the other torture centers. I mean, everyone who’s involved in them, you know, seriously, knows, yeah, they created terrorists. AMY GOODMAN: Do you think Obama should have these Guantánamo prisoners tried in New York? NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, it depends whether we want to be—regard ourselves as a civilized country or as a rogue state. If you want to be a rogue state, you know, do whatever you like. You know, kill them, torture them, whatever. If you want to be part of the civilized world, and also if you want to reduce the appeal of the extreme jihadi movement, then try them in civilian courts. In fact, the very fact that they’re in Guantánamo is outlandish. First of all, what’s Guantánamo? I mean, Guantánamo was taken from Cuba a century ago at gunpoint. They said, “Give us Guantánamo, or else.” Cuba was under military occupation. It’s called a treaty, but, you know—OK. And the treaty of Guantánamo, if you want to call it that, allowed Guantánamo to be used as a calling station for the Navy. Well, you know, it’s not what it’s being used for. In fact, as you know perfectly well, it was used for Haitian refugees. When Haitians were fleeing from the dictatorships that the US was supporting, the US refused to permit them political asylum. It claimed that they were just economic refugees. The Coast Guard tried to stop them, and if any got through, they sent them to Guantánamo. OK, now you know what they’re being used for. Actually, what they are being used for is to create terrorists. It’s not my opinion; that’s the opinion of the main US interrogators, people like Matthew Alexander, who actually has an article on it in the same issue of National Interest that I mentioned. He said, yeah, it’s a great way to create terrorists. It inspires terrorism all over, and it turns many of these people there into terrorists, if they were picked up for whatever reason it was. So, yes, if you want to—if your goal is to reduce the threat of, say, Islamic terrorism and to become part of the civilized world, you have civilian trials, just as those who are in Guantánamo—first of all, most of those who are in Guantánamo, I mean, it’s kind of outrageous anyway. They’re like some fifteen-year-old kid who was found holding a rifle when the US was invading his country. That’s a terrorist. OK, but that’s a large part of maybe almost all of what’s in Guantánamo. But if you want to—but what should have been done with them, if the goal was to be civilized and to reduce terrorism, is to put them in prison in the United States. There’s no security problem. You know, they’re not going to get out of a maximum-security prison, and they don’t have some magic way of spreading poison around the world or anything. But, of course, the government didn’t want to do that, because they had no evidence. And if they were—they were sent to Guantánamo so that they could, it was hoped, be free from US jurisdiction, so you could play that—you could pretend that they weren’t under your US jurisdiction, so the laws didn’t apply. Well, the Supreme Court finally, after a long time, kind of whittled away at that and said, yes, they have the right of habeas corpus. The Bush administration accepted that; Obama doesn’t. Obama—the Obama administration is trying to overturn a decision by a right-wing Bush judicial appointee that the Supreme Court decision holds for Bagram, the torture center in Afghanistan. And the Obama administration is trying to override that, so that that means that the Supreme Court decision is just a joke. If you want to torture somebody, don’t send them to Guantánamo, because the Supreme Court said you can’t torture them there; let’s send them to Bagram. So if you pick somebody up in Yemen or, you know, wherever you pick him up, and you want them not to be subject to international law, also US law, OK, send him to Bagram. That’s the Obama administration position. I mean, it’s for reasons like these that even the most hawkish anti-terrorism specialist, people like Michael Scheuer, who was in charge for the CIA of following Obama for years, he says that al-Qaeda’s—Osama bin Laden’s best ally is the United States. You know, we’re doing exactly what he wants. What he wants is he’s trying to sell a line to the Muslim world, you know, these guys are on a crusade, they’re trying to kill us, we’ve got to defend ourselves. And the US is acting, you know, as if they’re under command. Yeah, we do everything he wants.

AMY GOODMAN: MIT Professor Noam Chomsky in a public conversation at Harvard University. If you want a copy of today’s program, you can go to our website at democracynow.org. We’ll come back to our conversation after break. Stay with us.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: We return now to the conclusion of our public conversation with Noam Chomsky, professor of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. We were speaking at Harvard Memorial Church in Cambridge, Massachusetts. We talked about the risks he took as an antiwar activist. But first, I asked him about what he thought of the Obama administration, what it should be doing with Israel and Palestine.

    NOAM CHOMSKY: Israel-Palestine happens to be a particularly easy case. I mean, there has been an overwhelming international consensus for thirty-five years on how to settle the problem—short term, at least—namely, a two-state settlement on the international border, which everyone agrees on, with, the phrase was, “minor and mutual modifications.” That was US official policy until the US departed from the world in the early ’70s, as it did. That’s just overwhelming. I mean, there was a Security Council resolution in 1976 calling for a two-state settlement. The US vetoed it. And it just goes on from there. I won’t run through it, but if you get ’til today, there’s just overwhelming agreement. I mean, it includes all the Arab states for a long time. It includes Iran, the Organization of Islamic States. It includes Hamas. You know, in fact, everybody, except the United States and Israel. So, what has Obama had to say about this? Well, it’s interesting. He has this great vision, but if you look—if you go below the vision and take a look at the words, it’s a little different. So his only word so far—there are two, really. One is to politely ask Israel to stop expanding settlements. Well, first of all, that’s meaningless. The issue is the existence, not the expansion of the settlements. But furthermore, those words were also meaningless. He was quoting Bush. In fact, he was quoting the—what’s called the Road Map, the official—you know, supposedly the agreed-upon scenario for moving forward. He was quoting it. OK, that’s meaningless, but that’s part of his great vision. The other part, which is more interesting, was a few days after he took office, and he gave his one, and so far only, serious talk about Israel-Palestine. That’s when he was introducing George Mitchell as his negotiator, which is a good choice, if he’s given any leeway. And Obama explained what he was going to do. He said—this was his, you know, being very forthcoming to the Arab world. He said, well, there’s a constructive proposal on the table, the Arab peace proposal—you know, pat people on the head for producing it. And then he went on to say, “Well, it’s time for the Arabs to live up to their peace proposal. They should start normalizing relations with Israel.” Well, you know, Obama is literate, intelligent. I suppose he chooses his words carefully. He knows perfectly well that that was not the Arab peace proposal. The Arab peace proposal re-endorsed the longstanding international consensus and said, in the context of a two-state settlement, the Arab states will proceed even beyond to normalize relations with Israel. Well, Obama picked out the corollary, but omitted the substance, which is a way of saying we’re going to maintain our rejectionist stance. Couldn’t have been clearer. And that’s what’s happened. With regard to his repetition of the call to stop expansion of settlements, he did go a little bit farther—not he, but his spokespersons in press conferences. They were asked, is the administration going to do anything about it if Israel rejects it? And they said, “No, it’s purely symbolic.” In fact, explicitly said that the administration is not going to do what George Bush the 1st did. George Bush the 1st had some light taps on the wrist if Israel continued to reject what the US was asking for. Clinton pretty much withdrew that, and Obama withdrew it totally. He said, “No, this is just symbolic.” Well, that’s telling Benjamin Netanyahu, “Go ahead and do what you like. We’ll say we don’t like it, but there will be a wink saying, yeah, go ahead. Meanwhile, we participate in it. You know, we send you the arms. We give you the diplomatic support and a direct participation.” That’s the vision. You know? It could hardly be clearer. Now, what can we do about it? Well, you know, we can get the United States to join the world. In this case it’s literally the whole world. Just accept—join the world and accept the international consensus and stop the direct participation in violating it—I mean, what Israel is doing. And I should have said what the US and Israel are doing. Everything Israel does is a joint operation. They can’t go beyond what the US permits and participates in. So what the US and Israel are doing in Gaza and in the West Bank is destroying the hope of the—for realization of the international consensus. And there’s no alternative around, I should say, with regard to a lot of the anti-—to pro-Palestinian—you know, supporters of the Palestinians. In fact, some of the leading Palestinian activists themselves are saying, well, we ought to give up on the two-state solution and just let Israel take over all the territories, maybe annex them, and then there will be a civil rights struggle and like an anti-apartheid struggle, and that can work like South Africa. That’s just blindness. That’s not going to happen. The US and Israel are not going to permit that to happen. They’re going to continue with exactly what they’re doing: strangling Gaza, separating it from the West Bank, in violation of international agreements, and in the West Bank take over whatever they want. AMY GOODMAN: As you look out on folks here, many young people, many students, I was wondering if you could reflect on your career at the moments when you had to make a decision about whether to take a risk that might risk your position or your standing in some way, when you felt—what you say to people when it comes to issues of courage. NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, you know I don’t like to talk about myself. It’s not important. But since you ask, a couple of times. The first time—I mean, I had been a political activist all my life, you know, since childhood. I mean, you talked about my newsstand and so on. But with regard to, say, really doing something, say, becoming involved with the nonexistent antiwar movement, the first time was around 1962. You could see what was happening in 1962. It wasn’t really concealed. And I decided to try to get involved in organizing antiwar activism. Now, that wasn’t risky, but it meant giving up a lot. You cannot put—I don’t have to tell you—you can’t put one toe in this. If you get into it, it’s a full-time occupation. AMY GOODMAN: Were you a tenured professor at the time? You—1956, you went to MIT. You were teaching. NOAM CHOMSKY: Nineteen fifty-five. I forget what year it was. But it wasn’t a consideration. In fact, it may be odd for you to think about, but MIT in the 1960s had two interesting characteristics. One was it was almost entirely funded by the Pentagon. In fact, I was in a lab which was 100 percent funded by the three armed services. Two, it was the main center of antiwar resistance. I’m not talking about dissent or, you know, protest. I’m talking about resistance, you know, organizing resistance activities, illegal activities. And the Pentagon didn’t care much, because, contrary to what a lot of people believe, one of the main functions of the Pentagon is just to provide a cover for the way the economy functions. The way the economy functions, it’s—you know, people like to claim it’s a free market economy, but, you know, most of it comes out of the state sector—I mean, computers, internet, airplanes, you know. The idea is the public is supposed to pay the costs and take the risks, and if anything works out, you hand it over to private enterprise. That’s called the free market. And the way it—when the economy was mainly electronics-based, the Pentagon was the cover. So, you know, you got to do this because the Russians are coming. But they actually didn’t really care what you were doing. I mean, it’s an interesting story. Anyhow, so, yeah, maybe I was tenured, maybe not, but it didn’t matter. I got involved in 1962, and what that meant—so, like, if I’d give a talk in a church, which I sometimes did, it would mean four people—you know, the minister, the organizer, a drunk who walked in off the street and a guy who wanted to kill me. That was a talk in a church. And that went on for a couple of years. The only really risky step— AMY GOODMAN: Are you suggesting the antiwar movement during Vietnam was mainly alcoholic? NOAM CHOMSKY: Right. Don’t tell David Brooks. In 1966—in 1965, I tried to organize—a friend of—an artist friend of mine, since died, tried to organize a national tax resistance. Well, we got somewhere, so that’s taking, you know, sort of a mild risk. But in 1966, there were the stirrings of an effort to organize more serious resistance. AMY GOODMAN: Did you not pay your taxes? NOAM CHOMSKY: I didn’t pay my taxes for years. But what—you know, it’s—I mean, there is a—how the IRS reacted is kind of interesting. In my case, of course they can get the money, you know. AMY GOODMAN: And did they just take it out of your salary? NOAM CHOMSKY: They just took it. I got a nasty letter from them from some computer. But in some cases, they randomly, as far as I could tell, you know, they took people’s houses. People went to jail, and so on. So there’s a kind of a risk associated with it. But more serious was support of direct resistance, support for resisters, deserters, and so on and so forth. That began around 1966. It became public in 1967. And that did carry potential penalties. I mean, actually my wife—we had three kids. She went back to college after seventeen years, because we expected I’d probably end up in jail. And I came pretty close. I mean, I was—a trial was announced in ’68, which I was the main defendant. I was saved, as were others, by the Tet Offensive. The Tet Offensive came along in January 1968, and it convinced the business world in the United States that the US shouldn’t—that this was just becoming too costly. AMY GOODMAN: What were you charged with? NOAM CHOMSKY: The charges were conspiracy to, you know, resist the draft or overthrow the government or something or other. The conspiracy trials are kind of an interesting story. I could talk about them, but it was real, you know. If it hadn’t been for the Tet Offensive, I probably would have spent a couple years in jail. But— AMY GOODMAN: Did you go through the trial? NOAM CHOMSKY: The trials were called off right after the Tet Offensive. There was one that was underway, but—you know, the Spock trial, where they picked all the wrong people, but—and that was overturned on appeal, but mainly because of the Tet Offensive. I mean, the business world just said, “Look out.” In fact, what they did—what happened in 1968 is that a group of so-called wise men—you know, big shots from Wall Street and so on—went down to Washington and basically gave the President marching orders. It was a very real power play. Johnson was told, “Stop the bombing of North Vietnam. Don’t run for office again. And begin negotiations and start to withdraw.” And he followed orders, to the letter. Then Nixon came along and did it a different way. But the visible escalation of the war declined. Visible, I say, because some of the worst atrocities were in 1969, and then it went off to Cambodia and Laos, where it was even worse. But that was kind of invisible. It still is. But it kind of tempered at that point, and one of the things that was done was to call off the trials, because there was an effort on the part of the government to sort of make peace, you know, make peace with the students. And that was an interesting story, too. But that ended the trials. But yeah, that was—yeah, it was risky. Civil disobedience is—it’s no fun. You know, I mean, you can’t really say it’s risky. So, maybe you get maced or beaten or something like that, spend a couple days in jail, but—not the pleasantest experience, but it’s not the kind of risk that dissidents take in other countries. But yeah—but that’s the kind of decisions you have to make. You just can’t become involved part-time in these things. It’s either serious and you’re seriously involved, or, you know, you go to a demonstration and go home and forget about it and go back to work, and nothing happens. I mean, things only happen by really dedicated, diligent work. I mean, we’re not allowed to say nice things about the Communist Party, right? That’s like a rule. But one of the reasons why the New Deal legislation worked, you know, which was significant—you know, just changed the country—was because there were people who were there every day. Whether it was a civil rights issue, a labor rights issue, organizing, anything else, they were there, ready to turn the mimeograph machines—no internet—organize demonstrations. They had a memory. You know, the movement had a memory, which it doesn’t have now. Now everyone starts over from fresh. But it had a kind of a tradition, a memory, that people were always there. And if you look back, it was very heavily Communist Party activists. Well, you know, that was destroyed. And it’s one of the—the lack of such a sector of dedicated, committed people who understand that you’re not going to win tomorrow, you know, you’re going to have a lot of defeats, and there’ll be a lot of trouble, you know, and a lot of things will happen that aren’t nice, but if you keep at it, you can get somewhere. That’s why we had a civil rights movement and a labor movement and so on. The lesson that we ought to learn, there was a split in American public opinion, very sharp split, very visible, in the early ’70s, between elite opinion—you know, newspapers, Harvard faculty and so on—on the one hand, and the general population, on the other. Not the antiwar movement, the general population. In elite opinion, articulate opinion—and that you can read, so it’s easy to document—the most extreme condemnation of the war was that it was a mistake which proved to be too costly. OK, that’s about as far as you can go. Among the public, about 70 percent, in polls, said it’s not a mistake, it’s fundamentally wrong and immoral. OK? It’s a very sharp and significant split. And I think the lesson we ought to learn is, to bring it to today, that, say, when Obama is praised for opposing the war in Iraq because he thought it was a mistake, we should recognize that to be on a par with Nazi generals after Stalingrad who thought that the two-front war was a mistake. The issue isn’t was it a mistake; it’s whether it’s fundamentally wrong and immoral. Well, that’s the lesson that has to be drawn. That’s what the public probably already understands, but we have to do something with them and organize with them. AMY GOODMAN: I’ll just say one thing. There’s this quote that I’ve been trying to find out who said it. “I think back on my life over all the times I thought I went too far, and I realize now I didn’t go far enough.” I don’t think Noam Chomsky said that.
AMY GOODMAN: World-renowned linguist and dissident, Noam Chomsky, speaking at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts at an event sponsored by the Harvard Extension International Relations Club. Oh, about 800 people packed Memorial Church.
Creative Commons License The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.
Posted by Unknown at 11:41 AM 2 comments
Labels: , ,

Monday, March 15, 2010

ISREAL AND THE CUBS

THE ABSURD TIMES




























Illustration:  Sent by one of you who usually sends texts or articles.  Self-explanatory.


This, on the other hand, was sent to me by one of you who usually deals with images, not prose:

"You cannot say I am anti-Semitic because I hold no animosity toward the other Semite tribes who live in the area. I am anti-Israeli. Like most of my generation, I was raised to believe that Israel was our friend  our ally, and I blithely believed that and supported them for lo these many years, but after so long and so many failed negotiations - I see  these supposedly "wise" people have not been able to negotiate a peace with the original inhabitants of the area as  mandated them by the UN after WWII; - 60 odd years, they have not been able to make any progress? That doesn't sound very smart . In the meantime, they almost sank our ship "Liberty" and killed how many of our sailors -120?  There are many other indications of their non- alliance and their willingness to forge war against their neighbor on their own forever up to and including this latest announcement to build 1600 houses for Israelis in Jerusalem and I have come to believe that Israel should be "proverbially" driven into the sea with all expediency and with  an announced lack of any support from the US to back them. "

***

 Now the following may be a bit "dense" as one reader describes it, but I think it is worth pointing out:

Many Americans, well, some Americans, expect that Israel and the Palestinians will accomplish a two-state solution and that peace will reign.  Both Moslems and Christians, especially, think that prophesy signals the end of Israel.  The end has something to do with Al-Aqusa Mosque (pardon the spelling) and the "Wall" and the domicile of David -- the old David.  Predictions run from about 10 to 60 years.  Our media seem to think that everything will be worked out way before that.

There have been a few interesting developments.  Hootenanny's government announced the construction of 1,600 dwellings in Jerusalem, an extremely contentious announcement and issue.  Even worse, he did it during the visit of the U.S. Vice-President, making him look like a dupe.  Hillary Clinton, our Secretary of State, called  and berated him for 45 minutes and announcement that Israel had "insulted" the United States.  Hm -- what happens to countries the United States have described as "insulting"?

The last peace talks that had a chance of going somewhere, between Arafat, Bill Clinton, and Barak, were, in truth, abandoned by Israel, and over the capitol city.  Of course, we were told the bad guys did it.

Well, how soon is a solution likely?  Never.  A two state solution is as likely as the Chicago Cubs winning a World Series.  It is worth a moment to consider that.  Americans, aptly called the "United States of Amnesia," a third of the electorate can not even FIND the United States on a map, can hardly be expected to remember 1812.  (It is worth pointing out, rather than the insulting adage that "You get the government you deserve," it is more to the point that the Government gets the electorate it deserves.  Bush was so egregious that his administration got an idealistic, progressive, forward looking electorate and the Republicans were thrown out on their asses.  Obama is so feckless, not at all representing the electorate he had, so that he will eventually get an electorate I can not bear to describe, but it will be what he deserves.

At any rate, back to 1812,  Napoleon and the Battle of Waterloo, the "Eroica" symphony of Beethoven, our own little war with Briton, and so on.  It was a long time ago.  It was the time of the New Madrid earthquake, named after a town in the "Louisiana Territory," now called Missouri. 

This could go on and on, but you get the idea.  96 years later, nearly a century later, the Chicago Cubs won the World Series.  To this date, 102 years later, they have never won another.  So, it has already taken longer the the time from the war of 1812 to the Championship that since the last time until now.  Still, you will find people in Chicago who actually believe that the Cubs will win the World Series soon.  All I can say is that it is much more likely that the Cubs will win a World Series than a Two-State solution in the Middle-East.
Posted by Unknown at 12:22 PM 0 comments
Labels:

Wednesday, March 10, 2010

IDIOTS



THE ABSURD TIMES


Illustration:  Just one of the many birth defects in Fallujah which has a defect rate about 32 times expected.  I seem to remember something about our being "protected" from the evil lurking in that city.



One of you sent me this:

 If a tree is dying, you don't pour water on the dead branches to revive them, you cut the suckers off and burn them so new sprouts take hold and grow. At the same time, you put the water on the roots so they can support the new growth. The workers are the roots - the ordinary people. You have bought in and followed the old way and supported the damn corporations like they are too big to fail, instead of giving support to the workers and the ordinary people, so what you have done is bound to fail. And you wont get another 4 years to try to fix it.



Of course, the problem is that the Obama Cabal already knows this.  The problem is that the electorate, such as it is, screams against any sort of movement towards helping them as they are carefully brainwashed by corporate agents. 

Take healthcare, for example.  People are convinced that having the government, instead of insurance companies, provide for our right to healthcare, it will make paupers of them all.  They fail to realize that Health Insurance Corporations are not in the business of insuring anything but higher quarterly profits for their stockholders.  It makes no sense to criticize them for this, as it is what they were designed to do and will continue to do so long as we allow them to exist.  In fact, if they are concerned with health care at all, it is that people be sick so the they give them more money.  It is ludicrous for usw to expect anything different from them.

Actually, if we really believed that having the government provide for our health would make us paupers, it is also quite true to say that having the government provide for defense against terrorism makes all of us cowards.  We should, by this logic, pick ourselves up by our own bootstraps, buy flame throwers, and be on the lookout for Jihad Jane and her type, not that anyone below the Mason-Dixon line has a thing to worry about.

*****
Another sent along this article.  Since I was not aware of this site, some of you might not be as well, and so I pass it along:

COMMENTARY Last Updated: Mar 8th, 2010 - 00:48:41

Perpetual fraud
By Jim Miles
Online Journal Contributing Writer


Mar 8, 2010, 00:38

 Email this article
 Printer friendly page
For historians who like dates and bookends for their events, the “global war on terror” started with the destruction of the Twin Towers and the attack on the Pentagon (9/11).
The idea of perpetual war provided large benefits to a few and pain and terror to much of the world, and to the rest of the world an increasing disbelief in the intents, means, and rationales for the war. Unfortunately, for the academic writers of history, history itself does not operate within the confines of given dates -- the flow of actions and counter actions never ceases. The 9/11 attacks were by any real accounting only another incident in the fraud that the imperial powers of the world have ‘perpetuated’ on the citizens of the world.
Rather than speak of war, which is an act of violence with many differing excuses and exercises, it is rather a perpetual fraud perpetrated by these self-acclaiming empires -- fraud that goes beyond acts of war into the daily lives of citizens around the world -- that is the basis for the crimes against humanity (and the environment as a whole). ‘Fraud’ is defined as “Criminal deception, use of false representations to gain unjust advantage; dishonest artifice or trick” with the addition of ‘pious fraud’ as a “deception intended to benefit those deceived, and especially to strengthen religious belief.”
Both of these definitions need to be applied to our current global situation. Criminal deception has been used by various governments, notably the U.S., Great Britain, and Israel, with the support of various sycophant allies, to try to gain advantage militarily and economically over much of the world. This is combined with pious deception as those deceived to a great part are the citizens of those countries, with the aspect of religion being used to reinforce and support the overall criminal fraud.
The big lie
The big lie is simple, that there really is a global war on terror. The truth is more realistically that there is a global war of terror. Those self-righteous countries that proclaim against terror are themselves the greatest sources of terror around the world.
The United States has an ongoing history of occupations, invasions, covert and subversive activities against any nation that dare raise a voice that contradicted U.S. wishes and desires, most of which reflected the corporate agenda to control the natural resources and economies of the world.
Great Britain’s empire (along with most of the other European empires of Spain, France, Germany, Russia, the Netherlands) produced terror and war wherever It was established. In spite of its many proclamations of civilizing the savages of the world, the real intentions were the same, military and economic control of global wealth. Its only ‘success,’ at least from the eyes of the invaders, were the colonies of Australia, New Zealand and North America (U.S. and Canada), successful in that they eliminated any opposition from the indigenous people through the violence and terror of war and genocide.
Israel’s empire is much more modest when considered in terms of occupying and settling territory for their own advantage. All they have endeavoured to gain has been the land between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan river, a desert land empty of people that they wished to make bloom with the fruits of their civilization and religion. That ‘empty land’ however contained a significant indigenous population that was already successfully cultivating the land and had for millennia a distinct cultural environment. The occupation of Palestinian territory fits both definitions of fraud, as a criminal activity against international law and most certainly as a pious deception based on an arguable fundamentalist belief that they and only they should occupy Palestine.
All three of these states, apart from the historical frauds of claiming lands and resources that were not their own, have extended this fraud into the much larger global war of terror.
Nuclear terror
A recent comment by Obama highlighted this fraud: “Iran is not just a challenge for Israel. I believe it is a challenge for the whole world. I can hardly think of a stable world order with a nuclear Iran.” This fraudulent claim only extends the previous fraudulent claims that led to invasions of Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan (okay, only aerial invasions so far, plus a whole bunch of covert operatives) -- for the U.S., the list is almost endless, but I will stay with current events for now -- Lebanon, and Gaza.
“A stable world order” will never exist with countries carrying nuclear weapons. The U.S. and Soviet Union perpetrated their lies and counter-lies for decades while maintaining overwhelming arsenals of nuclear weapons. I for one did not feel any stability concerning international affairs during that period of my life -- at any given moment of carelessness or rhetorical stupidity one country could easily have triggered a civilization ending war. That situation still exists.
Nuclear weapons are a grand deception for a ‘stable world order.’ The U.S. is the main rogue state in this regard, maintaining its superiority in all areas of their nuclear arsenal. India developed nuclear weapons outside the Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the U.S. has recently worked with them in developing their nuclear industry and weapons even more. Pakistan similarly developed weapons outside the NPT, and with its mainly Muslim population, and a government in conflict with India on many issues and subordinate to -- yet resistant of -- U.S. influence, is hardly stable. Israel has an arsenal of an estimated 200 nuclear weapons (estimates can be made from the kind of reactors used and the availability of materials to fuel it) that have never been questioned by the U.S. or its allies, even though they are outside the NPT’s bounds. Somehow all this makes Iran the greatest threat to a ‘stable world order’?
But nuclear weapons, as catastrophic as they may be, are really just another part of the overall deception. The deception is there to hide the reality of U.S. corporate-military intentions to contain and control the majority of resources and peoples of the world as they can, to accumulate as much of the wealth and power as they can for the benefit of their own elites (as part of the deception involves deceiving their own population.)



After I had copied the above, the below appeared on my browser, so I pass it along for your delight:

Copyright and Intellectual Property Policy

Yahoo! respects the intellectual property of others, and we ask our users to do the same. Yahoo! has no responsibility for content on other websites that you may find or access when using Yahoo!’s products or services. Material available on or through other websites may be protected by copyright and the intellectual property laws of the United States and/or other countries. The terms of use of those websites, and not the Yahoo! Terms of Service, govern your use of that material.
It is Yahoo!’s policy, in appropriate circumstances and at its discretion, to disable and/or terminate the accounts of users who may infringe or repeatedly infringe the copyrights or other intellectual property rights of Yahoo! and/or others.
Notice for Claims of Intellectual Property Violations and Agent for Notice
THIS PROCESS IS FOR COPYRIGHT AND OTHER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY MATTERS ONLY. Correspondence regarding other matters will not be responded to. For reports of abuse and related concerns, please see the links in the left navigation.
If you believe that your work has been copied in a way that constitutes copyright infringement, or that your intellectual property rights have been otherwise violated, please provide Yahoo!'s Agent for Notice with the following information (your "Notice"):
  1. an electronic or physical signature of the person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of the copyright or other intellectual property interest;
  2. a description of the copyrighted work or other intellectual property that you claim has been infringed;
  3. a description of where the material that you claim is infringing is located on the Yahoo! site, with enough detail that we may find it on the website (in most circumstances, we will need a URL);
  4. your address, telephone number, and email address;
  5. a statement by you that you have a good faith belief that the disputed use is not authorized by the copyright or intellectual property owner, its agent, or the law;
  6. a statement by you, made under penalty of perjury, that the above information in your Notice is accurate and that you are the copyright or intellectual property owner or authorized to act on the copyright or intellectual property owner's behalf.
In some circumstances, in order to notify the subscriber, account holder or host who provided the allegedly infringing content to which Yahoo! has disabled access, Yahoo! may forward a copy of a valid Notice including name and email address to the subscriber or account holder, or may forward a copy of a valid Notice (with personally identifiable information removed) to Chilling Effects (http://www.chillingeffects.org) for publication.
Yahoo!'s Agent for Notice of claims of copyright or other intellectual property infringement can be reached as follows:
By mail
Copyright Agent
c/o Yahoo! Inc.
701 First Avenue
Sunnyvale, CA 94089

By phone
(408) 349-5080

By fax
(408) 349-7821

By email
copyright@yahoo-inc.com


Please note that, due to security concerns, attachments cannot be accepted. Accordingly, any notification of infringement submitted electronically with an attachment will not be received or processed.
Copyright © 2010 Yahoo! All rights reserved. Privacy | Legal


Posted by Unknown at 12:25 PM 0 comments
Labels:

Friday, March 05, 2010

Procrastination Week




THE ABSURD TIMES




ILLUSTRATION:  The Senator from Kentucky.

    He was a pitcher which means he had to be stubborn (unless he actually believed the catcher, and he didn't) and creative, at least as far as baseball players go.  Any professional pitcher is capable of shutting out all considerations, thoughts, and images to focus on a rectangle about 12 inches to 18 inches wide and about 24 inches high (depends on the umpire) exactly 60 feet and 6 inches away.  A good pitcher will perhaps hear crowd noise, insults, bench jockeys, etc. on the way to the mound but, once he looks first at how the batter stands and then at the catcher's signals, he focuses entirely on that rectangle, or a 2 inch by 2 inch section of it. 
    This is why Jim Bunning was able to ignore to plight of hundreds of thousands of the unemployed, the imprecations of his own party, even animal turds thrown at him, and continue to hold up the bill for so many days with no concern for anything else.

*****

    NATIONAL PROCRASTINATION WEEK started on Monday, so we thought we'd finally get around to mention it.  We might celebrate it next week.  consider joining us.

****
THE MOTHER OF ALL FATWAHS


We at the Absurd Times have learned of a Fatwah issued by a cleric in London that has been quoted over and over again by people is the Government in Israel.  Essentially, it says that anyone who is a suicide bomber is going to Hell.

Well, we have asked around to find out what credentials someone needs to issue a Fatwah.  We haven't gotten a straight answer from anyone.

We, therefore, hereby issue our own Fatwah, the Fatwah to end all Fatwahs (and this includes Papal Bulls and Pentacostal, Babtist, Jewish, Torah, Eastern, and Whatevers).

We do not issue this without full and proper research, all the way back to Homer.  We chose as our authority a figure well-known to religious scholars, the 18th Century Demoniac, Lawrence Sterne.

In fact, we plagarized most of it and made only a few emendations.

This will be pronounced of he who makes any further religious pronouncement:





'By the authority of God Almighty, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and
of the undefiled Virgin Mary, mother and patroness of our Saviour, and
of all the celestial virtues, angels, archangels, thrones, dominions,
powers, cherubins and seraphins, and of all the holy patriarchs,
prophets, and of all the apostles and evangelists, and of the holy
innocents, who in the sight of the Holy Lamb, are found worthy to sing
the new song of the holy martyrs and holy confessors, and of the holy
virgins, and of all the saints together, with the holy and elect
of God,--May he' (Xxxxx) 'be damn'd' (for tying these knots)--'We
excommunicate, and anathematize him, and from the thresholds of the
holy church of God Almighty we sequester him, that he may be tormented,
disposed, and delivered over with Dathan and Abiram, and with those who
say unto the Lord God, Depart from us, we desire none of thy ways. And
as fire is quenched with water, so let the light of him be put out for
evermore, unless it shall repent him' (Xxxxx, of the knots which he
has tied) 'and make satisfaction' (for them) 'Amen.
 
'May the Father who created man, curse him.--May the Son who suffered
for us curse him.--May the Holy Ghost, who was given to us in baptism,
curse him' (Xxxxx)--'May the holy cross which Christ, for our
salvation triumphing over his enemies, ascended, curse him.
 
'May the holy and eternal Virgin Mary, mother of God, curse him.--May
St. Michael, the advocate of holy souls, curse him.--May all the angels
and archangels, principalities and powers, and all the heavenly armies,
curse him.'
 
'May St. John, the Praecursor, and St. John the Baptist, and St. Peter
and St. Paul, and St. Andrew, and all other Christ's apostles, together
curse him. And may the rest of his disciples and four evangelists, who
by their preaching converted the universal world, and may the holy and
wonderful company of martyrs and confessors who by their holy works are
found pleasing to God Almighty, curse him' (Xxxxx.)
 
'May the holy choir of the holy virgins, who for the honour of Christ
have despised the things of the world, damn him--May all the saints,
who from the beginning of the world to everlasting ages are found to be
beloved of God, damn him--May the heavens and earth, and all the holy
things remaining therein, damn him,' (Xxxxx) 'or her,' (or whoever
else had a hand in tying these knots.)
 
'May he (Xxxxx) be damn'd wherever he be--whether in the house or the
stables, the garden or the field, or the highway, or in the path, or
in the wood, or in the water, or in the church.--May he be cursed in
living, in dying.' (Here my uncle Toby, taking the advantage of a minim
in the second bar of his tune, kept whistling one continued note to the
end of the sentence.-- 'May he be cursed in eating and
drinking, in being hungry, in being thirsty, in fasting, in sleeping, in
slumbering, in walking, in standing, in sitting, in lying, in working,
in resting, in pissing, in shitting, and in blood-letting!
 
'May he' (Xxxxx) 'be cursed in all the faculties of his body!
 
'May he be cursed inwardly and outwardly!--May he be cursed in the hair
of his head!--May he be cursed in his brains, and in his vertex,'  'in his temples, in his forehead, in
his ears, in his eye-brows, in his cheeks, in his jaw-bones, in his
nostrils, in his fore-teeth and grinders, in his lips, in his throat, in
his shoulders, in his wrists, in his arms, in his hands, in his fingers!
 
'May he be damn'd in his mouth, in his breast, in his heart and
purtenance, down to the very stomach!
 
'May he be cursed in his reins, and in his groin,' (God in heaven
forbid! 'in his thighs, in his genitals,' 'and in his hips, and in his knees, his legs, and
feet, and toe-nails!
 
'May he be cursed in all the joints and articulations of the members,
from the top of his head to the sole of his foot! May there be no
soundness in him!
 
'May the son of the living God, with all the glory of his
Majesty'
 
--By the golden beard of Jupiter--and of Juno (if her majesty wore one)
and by the beards of the rest of your heathen worships, which by the bye
was no small number, since what with the beards of your celestial gods,
and gods aerial and aquatick--to say nothing of the beards of town-gods
and country-gods, or of the celestial goddesses your wives, or of the
infernal goddesses your whores and concubines (that is in case they wore
them)--all which beards, as Varro tells me, upon his word and honour,
when mustered up together, made no less than thirty thousand effective
beards upon the Pagan establishment;--every beard of which claimed the
rights and privileges of being stroken and sworn by--by all these beards
together then--I vow and protest, that of the two bad cassocks I am
worth in the world, I would have given the better of them, as freely as
ever Cid Hamet offered
 
--'curse him!',--'and may heaven, with all the
powers which move therein, rise up against him, curse and damn him'
(Xxxxx) 'unless he repent and make satisfaction! Amen. So be it,--so
be it. Amen.'



Posted by Unknown at 1:14 PM 0 comments
Labels:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)