Last Thanksgiving I went for a walk with some family and friends in a national park near where we live. And as we were walking We Came Upon a gravestone and on the gravestone there was an inscription which read as follows. It said here lies an Indian woman a wampanoags whose family and tribe gave of themselves and their land so that this great nation might be born and grow. Well that statement is not quite accurate. They didn't give of themselves and their land rather. They were slaughtered decimated dispersed in one of the great exercises and genocide in human history when Columbus discovered the continent as we put it there were 80 million Native Americans approximately south of the Rio Grande by 1650 about 95 percent of them had been wiped out when the United States reached its Continental borders. There were approximately 200,000 Native Americans left out of an initial population of maybe somewhere between 10 and 15 million in the single island of Hispaniola. What's now that Haiti and the Dominican Republic about eight million were killed in 25 years in short. It was mass genocide on a colossal scale which we celebrate every October when we honor Columbus who was a notable mass murderer himself on Columbus Day. hundreds hundreds of American citizens passed by that gravestone regularly apparently with no reaction except perhaps a feeling of satisfaction that we're finally paying some due respect to the people who were so gracious To Us by giving of themselves and their land I suspect that these people would react rather differently if they were say to visit the how or Auschwitz and to find an inscription a gravestone with an inscription on it that said something like like this here lies a woman a Jew she and her family gave of themselves and their possessions so that this great nation might grow and prosper. Now these truths are not entirely suppressed. So for example, there is a company there is a major American historian who's leading Columbus biographer Samuel Eliot Morrison and in his biography of Columbus, you can read the following sentence the cruel policy initiated by Columbus and pursued by his successors resulted in complete genocide this however is simply a remark in passing as part of a very upbeat story. And in the last paragraph of the book Morrison sums up his view of Columbus as follows. He says he had his faults and his defects but they were largely the defects of the qualities that made him great his indomitable will his superb faith in God and in his own mission as the Christ Bearer to Lands Beyond the Seas his stubborn persistence despite neglect poverty and discouragement, but there was no flaw no dark side at all to his most outstanding and to the Outstanding and essential of his qualities his seamanship. That's how it ends. Well, we could compose a similar paragraph about Adolf Hitler and his henchmen and if they had one that is exactly what we would be reading in the intellectual mainstream the process of creating an entrenching a highly selective or reshaped or completely fabricated perceptions of the past. That's what we call indoctrination or propaganda when it's conducted by official enemies and what we call education or moral instruction or character-building when we do it ourselves. It's a valuable mechanism of control primarily because it effectively blocks any understanding of the world in which we live and that's important one crucial goal of successful education is to deflect attention elsewhere say to Vietnam or to Central America or the Middle East where our problems allegedly lie. And to deflect it away from our own institutions and their systematic functioning which is in fact the real source of a great deal of the misery and violence and suffering in the world. It's crucially important to prevent understanding and to divert attention away from the sources of our own conduct. It's important in order that Elite groups here should be able to act without possible any popular constraints to achieve their goals the goals which are called the national interest in academic theology the importance of blocking understanding and the great successes that have been achieved are easy to see in the immediate in in immediate current affairs. I'd like to give a couple of examples of this and indicate what I think they mean so let's begin with one one recent event a few months ago. You recall the world Court rejected the American contention that the court had no jurisdiction with regard to Nicaraguan complaint concerning American aggression against Nicaragua now that issue arose exactly a year ago last April when Nicaragua brought to the court it's charged that the u.s. Government was mining. It's harbors and attacking its territory with quite Exquisite timing President Reagan shows that very day to issue a presidential Proclamation announcing that May 1st 1984 would be law day 1984 and when he issued the proclamation he hailed on quoting now are 200 year old partnership between law and Liberty and he added that without law there can be only chaos and disorder. Well the day before that as part of his tribute to the rule of law. He had announced that the United States would not recognize any decision of the world Court. These events aroused a good deal of anger in the New York Times. For example, Anthony Lewis columnist for the New York Times decried what he called Reagan's failure to understand what the rule of law has meant to this country and he quoted Senator Moynihan of New York who he said had made the point with great power in a law school address just before in which he had criticized the Reagan Administration for quoting now Moynihan, he criticized the Reagan Administration for forsaking our centuries-old commitment to the idea of law in the conduct of Nations. And for its mysterious Collective Amnesia. It's losing the memory that there once was such a concern commitment our un delegation Senator Moynihan said does not know the history of our country. Well, unfortunately, it's Ronald Reagan and Jeanne Kirkpatrick who know the history of the country and who understand what the rule of law has meant to this country and its Anthony Lewis and Senator Moynihan who are suffering from a mysterious Collective Amnesia. In fact the case that there that so aroused their anger is a perfectly good indication of this exactly that had happened before it happened in the early part of this Century almost the same thing in the early part of the century the United States established as Central American court of justice, which was to adjudicate conflicts among the American states and in 1912 and 1916. The American established Court ruled against the United States with regard to us intervention in Nicaragua. Well, the United States simply dismissed the the objections and in fact destroyed the court. So the event is not unfamiliar. Well this world Court in Vent and the reaction to it provide some lessons concerning the system of indoctrination and the way that it works. It's easy enough to make fun of Ronald Reagan, but that's a diversion from the main point violence and lawlessness and deceit are the natural functions of the state any state what's important in this context is the contribution of the harshest critics people like Anthony Lewis and Senator Moynihan their contribution to reinforcing the system of indoctrination of which they themselves incidentally our victims as is clear from their comments and that is the norm for the educated classes who are typically the most profoundly indoctrinated group in the population. They're the victims as well as the purveyors of the doctrines of the faith the great achievement of the critics, which is well Illustrated in this example is to prevent the realization that what is happening today. Is not some departure from our historical ideals and practice to be attributed to this or that evil individual and that individuals personal failings rather. It is the systematic expression of the way our institutions function and have functioned and will continue to function unless impeded by an aroused public that comes to understand their nature and their true history exactly what our Educational Systems must prevent if it is to fulfill its function namely to serve power and privilege a rather useful rule of thumb illustrated by this case is the following if you want to learn something about the propaganda system have a close look at the critics and the tacit premises that underlie their criticism these tacit assumptions generally constitute the essence of the doctrines of the state religion. Well, let me take another current case to illustrate the justification for our current attack against Nicaragua is that Nicaragua is the Soviet proxy threatening Mexico, ultimately threatening the United States. Well, once again, that's not unfamiliar for people familiar with who know the real American history and aren't suffering from historical Amnesia. So in 1926 with the Marines were sent to Nicaragua by Calvin Coolidge sent. Once again, they had occupied Nicaragua through much of the century and they were sent to combat a Bolshevik threat. It was a little different that time that then the threat was from Mexico. Mexico was a Bolshevik proxy threatening Nicaragua. Ultimately the United States itself President Coolidge proclaimed that Mexico is on trial before the world as he sent the Marines to Nicaragua. Once again, that was an intervention that led to the establishment of the Somoza dictatorship with its terrorist u.s. Trained National Guard and to the killing of The authentic Nicaraguan nationalist leaders on Dino you'll notice that the cast of characters has changed. But otherwise the story remains about the same and the bottom line also Remains the Same namely kill nicaraguans. Well, let's overcome our historical Amnesia bit further and ask what did we do before we could appeal to the Bolshevik threat before the Bolshevik Revolution in October 1917 Woodrow Wilson, who was the great Apostle of self-determination celebrated this Doctrine by sending his Warriors to Haiti and the Dominican Republic where they succeeded in reestablishing slavery burning and destroying Villages torturing and murdering and installing a military dictatorship the typical outcome of American intervention in Haiti. They left a legacy that remains until today in one of the most miserable corners of the most miserable part of the world. One of the most miserable parts of the world in the Dominican Republic. It was pretty much the Same they set the stage for the Trujillo dictatorship another long-lasting military dictatorship. This was established after a long and brutal war of counterinsurgency, which incidentally has virtually disappeared from American history the first book on it just appeared recently after 60 years. Now there weren't any Bolsheviks then to justify these actions. So it turned out that we were defending ourselves from the Huns the Marine Commander Thorpe told his forces. I'm quoting that they were serving their country just as valuably as where they're fortunate comrades across the seas and the war would last long enough to give Every Man a chance against the hunt in Europe as against the Hun in Santo Domingo. Well, the hand of the Huns was particularly evident in Haiti. So Marine Candor Commander Thorpe explain whoever is running this revolution is a wise man. He certainly is getting a lot out of the niggers. It shows the handwork of the German. In in Santo Domingo, we weren't fighting those who were called typically by our leaders. The niggers are the coons but rather the specs or the damn day goes as Theodore Roosevelt describe them, but they're also the hand of the Huns was obvious. And naturally we had to defend ourselves against them going back to earlier years when President Polk stole a third of Mexico. We were also defending ourselves against an aggressor namely word. We were defending ourselves against Mexican aggression, which was initiated deep inside Mexico. We had to take California at that time to protect ourselves from the British because it seemed that there was a threat that they might do. So if we didn't the Indian wars were also a defensive we were defending ourselves against the Indians who were attacking us from their sanctuaries in British held in Spanish held territory. So naturally we were compelled to take Florida and the West in self-defense against this aggression with consequences for the If population that are or ought to be well known before that the doctrine of the New England moralist Cotton Mather was sufficient. He expressed his pleasure that I'm quoting that the woods were almost cleared of those pernicious creatures to make room for a better growth. These incidentally were the pernicious creatures who gave of themselves and their land that this great nation might be born and grow the job was done. So well in the continental United States that we no longer Slaughter Indians here were much more Humane now, since there are none around though in areas where the task has not yet been successfully consummated as in Guatemala, we continue to lend regular and direct support to massacres, which recently even the conservative Church hierarchy in Guatemala has called genocide. This is within the sphere of influence that we have to defend. According to senatorial doves who say that we have to bomb Nicaragua if it's trying to defend itself just as we have defended it from its own population. So effectively in past years. Well, maybe this is enough to suggest that if we look at the real history, we can see the current attack on Nicaragua and the current appeal to the Bolshevik threat from a perspective somewhat different from the conventional one and we can come to understand the causes of all of this in the normal and essentially invariant functioning of our own institutions. And if we think about it, we can also come to understand the brainwashing techniques that are employed to conceal what is happening right before our eyes now again, it's a relatively simple exercise to refute the administration case though. It's an exercise that must constantly be undertaken in a highly indoctrinated Society such as ours where Elementary truths are easily buried but what is more to the point is to recognize that this case that this Administration case is Another contribution to perfectly familiar historical fraud while the events themselves are simply another chapter in a shameful and sordid history, which is concealed from us by a contrived history, which is framed in terms of such ideals as the rule of law or the wilsonian principles of self-determination or democracy and human rights and others like them which bear to American history the relation of irrelevance under an interpretation. That is perhaps to charitable if we can muster up sufficient honesty. We should be able to perceive a few other things that are perhaps not too Pleasant to contemplate so suppose for example, that some petty Thug work to organize a collection of goons to go to a kindergarten and beat up some child. We didn't happen to like and suppose that he were then to wail piteously If the child raised his hands and self-defense. Well, I'm actually describing Current war against Nicaragua and the way it's depicted by the political leadership and incidentally quite widely across the among the educated classes this shameful picture should remind us that our intellectual culture was virtually founded on the twin pillars of moral cowardice and hypocrisy Ronald Reagan and George Shultz and their intellectual apologists are nothing new in American history. In fact these elements of what we might call the national character were recognized long ago when the founding fathers were expounding the doctrine of of natural rights granted by the Creator to each person and they were bitterly deploring their own condition of enslavement as they called it to the British tax collector. Well while they were deploring their condition of enslavement Samuel Johnson in England asked, why is it that we hear the loudest Yelps for freedom from the drivers of negroes and Thomas Jefferson who was a slave owner him. Off added I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just that his Justice will not sleep forever. There's an important book by Edward free Edward Herrmann and Frank Broadhead which appeared not long ago called demonstration elections. And in the book is about in part about the elections in El Salvador and in the book, they have a photograph of the President of Notre Dame University Theodore hesburgh. He's one of The Observers at the election and photograph shows him contemplating a Ballot Box during the 1982 election and you know serious look on his face watching the people exercise democracy and the caption under it reads as follows. It says the Reverend Theodore hesburgh observing the Salvadoran election, but not seeing the transparent voting box, which was plainly shown in the photograph. Now one of the successful one of the essential tasks of a successful educational system is to endow its victims with the capacity to observe but not to see that's a capacity that is Hallmark of those who are called the responsible intellectuals that journalists are Scholars who meet the condition of responsibility and there are many events in American history very recent history which illustrate the success in endowing us with the capacity to observe but not to see take for example, the Vietnam War. There's now a big hullabaloo about remembering the Vietnam War on the 10th anniversary of its so-called termination not real termination. This is an interesting case the whole Vietnam War experience is an interesting and rather dramatic case of our capacity to observe but not to see this is interesting because it persisted for 40 years. Although the example pales beside Central America, which we've been torturing for a long time the first major military attack against Nicaragua was a hundred and thirty years ago and throughout this period while torturing Central America we've been observing but not seeing and Miraculously maintaining the purity of our commitment to democracy and human rights while effectively destroying both but let's consider Vietnam and just recall the main events and asked what we observed and what we saw or what we see today. Well the first period of American intervention in Vietnam was when the French were trying to reconquer their former colony from the late 40s up till 1954. We provided France with about 80% of the support for that effort and we try to encourage them to go on. In fact, we came rather close to the using nuclear weapons, but the French finally decided they'd had enough and they withdrew in 1954 by that time about half million Vietnamese had been killed there was no protest. No one could see in 1954 the United States took over itself. It had two major tasks both carried out with much success. The first was to prevent any elections in Vietnam. The reason being that we knew that our own. Clients could not possibly survive in any electoral process. So that was blocked. We subverted the Geneva agreements which called for elections to reunify the country in the South. We carried which we occupied which we controlled. In fact, we installed a client regime a terrorist client State and set it to its task which was to demolish the ante French Resistance those who we call the Viet Cong and that was carried out with much dispatched by 1961 or so when Kennedy took over about 80,000 had been killed. Well that aroused resistance as such actions often do and as soon as resistance began the client government quickly collapsed since it had no support as we gladly gladly conceded at least an internal documents throughout this period there was no protest none again, it was observed, but it it was observed, but it was certainly not seen. Well the resistance threatened to overthrow the Regime which we had established. So in 1962 Kennedy did the obvious thing. He simply attacked South Vietnam directly in 1962 extensive American bombardment and defoliation operations were carried out by the US Air Force not through indirect means this was part of a large project designed to drive many millions of people some 7 million according to American sources seven million people into what we call it strategic Hamlet's those were in fact concentration camps where the population was kept under armed guard and surrounded by barbed wire and separated from the Viet Cong the gorillas whom we conceded incidentally that they were willingly supporting. Well that was 1962 again. There is only the Press at that time data rate raised some criticisms. It raised questions about whether the program was working and it was quite sharply denounced for its lack of patriotism and lack of enthusiasm for this deviation from Total obedience, but in fact the support was total. We were defending South Vietnam and therefore it was legitimate. And in fact, we were defending South Vietnam and exactly the sense in which the Russians are defending Afghanistan today from terrorists supported from without and that's what you will read in Pravda. No doubt and that's what you read in the total American Press from one end of the other mainstream American Press at that time and incidentally since we were defending South Vietnam and the doves including the critical journalists were saying we're not doing it very effectively we ought to do it better. Well, the same is true of scholarship one leading American liberal scholar Arthur Schlessinger. If you look at his history of the Kennedy administration thousand days, he refers to what happened in 1962 and he refers to it as follows. He said he says that 1962 was not a bad year quote aggression was checked in Vietnam. Well or well would have been impressed with that. That is the year in which we attacked South Vietnam is the year in which aggression was checked in Vietnam two years later in May 1954, Adlai Stevenson. Spoke at the United Nations about our defense of South Vietnam, and he explained that we were defending South Vietnam from what he called internal aggression that is aggression by the Vietnamese against us in Viet. Nam's all South Vietnamese Stevenson was much applauded for his perspicacity and humanity and still is in the American political system. Well for 1961 the 65 The Next Period the United States stepped up its war against South Vietnam now with direct American forces, it also intervened regularly to overthrow the government the reason being that they were insufficiently enthusiastic for the escalation of American violence and repeatedly, it appeared that they were attempting to negotiate with the opposition so they had to be overthrown. So while killing plenty of Vietnamese block a political settlement which was possible at the time and the reason was explained rather candidly explained. I might add General Westmoreland indicated. First of all that the Buddhists could not be part that the organized Buddhists which is one political force could not be part of any political settlement because he said they were not acting in the interests of the nation as for the other major domestic group the one we call the Viet Cong. Well, obviously, they couldn't take part in a political settlement as they were asking to do and the reason for that was explained by the government's leading Specialists and the Viet Cong Douglas Pike. He pointed out that it was observed for the Communists to be asking for elections or any kind of political settlement because of any sort of Coalition were established. It would be a matter of our minnow being in a coalition with their whale so plainly they couldn't be serious when they're talking about political negotiations. So since none of the Vietnamese were acting in the interest of the nation. Only the Americans acted in the interest of the nation it was necessary to block any political settlement to block neutralization and to continue to step up the war resistance again mounted by 1965. The United States had to invade directly with land forces after three years of bombing South Vietnam by the time that American Ground Forces invaded in April 1965. Well over a hundred and sixty thousand South Vietnamese had been killed but according to the media and the intellectuals in general. We were still defending South Vietnam out of a deep but perhaps misguided commitment to democracy. Well in 1965, we stepped up the attack against South Vietnam. Well bombing the north that was more publicized. But while we were bombing the north we extended the bombing of the South to Triple the level of the bombing of the North. In fact throughout the war the South bore the main brunt of the American assault and the southern resistance was in fact Demolished the bombing of North Vietnam brought in North Vietnamese troops for the first time exactly as American planners had expected and leading to a great amount of whaling and Washington and Cambridge in such places about the North Vietnamese aggression. We then extended the war to Laos and Cambodia. Well without going into details by 1975 about 3 million Vietnamese had been killed in addition about another million Laotian and cambodians have been killed all together through the whole period about 5 million killed Indochina approximately 4 million from 65 to 75 largely the responsibility of the United States. Well, let's turn now to the protest by the late 1960s when there were several hundred thousand American troops attacking South Vietnam or as we put it to finding South Vietnam by the late 1960s much of the population in the United States had passed beyond the capacity to observe and who already achieved the capacity to see In fact, most of them recognized the war for what it was and that that remains the case incidentally as recently as 1982 the last sense of major poll that I've seen on this matter Gallup poll and international Affairs asked the question. Do you think that the Vietnam War was a mistake or was it fundamentally wrong and immoral and 72% of the population said fundamentally wrong any moral far fewer opinion leaders incidentally took that position and among educated Elites articulate intellectuals. Probably they didn't identify them with probably virtually no detectable percentage would have taken at least one can't find that view expressed anywhere The View that you expect find expressed is rather different and let me just quote from the liberal dovish end the harsh were critics that's always much more interesting and the Spectrum extends from them over to Norman podhoretz and others, but let's only take the liberal critics probably the Critic of the war in the media was Anthony Lewis The New York Times we quoted earlier and in 1975. He explained what had all been about in a column. He said that the War Began with what he called blundering efforts to do good, but by 1969 it had it was clear that it was a disastrous mistake quite apart from the blundering efforts to do good, which is just part of American theology. We're always engaged in blundering efforts to do good and we have been all the way back. But what about 1969? Well, that's an interesting date by 1960 about a year earlier in 1968. Most of the corporate Elite had turned against the war because it was much too costly and it was harming the American economy and a year later it began to become clear to the harshest critic of the war in the media that it was a disastrous mistake. Well, this is true pretty much across the board. You have to go really to the margins among educated sectors of the population to escape this perception. They could observe Sure, but they couldn't see and this was in sharp contrast to the less educated who could see fairly clearly. What was happening Before Their Eyes by the late 60s at least and in fact acted the change it enacted significantly, although they and they still can although it's this understanding is surely going to be raced as the process of education for seeds and takes its course or perhaps you could say takes its toll well all of this illustrates rather nicely the genius the essential properties of the democratic systems of thought control. These are very different than the from the systems that are used in totalitarian States a fascist states are so-called Communist States in a totalitarian state the ruling group say a dictator alípio or whatever they tend to be essentially behaviorist in their conception what I mean by that is that they don't care much what people think they care what people do and they can control what people do by force. There's a you can think you can wear. Think anything you want as long as you don't act and act it out in some fashion. If you do act on your beliefs, you'll be subject to one or another penalty. The nature of the penalty will depend on the nature of the state on its degree of violence. So for example in the Soviet Union, if you act out your dissenting beliefs, you may well be sent to a say Exile under harsh conditions or a psychiatric prison or a concentration camp. If you act out your beliefs in a typical American dependency like El Salvador Guatemala, you'll end up in a ditch after hideous torture with your head cut off, but all that just depends on the nature of violence of the state of the commitment violence of the state and to violence of the state and its and its backers in a Democratic Society things are rather different the state typically does not use violence or even nor does it even have the resources of violence to use to control Behavior, but it still but it does so here it has to control thought since it has to Rocks into can't control Behavior by force it has to control thought to assure that thought doesn't lead to unwanted Behavior. So the point is to try to control the entire spectrum of thought it's not as in a dictatorship where there's a visible Ministry of truth that produces the so-called truth and then you have to obey it though. What you think is not too important here. There isn't any visible Ministry of to truth. There's an extensive debate that goes on but the entire spectrum of thought within which that debate proceeds has to be controlled because we have this unfortunate principle here that the voice of the people can be heard and therefore their voice must say the right thing and therefore they must say the right thing. Let me turn to another part of the world. Let's turn to the Middle East in the Middle East. There's a thing called the peace process, which you read about all the time the peace process the term refers to the camp David agreements initiated by President Carter. In 78 and 79. There's a curious fact about the peace process one very curious fact about it. According to Israeli run polls the population in the occupied territories overwhelmingly, something like 90% regard the peace process as detrimental to their interests. Now that's kind of curious of all the people in the region The People Under Israeli military occupation must be the ones who are most Yearning For Peace. So how come that 90% of them are against the peace process? Well, that's a question. You might think would occur to some journalists or some other commentator. I don't know if it has occurred to them. But anyway, it's not discussed here. At least if you ask the question, why is the population under military occupation overwhelmingly opposed to the peace process since they obviously want peace if you ask that question easily get the answer soon as you ask the question the answer immediately Springs to mind first. The peace process is strictly rejectionist. Now the term rejection isn't Is used in the United States in a very specific and in fact highly racist fashion, the term rejection ISM in the literature on this topic is used to refer to Arabs who reject the right of Israeli Jews to National self-determination. And that's fair usage. That's a rejectionist position at denies the right of national self-determination through the Jewish settlers who came into Palestine and finally establish the state there. However, it would appear that there's another form of rejection is mm that's logically possible namely the position of those who deny to the indigenous population the right of national self-determination now, if we assume that the indigenous population are human beings which is to say they have the same rights including the right to National self-determination as we naturally occurred to the settlers who displaced them if we make that assumption namely ultimately that the indigenous population are human beings not just some strange species of donkeys were walking around If we make that assumption then of course there is another possible kind of rejection is MM denial of their right to National self-determination. Well American policy is a hundred percent rejectionist on this and the Camp David agreement was one case of it it denied to the indigenous population even in the conquered territories the right of national self-determination. That's one reason why they regard the peace process negatively. If someone had in 1947 offered to the Jews of Palestine some form of autonomy, but excluding all zionists and obviously eliminating State they would have been opposed to it negotiations with Jews but not zionists that would be regarded as an extreme form of anti-Semitism may be reminiscent of Hitler. Well, our position is negotiations, but with Palestinians, but not the PLO PLO has all the legitimacy of the Zionist organization of 1947 certainly, in fact rather similar to it. So the attitude the of the state of Israel, which we back negotiations with pal. Indians may be but certainly not with the PLO that's analogous to the extreme racist position that might have been taken as far as I know wasn't by someone back in the 40s saying maybe negotiations with Jews but not with zionists. Well, that's one reason for the overwhelming objection to the peace process. But there's another reason which again immediately Springs to mind as soon as you look at the facts, what did the peace process accomplish? Well what it did was to exclude Egypt from the conflict. It made it arranged for peace treaty between Israel and Egypt with essentially a buffer zone in between that Egypt is the major military force in the Arab world. So now the major military force is removed from the Arab world. The major deterrent Force for Israeli actions is removed connected with that the United States vastly increased the already huge contribution subsidy that it gives Israel, including enormous military military contributions. In fact from 1978 the time of the peace process for the Next several years Israel was actually receiving something like half of total US military and economic aid throughout the world. So a huge increase to the militarization of Israeli Society or removal of the main deterrent the only deterrent really and this Aid Israel happens to be unique in another respect which is never discussed in the Press. When we give Aid to other countries. It's project-oriented carefully supervised. So for example Egypt, which is the next biggest recipient of the American Aid their the aid to Egypt is supervised by a hundred twenty five American technicians who are there to ensure for example, that Egypt will purchase expensive Midwestern wheat instead of growing their own food at half the cost and so on. That's essentially what Aid is about in Israel. However, it's different and uniquely different the aid is just a cash Grant they can do anything they like with it which is a way of saying do what you feel like so here we have the following situation. The major Arab military force is removed from the conflict the Already enormous Aid to Israel is rapidly expanded including military aid. It was already by far the dominant military force in the region. We give the aid without strings and do with it. Whatever you like in the certain knowledge that the aid will be used exactly as any rational person would expect namely to integrate and take over in effect the occupied territories and to attack their Northern neighbor now that there's no deterrent and that's exactly what happened. Well the people who are there they can not only observe but also see so naturally they're opposed to the peace process, but here we can't here we have to call it with in fact we call it the fact that it's called the peace process already indicates the degree of indoctrination. In fact, well after all who can be opposed to peace. So naturally we support the peace process has about a year ago in March April 1984 Yasser Arafat chairman of the PLO made a series of public proposals in Europe and in Asia widely reported in the European press. In England and France, he's spoken Greece. And in Asia to they were all the same what he called for was negotiations with Israel. He asked Israel to enter into negotiations leading to Mutual recognition. Well, that's a position exactly in accord with the international consensus. Again, the non rejectionist consensus that assumes that both groups have a right to National self-determination this the fate of that offer was kind of interesting Israel rejected it simply flat out rejected it the United States didn't even respond is also interesting to look at the media coverage in the United States. It's rather Illuminating in the national, press the New York Times in the Washington Post. It wasn't mentioned not even mentioned in the local quality, press journals, like the Los Angeles Times or the Boston Globe of the Philadelphia Inquirer there. It was mentioned our efforts offer for negotiations and mutual recognition was mentioned if you could find it had to look hard it was It was there if you looked carefully wasn't explained what it meant. But it was there. If you in the San Francisco herald-examiner, which has the reputation of being one of the worst papers in the country. There was a full page headline an inch and a half High across the entire front page reading RF at the Israel. Let's talk followed by a United press long United press story giving all the details of our efforts offer to have negotiations and mutual recognition. Well, what does this suggest what it suggests is that the unsophisticated Press like this San Francisco Herald examiner doesn't have they don't have enough sophistication to understand what news must be suppressed. Therefore they in their knifed a publish news in terms of its significance. Now, that's not too dangerous notice history is created by the New York Times And The Washington Post a future historian is not going to go to the Archives of the San Francisco Harold if such things even exist a future historian is going to go to New York Times microfilm their archives or maybe the Washington Post archives and therefore it's very important. If you want a fashion history properly that you exclude from a things that don't belong there and the New York Times as a real responsibility in this respect one can appreciate the burden resting on their shoulders. They have to Fashion history. That's not a small responsibility and therefore have to be read rather cautious about what gets in and what doesn't and how its formulated and so on, you know history your Cleo there your fashioning history. Well, this is one of not a few cases. I might mention that illustrate that there's a sort of an interesting follow-up with let me mention the when a reader of the New York Times the Detroit wrote a letter to the times in which he said the times has chided are fought over the years for his alleged refusal to recognize and negotiate with Israel. Why don't you Publish the fact that he offered to negotiate with Israel and to recognize it. Well, the letter of course wasn't published but he did receive response personal letter, which is incidentally rather unusual. The response was written by the foreign editor the New York Times weren't Hogue and the response read as follows. It said we saw the RF @ remarks you mentioned and compared them to statements of his in the past. They did not represent any change of thinking on his part and it would have been misleading for us to have published them as if they did when and if mr. Arafat calls for Mutual recognition and negotiation with Israel, you will read about it prominently displayed on the front page of the New York Times. That's kind of interesting the first statement that are a fats remarks did not represent any change of thinking from the past. That's in fact, correct though. You wouldn't know it from The New York Times in the New York Times and in fact the media in general, he's regularly attacked as a fanatic refuses negotiations or whose waffling and refuses to enter the peace process and so on. So if his call for Mutual recognition and negotiations, if that really doesn't represent a sharp change in his thinking and in fact, it really doesn't as readers of journals other than New York Times or the mainstream media might know then that raises an interesting question about the New York Times. How come that its readers don't know that this represents no change from his earlier position as the foreign editor States, but most interesting of all is that last statement if he calls for Mutual recognition in negotiations, you'll read about it prominently displayed on the front page of the New York Times. Well, that's Verbatim what he called for Mutual recognition in negotiations and you didn't read it on the front page or the back page or anywhere. Well again, that tells us something the current media treatment again is very Illuminating the current problem article after article in the Press tells you that the current problem is how to get the Arabs involved in the peace process. So for example, Bernhard corpsman in the New York Times, March 19, March 19th of this. Year one of their political commentators. He writes after years of urging the Arabs to take a more active role in the search for Middle East peace. The United States is now uncertain how to proceed. Well, the fact of the matter is that the United States has always blocked the road to peace if by piece we mean a nun rejectionist piece a piece in accord with the international consensus that involves negotiations and mutual recognition. The United States has been the primary force. In fact American rejection is Amor u.s. Israeli rejection is MM has always blocked this while the Arabs have produced a whole series of proposals. Some of them quite specific others were ambiguous, but but quite specific ones all blocked by the United States, but the way it looks now is after years of urging the Arabs to take a more active role. We don't know what to do. Well because and that you can understand what works - saying since the peace process is what we do and what other people do as opposed to Peace by definition, then it must end it's true that we were urging the Arabs to get involved. What we call the peace process that is a rejection of Palestinian rights and support for Israel's take over the occupied territories two days before that Thomas Friedman, March 17th, the New York Times correspondent Israel. He had a long analytic article on the history of the peace process and that one's worth taking a look at he gives all the dates and so on but it has some odd omissions everything. I just mentioned for example is omitted. There's no mention of Sadat's peace treaty offer in 1971 or if they're Jordanian proposal a few weeks later in 1971 or a series of offer since or the January 1976 call for a peaceful political settlement introduced by the Arabs vetoed by the United States or a series of proposals following that or our efforts proposal a spring. None of that's there. That's all down the memory hole what remains as the history of the peace process is the Camp David negotiations. That is Camp David rejection is MM and he even goes on to say there that the Arab refusal to join the peace process has he says even soured. Raley's who have begun to lose their passion for peace in the face of this Arab refusal to stalling evasiveness and so on. Well, he had written a more subtle article on this a little earlier, which is also Illuminating. There was a cover story in the New York Times magazine, October 7th Again by Thomas Friedman. It was called the power of the Fanatics and in it, he sort of bewailed the fact that over the Middle East the Fanatics are getting stronger and stronger and the moderates and of course the author is always a moderate whatever his position may be the moderates are kind of losing out and the face of the Fanatics and that's really terrible. Well who are the Fanatics well in his book The Fanatics include the PLO which in fact has been calling for negotiations leading to Mutual recognition and 42 State settlement and has been doing it for about a decade the moderates in our include the Israeli Labour party, which campaigned in the last election on the following platform. No return to the 67 border. No removal of settlements no dealings with the PLO. No Palestinian. And state that is pure total rejection is MM a position analogous to the minority rejection front of the PLO. But their position happens to a chord with American policy. So that makes the moderates by definition pure rejection ISM and blocking of political settlement is moderation. Whereas fanaticism is calling for a political settlement and mutual recognition. Well as this illustrates and as the whole article shows Friedman himself is one of the more fanatic extremists by rational standards or World standards and his news reporting reveals that quite clearly however readers won't sense it. Unless they know what's going on because it has a very Humane tone to it and all much deploring of assassinations and so on and so forth that's more subtle propaganda than outright suppression and lying well proceeding with this the fact of the matter is that the United States not only blocks the US media in particular not only play their role in blocking a political settlement in the Middle East, but they actually actively Terrorism in the Middle East and this is quite dangerous. Not only for the people involved but in fact for everyone because of the significance of the region, let me illustrate what I mean by that. Let's take just Lebanon which is in the news right now. And now let's look at the actual history in the media interpretation of it. And I think you'll see what I mean. When I say the media have a major commitment to sponsoring terrorism and do it effectively in the early 1970s Israel carried out extensive bombardment of Southern Lebanon and repeated military incursions. This was no small matter big areas were there were scorched Earth tactics carried out in many areas thousands and thousands of people were killed hundreds of thousands, maybe 300,000 were driven out of Southern Lebanon and Sally nobody knows how many were killed or even knows much about it because nobody cared if you look at the reporting at the time there was virtually none. There was an occasional reference to the fact that Israeli planes are bombing this and that Village and wiping it out on the population is fleeing but it was essentially a matter of no account. Well, that's support for terrorism. It's saying that Extensive terrorism extensive bombardment of another country by the Earth by the air force of a client state is entirely legitimate. We may occasionally observe it but we certainly don't see it. And obviously we don't condemn it and to find reports for of it. You really have to go rather far but you can find them it was an extensive terrorist period by 1975 Israeli incursions in Lebanon had reached about 17 a day according to the Lebanese government many of these incidentally hadn't even a pretense of being retaliatory. So for example, when the United Nations called in December 1975, when the United Nations called for the session that was to consider the Syrian Jordanian Egyptian PLO. Peace offer Israel. I mentioned before that Israel reject refused to attend that's only part of the story. They did respond namely they bombed Lebanon killing 50 or 60 people they did they said that that was they made it clear that that was not a retaliatory strike. Although that's not quite clear. It was retaliation. Even against the United Nations, in fact for daring to proceed to move towards a political settlement that was reported in the United States actually in the front page, but with not a word or even a whisper that there was anything wrong with it. It's entirely legitimate for our terrorist clients to respond in this fashion. Well this increased through the 70s in 1978, as I mentioned the peace process set in all impediments were removed to extension of Israeli attacks against Lebanon and therefore they proceeded as expected in 1978 Israel invaded Lebanon killing several thousand people and creating a couple hundred thousand refugees in 1970. And American Aid is real shot up reaching 50% of total Aid as I said in 79 to 81, there was Heavy regular heavy bombardment of Lebanon by Israel again thousands of people were killed there were some reporters in Lebanon who gave some indication of this, but nobody really cared enough to count it up. Throughout this period repeatedly cease fires were established and they were broken very often broken incidentally by Israeli forces one such case was in July 1981 in July 1981 an important event took place the Israeli bombers broke a ceasefire once again and bombed position with a called terrorist positions in in Lebanon killing number of people at that time. There was a light rocket response a response by PLO katyusha Rockets against Northern Israel in response to the Israeli bombing, which broke the ceasefire then Israel in retaliation to that bomb very heavily around Beirut. And then there was a heavy rocket response against the northern Galilee which in fact drove much of the population out and finally there was American ceasefire and posed by Philip Habib at the time that the ceasefire was imposed in late 1980, July 1981 about 450 Arabs have been killed and six Israelis had been killed. Those are the regular Portions reflecting the distribution of the capacity for terrorism on the two sides and the willingness to exercise notice in this case that the rocket response which killed six Jews was was a route that was clearly a retaliation to the Israeli bombing. Well of this whole story, there's one thing that remains in memory namely that the PLO was bombarding the settlements of Northern Israel. And if you read the news reports today about the Israeli withdrawal in the New York Times or your favorite newspaper, you'll find that they're full of expression of discussion of the agony of the Israeli Jews in the northern Galilee who once again will be faced with unremitting rocket Fire by the Palestinian terrorists, which drove them into shelters are out of their homes. And so on the only thing that remains from the whole story is the retaliatory rocket fire, which killed six people in response to Israeli bombing, which killed four hundred and fifty people well again that sponsorship of terrorism and also notice that it's all of this story is an Some form of racism and extreme exhibition of racism of the kind exhibited throughout this that I've been the things I've been discussing from the beginning starting with a gravestone. Well in 1981 and 1982, it was obvious I should say and when the ceasefire was established in 81 that Israel was going to proceed to find some pretext to invade Lebanon and throughout 81 and 82 it proceeded to look for a pretext to tried to do something which would evoke a Palestinian response that could be used as the pretext for the planned Invasion and they tried very hard for example innate in April 1982. Israel bombed towns in Lebanon killing several dozen people 24 people were killed now that they claimed was in fact retaliatory. What had happened is that an Israeli soldier who was on a patrol in southern Lebanon his Jeep hit a landmine and he was killed. So in retaliation to this Palestinian atrocity Israel felt free to bum Southern Lebanon killing 24 people well, Response to that one in the Press there was an editorial comment which is unusual in the Washington Post, which is allegedly critical of Israel. There was an editorial which said the following it said this is not a moment for sermons to Israel. This is a moment for respect for Israel's anguish in short. When an Israeli soldier hits a land mine in southern Lebanon and Israel in retaliation bombs, Lebanese towns killing 24 people. That's a moment for respect for Israel's anguish. You can imagine what happened if the situation had been reversed you can try that on yourself. Well that was 1982 that was rather typical incidentally again support for terrorism straight support for terrorism in 1982 came the Israeli attack completely backed by the United States murderous and brutal attack as those of you know, who followed it supported basically supported by the media. For example, the New York Times editorial e described it as a liberation of Lebanon throughout in the September of 1980 to came the Reagan. Peace. And more of the peace process. If you looked at this you'll discover that it was totally rejectionist. Another racist rejectionist peace plan rejected the right of national self-determination on the part of the indigenous population. Now the according to the meet the story that was concocted in the media and contemporary history. That plan was blocked by the Arabs fact of the matter is it was rejected instantaneously by Israel and blocked by the United States Israel announced within days within a day. In fact that it was rejecting the peace plan and that in response to Reagan's call for a temporary settlement freeze. It was going to rapidly increase settlements and the American government response to that which followed about two weeks later. Was that Reagan called for an increase in the already huge subsidy to Israel. That was what was called at the time punishing Israel and Congress didn't want to punish Israel. They didn't want to politicize the police peace process. So they called for an even bigger subsidy an even bigger increase in the Israel and then a compromise was made. Well, what does that mean? That's a clear message. It says thank you for invading Southern Lebanon. Thank you for bombing Beirut. Thank you for the Sabri shatila massacres. Thank you for rejecting the Reagan plan. All of that is exactly what we wanted. Now. We'll pay you for it. We'll pay you by increasing the already vest subsidy. And that message is understood. It's a it's not seen here, but it's certainly understood there and the media the way the Media frame this and I just mean the media is illustrate the luster of of intellectual community and petitioned general that's again support for by now quite extensive to doesn't deserve the name terrorism anymore. It's real violence massive violence. Well quite generally when a superpower has developed an effective system of indoctrination. The world is a very dangerous place. It surely ought to be possible in a society like ours without resort to State terrorism internally in a society like this. It should be possible. Come to understand these crucial features of our society and to act in such a way as to modify them may be radically changed them the fate of many millions of people throughout the world and perhaps the fate of human civilization depends on our willingness to undertake this past.