World Orders – Old and New
By Richard E. Noble
World Orders, Old and New is 99% new and 1% old. Though Greece, Rome and a few other empires are made reference to in the early going, the book mainly centers on the United States and Israel. I was hoping for a more historical interpretation of World Orders, but this book is current events as seen through Professor Chomsky perspective.
It is a long story but according to Mr. Chomsky the two biggest terrorist nations in today’s world are the United States and Israel. He establishes this with page after page of facts and quotes. To fact check this book would be a lifetime endeavor for any young scholar or “fact checker.”
I would guess that all the facts and quotes are accurate; the questioning would be with the interpretation of the facts and quotes.
I don’t at this moment know where I would go to find a more critical analysis of the U.S. role in the last century. Mr. Chomsky sticks the sword of his criticism in the body politic of the U.S.A. and doesn’t stop until it comes out the other side – then he twists it several times for good measure.
Professor Chomsky credits the Cold War as beginning with the Russian Revolution in 1917.
With this I agree. On page 41 he credits a fact from a study done by Christopher Simpson that I found interesting.
“U.S. investment in Germany accelerated rapidly after Hitler came to power … by some 48% between 1929 and 1940 while declining sharply everywhere else in continental Europe … and barely holding steady in Britain.
“In a recent review of British records, Lloyd Gardner concludes that ‘for the British, the immediate problem was still Russia’, not Germany, during the period of the Hitler-Stalin pact (until June 1941). Deciding that war was necessary, high British officials ‘centered not on German efforts at partition [of Poland], which London had already dealt with as acceptable, but on the Nazi-Soviet pact, which was not acceptable.’”
My research on who actually financed Hitler substantiates the above quote as does my reading in the history of the time.
I would be interested in the percentage of investment coming from the U.S. and going to Japan and Italy during the same period also.
Woodrow Wilson is described poorly in this work and I think justifiably.
It is pointed out that fascism was admired and supported by the Capitalist nations of the world until it proved to be disadvantageous – economically and politically to the capitalists. “The ‘defense’ was mounted throughout the Capitalist world, taking a variety of forms, including the admirable achievements of fascism.”
He then points out that history records, “Throughout the developed world conservative ruling elites had been discredited by their association with fascism.” Unfortunately this fact is only known to those who read history books.
So it is established that the capitalist world was actually at war with Russia since the Russian Revolution in 1917.
This notion should be obvious to anyone who has researched this historical period – but for some reason to speak or write accordingly still receives resistance.
On page 82 the Professor makes this observation.
“A look at who is celebrating after a conflict and benefits from it, and who is left in distress and suffering, often tells something about the true victors and defeated, and indeed what the conflict was about. By that criterion, the victors of World War II include the financial and manufacturing interests that were mobilized in support of the fascists regimes and were largely reconstituted and restored to power by the official victors; the losers of World War II include leading elements of the anti-fascist resistance worldwide, ranging from radical democratic to Communist in orientation, and violently demolished or displaced and marginalized by the official victors. Not the conventional picture, but an accurate one, and one that does not lack relevance to an assessment of what was at stake.”
The book goes on to discredit the U.S. role in South America, Asia and the Middle East. The professor hits hard on Viet Nam and our present position in Iraq and Afghanistan. I really do not have enough information to argue with the professor. His description of U.S. behavior is nothing less than ruthless.
His point is that America is not on the side of democratic rule anywhere. We sabotage democracy in favor of capitalist profit and progress in any way possible. And we support the establishment power structure that will work to the benefit of American capitalist objectives.
I would only make the distinction between the American “Government” and the American “people.” But the professor does point out that the American people are kept unaware via a compliant or inept media and are not allowed to participate appreciably or to any consequence in their government because of the powerful propaganda of the corporate ownership of the American government.
By the professor’s analysis we do not support democracy around the world and we are far from a democracy here at home. I would like to disagree but find his arguments substantive – and embarrassing.
The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund are controlled by International capitalists manipulated by the U.S.A. and invariably programmed to institute policies that cripple, bankrupt, exploit and enslave the people of third world countries.
Israel is a “client” state submissive and cooperative to U.S. hegemony. It is a partner in U.S. criminal behavior. They are murders and killers as is the U.S.A.
The Palestinian populations within Israel and in surrounding areas are modern day slaves. They are treated as a subclass and are kept in such a condition via laws and manipulation reminiscent of Nazi Germany and its treatment of the Jews in the 30s and 40s.
Because of necessary water sources in certain areas the Israelis will never, and have no intention of ever, submitting to a two state solution to their conflict. The Israeli Jews are attempting to exterminate the Palestinians in much the same manner as the native Indians were exterminated in the United States in its early growth years.
From the Israeli perspective peace will only come to the area when all reluctant and uncooperative Arabs are dead.
This is the situation as Professor Chomsky writes and describes it.
As for hope for the future or a possible solution, the professor states: “Much will depend on cultural conditions within the United States, the global power that dominates the region and has succeeded in imposing its will. But whatever the outcome, what has taken place, and how it has been interpreted, constitute an impressive testimonial to the rule of force in international affairs, one that should be considered carefully by those who care about the fate of the world.”