África analizada por el luchador Melchor Nchama, entrevista No trece , con Gustavo Bueno S , en la sede Fundación Gustavo Bueno Gustavo Bueno

www.youtube.com/watch

El monstruo de las montañas (crímenes de Estado en México)

VIDEO en The New Yorker

http://dp8hsntg6do36.cloudfront.net/5513f9f061646d0cfa000000/a9c2ea39-7b5e-4193-a235-bf0d03928250low.webm

‘El monstruo de las montañas’

30 de marzo, 2015.- The New Yorker compartió este día un video con motivo de los seis meses de la desaparición de los 43 normalistas de Ayotzinapa, donde se puede observar el sufrimiento de la familia y las acciones que hoy en día se tratan de llevar a cabo para encontrar a los normalistas. “Hay una lucha entre un gigante… y la población pobre”, dice el activista Abel Herrera Hernandez, en el cortometraje de la prestigiada revista estadounidense.

fuente http://www.4vientos.net/?cat=24

http://dp8hsntg6do36.cloudfront.net/5513f9f061646d0cfa000000/a9c2ea39-7b5e-4193-a235-bf0d03928250low.webm

I Guerra Mundial Stanley Kubrik Senderos de Gloria

Creo que algunas veces la violencia de las guerras queda opacada por la II Guerra Mundial. Lo digo en el sentido de que hay otras situaciones que implican esa ultra violencia, esa vuelta a las hordas primitivas , en el sentido en que lo planteó Freud

 

El gran artista del cine, Stanley Kubrik nos muestra aquí una de las caras de esa destrucción que toda guerra lleva en su entraña

 

IMprescindible : el siglo del yo, serie de videos del reportaje de la BBC (subt. español)

El siglo del yo, The Century of Self, BBC report, Spanish subtitles

Part 1 (60 min.): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7HClTMzW9g

Part 1 with spanish subtitles: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Soe5hgmjvdc

Part 2 with Spanish subtitles: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0k0VtJV83Gc

Part 3 with Spanish subtitles: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZiQqZuX-KA

Part 4 (60 min): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCu1jBLbthk

Part 4 with Spanish subtitles: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ss7H4YWu-JA

cómo funciona REALMENTE la llamada narco guerra o “guerra al narco” en México

ENTRA EN NARCONEWS , EL SITIO ORIGEN DEL VIDEO http://www.narconews.com/nntv/es/video.php?vid=46

Holocaust Lesson plan for High School students

link sobre derechos humanos http://www.eycb.coe.int/Compass/en/chapter_1/1_2.html

http://fcit.usf.edu/holocaust/activity/HighSchl.htm

Ejemplo : Ana Frank

The Truth About Anne Frank

Twelve Hour Class Outline

By Daniel T. Barkowitz: Copyright 1992 All Rights Reserved.
Please contact the author with any questions: email drwitz@attbi.com
143 Langdon Street
Newton, MA 02458

Created for use in High School Programs (8th to 12th grades) at Temple Shalom, Newton and Temple Israel, Boston. It is divided into a twelve week class outline, each class lasting one hour. Approximately 17 printed pages.

Week 2 || Week 3 || Week 4 || Week 5 || Week 6 || Week 7 || Week 8
Week 9 || Week 10 || Week 11 || Week 12 || Homework || Bibliography

Week 1

1. Have students list the names of all the people that they know from the period of the Holocaust on the board (Anne Frank, Adolf Hitler, etc). Ask students why Anne Frank’s name is so recognizable? Isn’t it amazing that one 13 year old girl could be that well known? (10 min)

2. Talk with kids to determine what they know about the Anne Frank story (brief synopsis). Have students describe why Anne went into hiding, how long there, what happened to her. Use point and talk method — point to one student and have her/him start the story; at some point while s/he is talking point to another student and have them continue the story. DON’T CORRECT ANY MISTAKES IN THE STORY!!!! (15 min)

3. Discuss that sometimes people who are well known are surrounded by myth. Ask what kind of myths, legends, etc, students have heard about currently famous people (Madonna, Michael Jackson, etc.). Ask where these myths came from (television, movies, articles written by people who may or may not know the person, stories heard from friends, gossip, etc). Discuss that the Anne Frank story is also surrounded by some myths, and that the class will attempt to show these myths and what is true about Anne. Explain that the only way to do that is to look at what is true (actual Diaries straight from Anne’s mouth [maybe], and compare that to movie version, play version, ballet version, things written about Anne, and what we already think we know about Anne) define primary versus secondary source. (15 min)

4. For first myth, ask why kids think Anne wrote Diary? Did she plan on having the diaries published? After class has given their responses, provide background from “The Diary of Anne Frank”: The Critical Edition (pages 59, 60, and read the quotes while providing historical background for each quote. Explain that although Anne had already begun writing the diaries by this point (as there were more than one diary), this radio address caused her to start editing the old diaries for publication (changing the names of the people to protect them, streamlining text, making it more interesting). (15 min)

5. Pass out homework assignment saying that for homework, students should buy book, “Diary of Anne Frank”, and should read diary entries from June 14, 1942 through July 11, 1942. (5 min)

Go to the Top of the Page

Week 2

1. Take attendance, review homework, and collect it. (5 min)

2. Ask if all the names in the diary are the real names of the people involved? Discuss name changes that Anne made in the diary. (van Pels to van Daan, etc., pages 61 to 62 in “The Critical Edition”). Why do students think she changed people’s names? (5 min)

3. Ask if German children were taught to hate Jewish people? How? Show photograph on page 8 and caption and photo on page 11 of “The End of Innocence: Anne Frank and the Holocaust” and have students share feelings about the propaganda. (5 min)

4. Ask students if they know what Kristallnacht was? For a little historic background read the third complete paragraph on page 15 in “Innocence”. Anne referred to Kristallnacht in her diary (see entry from Saturday 20 June, 1942). Perform a class reading of the dramatization of Kristallnacht on pages 57-62 in “Innocence”. Let kids react to reading after it is done. (30 min)

5. Ask kids if the governments of the US and of other “free” countries around the world (1) knew what was going on in Germany and (2) were willing to help. Explain about the meeting in Evian, France (info on page 15 in “Innocence”) and have kids read countries response to meeting on pages 55 and 56 explaining that these words are close to the actual responses of the people at the conference. (10 min)

6. Pass out homework for next week and review instructions.

Go to the Top of the Page

Week 3

1. Take attendance, collect homework, return last week’s homework, and review the homework. (5 min)

2. Explain that today we are going to watch the first portion of the movie “The Diary of Anne Frank”. Explain name pronunciation (Crawler, Anna, Frawnk, Pater, Margot, etc.). Also explain that the movie is based on the play which is based on the Diary, so this is pretty far away from the original. Stop during for whatever comments are appropriate. Watch for 25 minutes. (30 min)

3. Discuss videotape adaptation of story with students. Let them discuss differences between movie and text (Margot and Peter interested in each other, Anne gets diary while in hiding, hiding above a spice factory, etc.). Ask if students like adaptation of movie (corny music, black and white, etc.). (10 min)

4. Discuss Anne’s relationship with her mother. Do students feel it is a productive, healthy relationship. What did the movie seem to indicate? (5 min)

5. If time read first two scenes from the play (“The Diary of Anne Frank”) to give another adaptation of the story (assign people to play characters and change them around!). Discuss with students the differences between the play and the movie. (10 min)

6. Pass out homework for next week. Review instructions with students.

Go to the Top of the Page

Week 4

1. Take attendance, collect homework, return last week’s homework, and review the homework. (5 min)

2. Discuss importance of Hanukkah in life of the Frank family. Was it an important part of their life? Using text from the diary as back up, discuss St. Nicholas day; why did Frank family celebrate both and which did they consider more important? Read pages from “The Critical Edition” (pages 424-426) to give a more complete idea of St. Nicholas poems. Pass out Act I, Scene 5 from play. Assign parts to students and read the scene aloud. (15 min)

3. Discuss scene from the play. Why is it so religious? Inform students that had the original version written for the play been produced it would have been more Jewish (Orthodox Jewish, that is!). Have students discuss how they feel regarding dilemma: inform audiences about Judaism and Jewish practice; or present accurate story which says that no matter how religious or non-religious one was, one could not escape persecution. (5 min)

4. Watch “Dear Kitty” and discuss film. (30 min)

5. Announce homework for next week. (5 min)

Go to the Top of the Page

Week 5

1. Take attendance, return last week’s homework. (5 min)

2. Homework for the week was to read two sections of the diary (Wednesday, 5 January, 1944 [p. 115-117], and Sunday, 16 April, 1944 [pp. 189-90]). Discuss the students responses to these sections. Why do they feel the way they do. These were originally left out of the diary when printed. Do the kids understand why? Do they think these sections should have been left out of the diary? (15 min)

3. Discuss Kinsey’s study of human sexuality in which he discusses the ratio of human sexual preference in the context of what we just read in Anne Frank’s diary. Good source for Kinsey information can be found in p. 142 of “Loving Someone Gay” and p. 370 of “Any Other Name”. (PLEASE NOTE: the objective of this discussion is to relate to the kids that these passages from the diary show us a more complete Anne, and that just because she had these experiences she is no more or less “normal” than they are. If you as a teacher feel uncomfortable with this section, you should not teach it!!!) (15 min)

4. Ask kids if any Jews fought back during the Holocaust. Pass out sheet from “End of the Innocence” (page 77-78) and have kids read it. Then discuss. (10 min)

5. Watch “The Anne Frank Ballet” for 7 min. After the section is over talk with kids about comments (music is Jewish music, etc). (10 min)

6. Pass out homework for next week and review instructions. (5 min)

Go to the Top of the Page

Week 6

1. Take attendance, collect homework, return any past homework. (5 min)

2. Ask if people helped the Jews in countries where Nazis were in control. Obviously, yes, since Miep and Mr. Kraler helped the Franks. Using sheet from “End of the Innocence” (page 82-83), review how people helped. Talk about other times when people have helped each other in times of persecution (slaves smuggled into North in pre-Civil War U.S.A., etc.) If students were put into situations like these, would they help? When? In what conditions. (10 min)

3. Talk about homework assignment, and what came up with feelings about question #1. Have students discuss what it must feel like if they were in that kind of situation and how they would react. Pass out Act II Scenes 1 and 2 and have kids read the parts. After the reading, discuss the sense of despair and monotony and anger in the text, and also the sense of Anne’s relationship with Peter. (40 min)

3. Pass out homework for next week and review instructions with students. (5 min)

Go to the Top of the Page

Week 7

1. Take attendance, collect homework, return completed homework. (5 min)

2. In the section you just read for homework, Anne talks about her friend Lies several times. We first read about Lies early in the diary (reread entry from Monday, 15 June, 1942). Now Anne visualizes her several times. Read Saturday, 27 November, 1943 (p. 107), Wednesday, 29 December, 1943 (p. 113-114), and Thursday, 6 January, 1944 (p. 119). It is ironic that Anne sees Lies in such desperate circumstances. We will read later (in several weeks) that Anne and Lies did meet up again, in the concentration camps, and it was Lies who was able to help Anne. (10 min)

3. Anne Frank has had a great impact on people throughout history. Most recently, a young girl in Sarajevo wrote a diary of her experience living in war-torn Bosnia. We will read some of “Zlata’s Diary” now. Read excerpts from Zlata’s diary and discuss (especially March 30, 1992 and August 2, 1993). Does Zlata sound like Anne? Does Zlata draw her inspiration from Anne? (30 min)

4. Read first two paragraphs from Anne’s diary entry of July 9, 1942 (p. 14). Anne says that people were unwilling to help her family. Do we have a responsibility as a bystander to help? Read poem by Elie Wiesel from “The End of the Innocence” (p. 74), discuss, and examine our roles as bystanders today. Do we have a responsibility to help in Bosnia, Somalia, Haiti, etc. (15 min)

5. Pass out homework for next week, and review instructions. (5 min)

Go to the Top of the Page

Week 8

1. Take attendance, collect homework, return completed homework. (5 min)

2. In the section you read for homework, Anne complains about their food situation (Tuesday, 14 March, 1944, p. 155-157). Show chart showing food rations from “End of the Innocence” (page 79) to show how little food the Jews were receiving. The title “Jews” on this chart refers to registered Jews. Where were Jews in hiding getting their food? What does this mean for the people who were helping these Jews? (5 min)

3. We are now going to watch a section of a movie about the Anne Frank family from a different perspective, that of Miep Gies, the woman who helped hide them. Watch 40 minutes of “The Attic: the Hiding of Anne Frank.”

4. Compare this version of the story with the diary, and with the play/movie version of the diary. (5 min)

5. Pass out homework for next week, and review instructions. (5 min)

Go to the Top of the Page

Week 9

1. Take attendance, collect homework, return completed homework. (5 min)

2. Now we are going to read some more of the play. Pass out sheets for Act II Scenes III (c) V. Read and discuss. Now that they have read most of the play and most of the diary, which do they find more enjoyable? Which seems more factual? What are the differences? (50 min)

3. If the discussion doesn’t last the whole period, ask students to take out pencil and paper and ask them to do something creative regarding Anne Frank and/or the Holocaust (drawing, poem, prose).

4. Pass out homework for next week, and review instructions. (5 min)

Go to the Top of the Page

Week 10

1. Take attendance, collect homework, return completed homework. (5 min)

2. Was Anne’s diary the only diary which was written or published about the conditions of living through the Holocaust. Of course not; in fact, there were so many diaries about the Holocaust written by Jews so that there would never be a doubt about the actuality of the experience they faced. We are going to look at several now. The first was kept by a Rabbi who hid in a monastery; read p. 240-241 from “Fifty Years Ago: Revolt Amid the Darkness”. For the second, read pages 65-70 to read of living in a Ghetto (from “Revolt”). The third is from a person who lived for a while as a Sonderkommando in Auschwitz (read pages 133-134 from “Revolt”). Would you want to keep a record of such horrible things? Why did people feel a need to keep diaries? (20 min)

3. Some people expressed themselves through poetry. Read poems from “Revolt” written by the children of Terezin (pp. 291-292). Discuss. (10 min)

Go to the Top of the Page

Week 11

1. Take attendance, collect homework, return completed homework. (5 min)

2. Today we are going to concentrate on the arrest of the Franks. Summarize information from “Critical Editionf pages 21-26, or — alternatively — have students read it. State that this is the only record we have of what actually happened when the Franks were arrested. Point out timeline of the final days of those in the Attic, pp. 92-3 of “Innocence”. (30 min)

3. We are now going to read what the transport to Auschwitz was like. Read page 85 from “Innocence”, section on transport. (5 min)

4. Now we will discuss what life was like in the camp where Anne was originally sent (September 5). Read the rest of page 85. (10 min)

5. Now we will read from people who actually spent time with Anne in the last couple of months at the Concentration camp she was transferred to. (read page 27-29 of “The Last Seven Months of Anne Frank” testimony from Lies Goosens, childhood friend of Anne’s; 103-105 person who was in Bergen-Belsen as well). If time, read poems from “End of The Innocence” pages 86-87 as closing piece. (10 min)

6. Announce no more homework for the rest of the course as there is no more record of Anne’s diary to comment on.

Go to the Top of the Page

Week 12

1. Take attendance, return completed homework. (5 min)

2. Discuss the betrayal of the Frank family. Who was it that betrayed them? Van Maaren? Follow the discussion from the “Critical Edition” for guidance. (pp. 28-46) Also discuss the claims of forgery of the Frank diary. Discuss the test of authenticity that was done (pp. 84-65). (15 min)

3. Read and discuss the paragraphs and questions on pages 40-41 of “End of the Innocence”. Let students reflect and have a chance to share their own opinion. (35 min)

Go to the Top of the Page

Homework and Questions for the Curriculum

The Truth About Anne Frank
Due: Week 2

Teacher: _____________

Name: __________________________________

For this class, you need to purchase a copy of Anne Frank’s “The Diary of a Young Girl” ($4.50 in paperback, 258 pages) at your local bookstore. Once you have the book, please read the diary entries from June 14, 1942 through July 11, 1942 (Preface, Introduction, and pages 1-19). After reading, please answer the following questions:

1. Name five things that you didn’t know before about Anne Frank that you found in the reading.

2. The diary was written by Anne Frank almost exactly 50 years ago. If Anne Frank had survived, she would have been 63 years old right now. Does Anne Frank’s language sound”old” to you or does she write like a “regular” teenager would today?
Give an example to defend your answer.

3. Pretend you were given a diary for YOUR BIRTHDAY PRESENT. Write your first entry in it below describing your day (please write at least six sentences — remember Anne’s first diary entry was 13 sentences long!)
The Truth About Anne Frank
Due: Week 3

Teacher: _____________

Name: __________________________________

Read from August 14, 1942 to October 29, 1942 (pages 19 through 38) in “The Diary of a Young Girl”. After reading, please answer the following question:

1. Name 5 things you didn’t know before about Anne Frank that you found in the reading.

2. What do you get from the text about Anne’s opinion of her mother, her father (Pim), and Mrs. Van Daan? Back up your thoughts with specific examples or quotes from the text.

The Truth About Anne Frank
Due: Week 4

Teacher: _____________

Name: __________________________________

1. Please read the Diary entries for the following days: Monday, 7 December, 1942 (pp. 51-52), Wednesday, 3 November, 1943 (p. 102), and Monday, 6 December, 1943 (pp. 108-109). Does the fact that the Frank family celebrate St. Nicholas Day and Hanukkah surprise you?

Why or why not?

2. Please read from Saturday, 7 November, 1942 to Wednesday, 13 January, 1943 (pages 39-58). Does Anne seem depressed to you in these pages?

Why?

Try to imagine what life would be like living inside for, so far, over 6 months. Would living in hiding depress you?

Why?

3. If you had to live in hiding, and could not make a sound from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. everyday (except Sunday), and had no electronic toys to entertain yourself, what would you do? Make up a daily schedule from one of your days by filling out the time blocks below.

MY DAY — WEDNESDAY

9:00 am

10:00 am

11:00 am

12:00 noon

1:00 pm

2:00 pm

3:00 pm

4:00 pm

5:00 pm

6:00 pm

The Truth About Anne Frank
Due: Week 5

Teacher: _____________

Name: __________________________________

Please read the diary entries from Wednesday, 5 January, 1944 (p. 115-117), and Sunday, 16 April, 1944 (pp. 189-190). These passages were removed from the diary when it was originally published, but they reveal important information about Anne. What is your feeling about these diary entries (YOUR ANSWERS ON THIS QUESTION WILL NOT BE SHARED IN CLASS!!!)?

Why do you feel this way?

The Truth About Anne Frank
Due: Week 6

Teacher: _____________

Name: __________________________________

Please read from Saturday, 30 January, 1943 to Monday, 9 August, 1943 (pp. 58-91) in “The Diary of a Young Girl”. After reading, please answer the following questions:

1. Have you ever had a friend spend the week or weekend over at your house? How have you felt after that weekend was over? Like you never wanted to see that person again since they “got on your nerves” during the weekend? Imagine, like Anne, you had to spend two years of your life in hiding with seven other people. How would it make you feel?

How does it make Anne feel? Support your answer with the text.

2. Two weeks ago you filled out a schedule for me as to what your daily activities would be if you had to live in hiding. In Anne’s diary entries from Wednesday, 4 August, 1943 through Monday, 9 August, 1943 (pp. 86-91), she describes her”average” day in hiding. How would you feel if you had to live on a schedule like that?
The Truth About Anne Frank
Due: Week 7

Teacher: _______________

Name: ____________________________________

Please read from Tuesday, 10 August, 1943 to Wednesday, 16 February, 1944 (pp. 92-140) in “The Diary of a Young Girl”. After reading, please answer the following questions:

1. On Thursday, 6 January, 1944, Anne says “Whatever you do, don’t think I’m in love with Peter — not a bit of it!” (page 119). Do you think Anne is in love with Peter when she writes this or do you think she is not in love with Peter at this time.

Why do you feel that way?

2. In this section, the family hears hopeful rumors several times. What did these rumors involve?

Why do you think the Frank family was so hopeful about these rumors and wanted to believe them?

The Truth About Anne Frank
Due: Week 8

Teacher: _______________

Name: ____________________________________

Please read from Friday, 18 February, 1944 to Wednesday, 22 March, 1944 (pp. 140-67) in “The Diary of a Young Girl”. After reading, please answer the following questions:

1. On Tuesday, 7 March, 1944, Anne says “If I think of my life in 1942, it all seems so unreal. It was quite a different Anne who enjoyed that heavenly existence from the Anne who has grown wise within these walls” (page 151). Read the rest of this entry to see what she means. Now that you have read more than half of the diary, do you agree with Anne’s assessment? Is she changing? If so, how and in what ways? If not, what remains the same about her?

2. On Thursday, 16 March, 1994, Anne complains about having to share her room. She says that only in the attic, and with her diary can she be herself “…for a while just a little while” (p. 159). Do you have a place where you can be yourself “…for a while just a little while” Where is this place, and what makes it so special? Describe how you feel when you are all by yourself.

3. Read the letters that Margot and Anne write to each other about Peter (Monday, 20 March, 1994 and Wednesday, 22 March, 1944, pages 163-167). After reading these letters, how do you think Margot really feels about Peter?

How does Anne really feel about Peter?

The Truth About Anne Frank
Due: Week 9

Teacher: __________________

Name: ____________________________________

Please read from Thursday, 23 March, 1944 to Tuesday, 11 April, 1944 (pp. 167-187) in “The Diary of a Young Girl”. After reading, please answer the following questions:

1. In the diary entry from Thursday, 23 March, 1944, Anne writes how both Peter’s and her parents don’t understand them: “they seem to take us seriously, if we make a joke, and laugh at us when we are serious” (p. 168). Do your parents understand you? Give an example of a time when they did or didn’t understand what you were feeling.

2. On Tuesday, 4 April, 1944, Anne writes “I want to go on living after my death!” (p. 177) Do you believe that Anne Frank will be remembered forever as an example of a person who lived in the time of the Holocaust? Or will the memory of her fade as time goes on?

Why do you feel this way?

3. Read the Diary entry from Tuesday, April 11, 1944 (p. 179-187). Towards the end of this entry, Anne talks about the Jewish people. Do you agree with her views (as expressed in the paragraphs beginning “Who has inflicted….” and “Be brave….”)?

Why or why not?

The Truth About Anne Frank
Due: Week 10

Teacher: ______________

Name: ____________________________________

Please read from Friday, 14 April, 1944 to Thursday, 11 May, 1944 (pp. 187-210) in “The Diary of a Young Girl”. After reading, please answer the following questions:

1. In this section of the diary, the romance between Peter and Anne certainly seems to bloom (read Friday, 28 April, 1944 and Tuesday, 2 May, 1944 (c) pages 195-200). What impact do you think the war (and living in hiding) had on the blooming of their relationship?

Do you think Peter really is as fond of Anne as she think he is?

2. Read the diary entry from Wednesday, 3 May, 1944 (pp. 200-202). Anne discusses that she feels that “There’s in people simply an urge to destroy…” Do you agree with her statement about the essential evil in people?

In your opinion, what will it take for humankind to cure itself of the urge for war, murder, and rage? Or are we doomed to always repeat the cycle of war and peace?

In the entry from Saturday, 15 July, 1944 Anne seems to contradict herself by saying that “…in spite of everything I still believe that people are really good at heart” (p. 237) Can someone believe in the basic evil and good of humanity? How do you explain her belief in both of these things?

The Truth About Anne Frank
Due: Week 11

Teacher: _________________

Name: _________________________________

Please read from Saturday, 13 May, 1944 to Tuesday, 1 August, 1944 (pp. 210-241) in “The Diary of a Young Girl”. After reading, please answer the following questions:

1. On Friday, 26 January, 1944, Anne writes a paragraph that begins with the words “Again and again I ask myself…” (page 218). Read this paragraph. How do you think Anne was feeling when writing this paragraph?

Why do you think she felt that way?

Now read the diary entry four days later (Tuesday, 6 June, 1944, pp. 219-221). Describe what you think Anne was feeling when writing this entry.

Why do you think she felt that way?

2. Now that you have read most of the Diary, how do you think Anne, a typical teenager of the time, reacted to the nontypical situation of the Holocaust? Was Anne an eternal optimist, did she hope for what would never occur? Or did she realize that she would never survive the war? Give me your feelings about Anne and the Diary in several sentences below.

Go to the Top of the Page

Suggested Bibliography

Materials Contained in the Lesson Plan:

The Anne Frank Ballet (video). Choreographed by Adam Darius. Producer Piers Hartley / Kulter. 1986.

The Attic: The Hiding of Anne Frank (made for television movie). By William Hanley. With Mary Steenburgen, Paul Scofield, and Lisa Jacobs. Lifetime. Aired 24 Aug. 1993 (original air date 1988).

Clark, Don, Ph.D. Loving Someone Gay. Berkeley, CA: Celestial Arts, 1987.

Dear Kitty (documentary). Producer Wouter van der Sluis. Anne Frank Center, 106 East 19th Street, New York, NY 10003; (212) 529-9532

The Diary of Anne Frank (movie). Director George Stevens. 20th Century Fox, 1959.

Filipovic, Zlata. Zlata’s Diary: A Child’s Life in Sarajevo. New York: Viking, 1994.

Frank, Anne. The Diary of Anne Frank: The Critical Edition, prepared by the Netherlands State Institute for War Documentation. New York: Doubleday, 1989.

Frank, Anne. The Diary of A Young Girl. New York: Pocket Books, 1972 (or any later edition).

Goodrich, Frances and Albert Hackett. The Diary of Anne Frank (play). New York: Random House, 1956.

Hutchins, Loraine and Lani Kaahumanu, eds. Any Other Name: Bisexual People Speak Out. Boston: Alyson Publications, 1991.

Lindwer, Willy. The Last Seven Months of Anne Frank (a collection of oral interviews). New York: Anchor Books (Doubleday), 1992.

Shawn, Karen. The End of the Innocence: Anne Frank and the Holocaust. New York: International Center for Holocaust Studies, Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, 1989.

United States Holocaust Memorial Council. Fifty Years Ago: Revolt Amid the Darkness. Washington, DC: United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, 1993.

Other Reference Materials:

Abels, Chana Byers. The Children We Remember: Photographs from the Archives of Yad Vashem. The Holocaust Martyrs’ and Heroes’ Remembrance Authority, Jerusalem, Israel. New York: Greenwillow Books, 1986.

Anne Frank Stichting. Anne Frank in the World, Nel Mondo 1929

guerra mafias y narco en México.Informe Equipo Bourbaki

http://issuu.com/mxlapazmx/docs/informebourbaki/24

Sitio del blog del equipo Bourbaki sobre guerra narco y mafias en México http://www.equipobourbaki.blogspot.com/

Materialismo vs Idealismo: Gustavo Bueno sobre la Guerra la Democracia y la Paz,vs tesis Otero Novas


Gustavo Bueno publica en el número 116 de la revista El Catoblepas(octubre de 2011) un artículo que lleva el títutlo Paz,Democracia y Razón
El contendido de dicho artículo consiste en la reconstrucción de la presentación que hizo Bueno del libro Mitos del pensamiento dominante,de José Manuel Otero Novas en acto celebrado en la Universidad San Pablo de Madrid

Sirva como aproximación a la temática la nota periodística – la ponemos a continuación – en forma de brevísimo resumen de las tesis de Bueno en la presentación,las cuales se oponen a tesis centrales sostenidas por Otero Novas en su libro, oposiones que tienen su fundamento en las diferencias esenciales entre materialismo e idealismo en sus respectivas implantaciones políticas y desde luego en sus respectivas implantaciones gnoseológicas

Madrid, Módem Press fuente http://www.lne.es/sociedad-cultura/2011/10/14/bueno-guerra-ver-haber-estados-habia-guerras/1142504.html Diario La Nueva España(Oviedo,Asturias.España)

«La guerra es un mal, el mayor que el hombre puede encontrar, pero tiene virtudes. A veces libera a los pueblos y hombres de la opresión y, nos guste o no, es uno de los principales factores que propician el progreso del hombre». Ésta es una de las afirmaciones que José Manuel Otero Novas, ex ministro de la Presidencia y de Educación en tiempos de la UCD y actual presidente del Instituto de Estudios de la Democracia de la Universidad CEU San Pablo, vierte en su obra «Mitos del pensamiento dominante. Paz, democracia y razón», que, editada por Libros Libres fue presentada ayer en Madrid.

Gustavo Bueno, que actuó de presentador, alabó el libro de un José Manuel Otero Novas con el que dijo estar «de acuerdo en casi todo lo fundamental, pero en total desacuerdo en los principios». «Yo parto», dijo el filósofo asturiano, «del materialismo histórico y Otero Novas del espiritualismo, no podemos estar más en las antípodas en nuestros principios». Bueno se centró en el valor de la paz, y su contrario la guerra, para asegurar que el origen de ésta es «el Estado». «La guerra tiene que ver con el Estado. Antes de haber estados no había guerras», aseguró. Bueno, igualmente, afirmó: «No hay guerras justas o injustas, sino prudentes, imprudentes, ofensivas o defensivas».

Otero Novas refuta el mito según el cual las sociedades occidentales han alcanzado un estado permanente de paz, democracia y razón. Considera Otero Novas que ninguna de las tres está asegurada y advierte de que existen realidades que no sólo las amenazan, sino que, efectivamente, ya las están debilitando o desvirtuando. Así, por ejemplo, Otero Novas observa tendencias belicistas en Europa y analiza cómo la crisis económica puede ser el germen de tensiones que desemboquen en un conflicto de gran dimensión, estableciendo un paralelismo con la crisis de 1929.

El libro trata también cuestiones como el peligro que conlleva la desintegración de las naciones; los desafíos que subyacen tras las migraciones masivas; la amenaza del terrorismo yihadista o la degradación de los sistemas democráticos occidentales como consecuencia del bipartidismo o de la supeditación de la política a la economía.

«Los pueblos normalmente mitifican sus tendencias del momento, que en el actual son la paz, la democracia y la razón», afirma Otero Novas, «pero los contenidos democráticos de los sistemas políticos hoy vigentes en Occidente pueden tener de democráticos un 20% y un 80% de caudillismo y oligarquía. Vivimos en un régimen mixto que puede ser bueno y por eso lo recomendaba Aristóteles, pero se engaña al pueblo cuando se le dice que es él quien decide. El pueblo no decide, o decide muy poquito», sentenció.

Los ex ministros Marcelino Oreja y Fernando Suárez asistieron al acto, que llenó el auditorio de la Universidad de Economía de la Universidad San Pablo CEU.

Concepto de judeidad o yiddish.Materiales para un análisis desde el Materialismo Filosófico


http://www.matterhorntravel.com/Worlds_of_Yiddishland.html

A quien pudiera parecerle que esta u otras de las recomendaciones de sitios y materiales que hacemos en introfilosofía son materiales de Historia, una breve aclaración: entendemos la Filosofía como un saber de segundo grado, en el sentido del Materialismo Filosófico: Filosofía como saber de «segundo grado»

El saber filosófico no es un saber doxográfico, un saber pretérito, un saber acerca de las obras de Platón, de Aristóteles, de Hegel o de Husserl [11]. Es un saber acerca del presente y desde el presente [12]. La filosofía es un saber de segundo grado, que presupone, por tanto, otros saberes previos, «de primer grado» (saberes técnicos, políticos, matemáticos, biológicos…). La filosofía, en su sentido estricto, no es «la madre de las ciencias»; la filosofía presupone un estado de las ciencias y de las técnicas suficientemente maduro para que pueda comenzar a constituirse como disciplina definida. Por ello las Ideas de las que se ocupa la filosofía, ideas que brotan precisamente de la confrontación de los más diversos conceptos técnicos, políticos o científicos, a partir de un cierto grado de desarrollo, son más abundantes a medida que se produce ese desarrollo [152].

Como saber de segundo grado la filosofía no se asignará a un campo categorial cerrado, como el de las Matemáticas o el de la Física. Pues el «campo de la filosofía» está dado en función de los otros, de sus analogías o de sus contradicciones. Y las líneas identificables que las analogías o las contradicciones entre las ciencias y otros contenidos de la cultura perfilan, las llamamos Ideas. En función de esta concepción de la filosofía, la metáfora fundacional expuesta en el Teeteto platónico, en virtud de la cual la filosofía es presentada como mayeutica, puede comenzar a interpretarse en un sentido objetivo y no sólo en el sentido subjetivo (pragmático pedagógico) tradicional. «El oficio de comadrón, tal como yo lo ejerzo (dice Sócrates) se parece al de las comadronas pero difiere de él… en que preside el momento de dar a luz, no los cuerpos, sino las Ideas… Dios ha dispuesto que sea mi deber ayudar a dar a luz a los demás y al mismo tiempo me prohibe producir nada por mí mismo…» Aplicaremos estas analogías no tanto a los individuos (necesitados de «ayuda pedagógica» para «dar a luz» sus pensamientos) sino a las propias técnicas y ciencias que en sus propios dominios (en sus categorías) tallan conceptos rigurosos de los cuales podrán desprenderse las Ideas.

La filosofía se nos muestra entonces no ya tanto como una actividad orientada a contemplar un mundo distinto del mundo real conceptualizado (en nuestro presente, en todas sus partes, está conceptualizado por la técnica o por la ciencia, porque no quedan propiamente «tierras vírgenes» de conceptos) sino a desprender las Ideas de los conceptos pues ella no puede engendrar Ideas que no broten de conceptos categoriales o tecnológicos. Y, sin embargo, los conceptos «preñados de Ideas» necesitan de la ayuda de un arte característico para darlas a luz y este arte es la filosofía. Evitaremos, de este modo, esas fórmulas utópicas que pretenden definir la filosofía a través de conceptos, en el fondo, psicológicos, tales como «filosofía es el amor al saber», o la «investigación de las causas primeras», o el «planteamiento de los interrogantes de la existencia». En su lugar, diremos: filosofía es «enfrentamiento con las Ideas y con las relaciones sistemáticas entre las mismas». Pero sin necesidad de suponer que las Ideas constituyen un mundo organizado, compacto. Las ideas son de muy diversos rangos, aparecen en tiempo y niveles diferentes; tampoco están desligadas enteramente, ni entrelazadas todas con todas (la idea de Dios no es una idea eterna, sino que aparece en una fecha más o menos determinada de la historia; la idea de Progreso o la idea de Cultura tampoco son ideas eternas: son ideas modernas, con no más de un par de siglos de vida). Su ritmo de transformación suele ser más lento que el ritmo de transformación de las realidades científicas, políticas o culturales de las que surgieron; pero no cabe sustantivarlas.

«La filosofía», por tanto, no tiene un contenido susceptible de ser explotado o descubierto en sí mismo y por sí mismo, ni siquiera de ser «creado», por analogía a lo que se conoce como «creación musical»: la filosofía está sólo en función de las realidades del presente, es actividad «de segundo grado» y no tiene mayor sentido, por tanto, buscar una «filosofía auténtica» como si pudiera ésta encontrarse en algún lugar determinado. Lo que ocurre es que, por ejemplo, nos hemos encontrado con las contradicciones entre una ley física y una ley matemática: «no busco ‘la filosofía’ -tendría que decir- sino que me encuentro ante contradicciones entre ideas o situaciones; y, desde aquí, lo que busco son los mecanismos según los cuales se ha producido esa contradicción, sus analogías con otras, &c.»; y a este proceso llamamos filosofía.

Ahora bien, la respuesta a la pregunta ¿qué es la filosofía? sólo puede llevarse a efecto impugnando otras respuestas que, junto con la propuesta, constituya un sistema de respuestas posibles; porque el saber filosófico es siempre (y en esto se parece al saber político) un saber contra alguien, un saber dibujado frente a otros pretendidos saberes. {QF2 13-14, 45-47}

Chomsky, conferencia 1995 Prospectos para el Orden Mundial


enlace al video http://osulibrary.oregonstate.edu/specialcollections/events/1995chomsky/video-s1-1-chomsky.html

Transcrición de la conferencia:
1:08:27 – Abstract | Biography

Transcript

Kay Schaeffer: We have brought speakers of international reputation to campus to deliver an annual message of world peace. The lectureship was originally established by the College of Liberal Arts and OSU with the permission of Linus Pauling, the only recipient of two unshared Nobel Peace Prizes, to honor the memory of his wife Ava Helen who was herself an advocate of world peace. It was renamed last year to include Linus Pauling after his death. Both Paulings attended OSU, and so their legacy is special for Oregon State Students. Speakers in this distinguished lectureship have included such prominent leaders for world peace as Linus Pauling himself, who was the very first speaker in the series. Others have included Helen Caldicott, John Kenneth Galbraith, Mark Hatfield, William Sloane Coffin and Arun Gandhi to name a few. Not only was Linus Pauling the first speaker he also donated very generously to help fund this lecture series. Now, continuation of these lectures will depend on contributions from people like you in this audience and those of you at home who are watching on OSU cable TV. Please send contributions, payable to the Pauling Lectureship, OSU Foundation, to the College of Liberal Arts, OSU, Corvallis, Oregon 97331, or please call the College of Liberal Arts if you would like further information. Your contributions are tax-deductible and they will be used to continue this outstanding lecture series.

It’s interesting and appropriate that today is also United Nations Day. This year marks the 50th anniversary of the founding of the U.N., and as you may know, Linus Pauling’s work for peace was closely associated with the work of the United Nations. This year’s speaker for the Pauling Memorial Lecture is Noam Chomsky, Professor of Linguistics and Philosophy, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Professor Chomsky is an outspoken activist, an advocate for justice and world peace. His clinical analysis of modern culture and policy always provokes debate about how to promote peace and human progress. I have no doubt, therefore, that Noam Chomsky’s lecture this evening promises to stimulate discussions among OSU students and others about central issues of world peace.

Professor Chomsky received his Ph. D. in linguistics from the University of Pennsylvania in 1955, after four years as a junior fellow at Harvard University. His dissertation was entitled Transformational Analysis, and contained the major theoretical view point which appeared in 1957 in the monograph Syntactic Structure and formed part of the more extensive work, The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory published in 1975. This important work resulted in major changes in the study of language and universal grammar. Professor Chomsky has written and lectured extensively on topics as diverse as knowledge of language, the culture of terrorism, “Rethinking Camelot – JFK and the Vietnam War,” and US political culture. He has delivered the John Locke Lectures at Oxford, the Bertrand Russell Memorial Lecture at Cambridge and the Nehru lecture in New Delhi, to name just a few. He has received honorary degrees from numerous colleges and universities. He is a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and the National Academy of Science and he is a recipient of the distinguished Scientific Contribution Award of the American Psychological Association. The title of his lecture tonight is the “Prospects for World Order.” Please welcome the 1995 Pauling Memorial Lecturer, Noam Chomsky. [4:42]

Noam Chomsky: It is, needless to say, an honor and a privilege to be invited to speak in the Pauling Lecture Series, and a particular privilege to be able to do so today, on the 50th anniversary of the founding of the United Nations. As the contours of a new world order were being constructed from the ashes of the most terrible single catastrophe of human history, there were conflicting visions at the time, of what the new world order of the day should be – and they’re still highly relevant. One view was that of the United Nations, which is now possibly facing its demise. The second was a view sometimes called Realism in international relations theory, which was critical of the utopianism that accompanied the founding of the United Nations. The Realist vision was articulated with great clarity fifty years ago by one of the most respected and important statesmen of the twentieth century, Winston Churchill, who was speaking for the victors, one of the big three. He explained, I’m quoting him now, “the government of the world must be entrusted to the satisfied nations who wish nothing more for themselves than what they have. Our power placed us above the rest. We are like rich men dwelling in peace within their habitations and we must keep the hungry nations under control or else there will be danger.” [6:59]

Earlier in the century at the peak of British power, before World War One, Churchill had outlined this Realistic vision more fully, this time in secret in British cabinet meetings. (Records of which have recently been released after quite a few years — apparently considered rather sensitive.) He said, “We are not a young people with an innocent record and a scanty inheritance, we have engrossed to ourselves an altogether disproportionate share of the wealth and traffic of the world. We have got all we want in territory, but our claim to be left in the unmolested enjoyment of vast and splendid possessions, mainly acquired by violence, largely maintained by force, often seems less reasonable to others than to us.” So, we have to teach them regular lessons in reasonableness, this was part of a call for expanding the military budget. I should say that a sanitized version of that did appear in his writings but with a very different tone. It would be only fair to add that the more humane among the conquerors didn’t find those measures so reasonable. For example, Adam Smith, who bitterly condemned what he called the savage injustice of the Europeans, who he saw very clearly two hundred years ago were brutally creating the First World/Third World divide that is now so dramatic, and was far less so at the time. Well, Adam Smith was a figure of the enlightenment, pre-capitalist, anti-capitalist in fundamental ways. He was also smart enough to detect the fundamental illusions of the Realist picture that Churchill so eloquently articulated. The first is that, contrary to the Churchillian version, the rich man enjoying their ample habitations are never satisfied, rather they will follow what Adam Smith called the vile maxim of the masters of mankind, “all for ourselves and nothing for anyone else.” The second and more crucial point is that the “we,” who are enjoying their vast and splendid possessions, were not the people of England, nor France, nor the United States, nor other imperial powers except occasionally by accident. Rather, continuing in his words, “the principle architects of state policy design it to ensure that their own interests are most peculiarly attended to, however grievous the impact on others, including the people of their own country.” [10:03]

That’s a very valid comment. In his day the principle architects were the merchants and manufacturers of England, as he explained. Today, it’s that huge transnational corporations and financial institutions that dominate the domestic economy, and in fact the international economy and hence its politics as well. To correct the Realist vision with Adam Smith’s insights, it comes out like this, “the rich man of the rich societies will pursue their vile maxim, seeking to expand their vast and splendid possessions that they have gained by violence and hold by force, resorting to savage injustice when necessary. Those who do not will simply fall by the way side. The lot of the vast majority of people, including those of their own countries, is simply to serve and suffer.” Well, that’s the Realist vision. The other vision of world order, the competing one fifty years ago, was the vision of the United Nations, or at least the rhetoric that accompanied its founding, which I won’t review because you’re engulfed in a flood of such pronouncements and it is unnecessary to repeat them. As to which of the conflicting visions prevailed, history has provided a rather clear and unflattering answer. Now there were, and are, of course, plenty of people deeply committed to the rhetoric of the vision that accompanied the United Nations then and now and who sought to make it more than mere rhetoric. That includes, I suppose, the vast majority of the population of the world, which is why reality has to be masked in so much secrecy and deceit. It’s why the occasional honest comment, such as Churchill’s before the first world war, has to be concealed from the population for almost a century, in this case; and I think it will be a long time before they study it in British schools. Those who wanted to make the reality closer to the rhetoric included also prominent individuals – Linus and Ava Helen Pauling ranking high among them. But real power has always resided elsewhere. [12:35]

Well, in the United States attitudes toward the United Nations have oscillated over the years from great praise to utter contempt, I’ll return to that at the end, suggesting a rather simple Realist principle that I think accounts for the variations. But first, let’s look at the failures and flaws of the United Nations that have caused these changes in attitudes towards it. There is a standard version of this, it runs sort of like this: at the beginning there were great hopes, they were dashed by the Cold War. When the Cold War ended around 1989-1990, there was a period of hopefulness and then the hopes were dashed again by the ethnic conflicts that swept the world since. Here are some representative quotes from the most interesting period, 1990, right after the end of the Cold War and before the new catastrophes began. These are from the Washington Post, New York Times and leading columnists and editorialists, but they’re perfectly standard, I’ve actually reviewed a lot of them in print and this is a completely exceptionalist pattern. So, here’s a few: “during the long Cold War years the Soviet veto and the hostility of many Third World nations, made the United Nations an object of scorn to many Americans who were rightly appalled by the sight of grim-faced Soviet ambassadors casting vetoes and shrill anti-western rhetoric from Third World nations.” Although with the end of the Cold War 1988-89, Soviet policy changed bringing about a wondrous sea change in the United Nations, which can finally work the way it was designed to. Well, that’s the picture as of 1990 and then comes the disillusionment, the era of ethnic conflict replaced the Cold War and the U.N. again failed to deal with them, so maybe the time has come to bid it farewell. That’s the capsule form, the story. [14:58]

What I’d like to do now is to look at these two eras, the Cold War and the ethnic conflicts and compare the vision with the reality and also ask what role the U.N. played in this. So, let’s take the Cold War. Well again there is a standard version, I don’t have to waste much time on it, heard it over and over. It was, for example, articulated by President Kennedy who proclaimed that the communist world from Havana to Moscow to Peiping as it was in those days, to Saigon and so on, is a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy planning to take over everything else. His right-hand man, Robert McNamara, announced in his confirmation hearings that Soviet aggression has no historical parallel: its goal is total obliteration, without any hint of moral restraint anywhere to be found in the entire literature of Marxism and so on; that’s the standard version. There is a more sober version of that for example it’s given in scholarship. The most respected American diplomatic historian and is also a major historian of the Cold War, John Lewis Gaddis, he pretty much accepts what’s called the orthodox position, post-revisionist position it’s often called, realistically he traces the Cold War to 1917, agreeing with George Kennan and others. As you know after the Bolshevik takeover in 1917, there was a Western invasion and Gaddis explains the immediate Western invasion as defensive. On the side I should say that this invasion was taken rather seriously. For example, Britain used poison gas, which is the ultimate atrocity in those days, like nuclear weapons after World War II. Usually poison gas in those days was reserved for those who were called recalcitrant Arabs or uncivilized tribes men, among whom it would spread a lively terror. Again quoting Winston Churchill in documents released about fifteen years ago and yet to enter popular consciousness, also worth reading. Well, why was the Western invasion defensive according to Gaddis? Because it was a preemptive strike he explains. It was taken to ward off any potential Soviet actions, in his words, “It was a response to a potentially far reaching intervention by the new Soviet government in the internal affairs, not just of the West, but of virtually every country in the world, namely, the revolution’s challenge to the very survival of the capitalist system.” So, it’s a preemptive strike and therefore justified. [18:10]

What was the challenge? Well, the challenge was obviously not military conquests, certainly not at that time and in fact not at anytime he argues, agreeing with most serious scholarship and in fact with the internal documents. Rather, the potential challenge that was going to come, that justified the defensive invasion, was the demonstration effect of an alternative social development model. That might have appeal in the traditional service areas of the South but even among working people and the poor and the industrial societies themselves. That was a prospect that very much concerned Lloyd George, Woodrow Wilson, his Secretary of State Robert Lansing and many others. Indeed, that remains the primary concern as far as the documentary record reaches which right now is into the 1960s, right through, that’s the primary concern over the Soviet challenge. For example, when John F. Kennedy and Prime Minister McMillan of England were discussing the Soviet Challenge in the early ’60s that was precisely their concern. It wasn’t just the Soviet Union, the same concerns were voiced with regard to China, Vietnam and many others. In short it was the perceived success of the so called communist model, with nothing to do with communism, but that’s what it’s called. It’s the perceived success of the communist model that was considered the threat and that’s pretty understandable when you look at the situation and the comparable Western domains. I should add that Stalin’s awesome crimes were, of course, well-known but almost totally irrelevant to these calculations. Truman for example, liked and admired Stalin, thought he was honest, said what happened inside the Soviet Union he didn’t care about, he thought it would be a disaster if anything happened to the great man, and his great friend, and said that he could get along fine with Stalin as long as the United States got its way eighty-five percent of the time. Churchill took the same view. (In internal records of course.) As late as early 1945, after Yalta that is, Churchill in internal cabinet records was defending Stalin as honest and trustworthy, he admired him. He spoke in fact very glowingly of him in private meetings. The fact that he was a mass murderer was known, but not relevant. In this respect Stalin falls into a pretty traditional pattern, he falls into a long line of monsters and gangsters including Suharto, who will be visiting in a week or so, Trujillo, Saddam Hussein and a host of other killers and torturers, including that man President Roosevelt called ‘that admirable Italian gentleman’ who had brought fascism to Italy, and even including Hitler well into the late 1930s. [21:22]

The crimes are an irrelevance. What’s problematic is not following orders, that we don’t get our way eighty-five percent of the time or more. History is very clear on that. A few years before the Kennedy-McMillan exchanges that I just mentioned, President Eisenhower and John Foster Dulles, Secretary of State, had highlighted the central issues in private internal discussions that have recently been declassified. They were lamenting the ability of the communists, so-called, to appeal directly to the masses and gain control of mass movement, something we have no capacity to duplicate because the poor people are the ones they appeal to and they have always wanted to plunder the rich, the big problem of world history. And as Eisenhower and Dulles and many others recognized their own position on who should plunder whom, was a pretty hard sell, so the opposition had a kind of an unfair advantage and they were trying to figure out how to deal with this. Well, I am only sampling a rich record which suggests a rather different perspective on the Cold War. That perspective happens to be reinforced quite powerfully I think when you look further, for example, at the quite rich and interesting record of declassified planning documents which stress forcefully and consistently that the major threat to U.S. interests “is radical nationalism that calls for improvement in the low-living standards of the masses and the development for domestic needs based on the principle that the first beneficiaries of the country’s resources should be the people of that country, not foreign investors, a conception that must be destroyed in all its forms,” as the State Department insisted in the Charter for the Americas that it imposed on the Western Hemisphere right in 1945 as the New World Order was being established. Those are the consistent themes that run through the whole record as they do for Britain before us, and though I haven’t looked, I imagine France and Belgium and anybody else you look at. [23:46]

There’s also a public record which is consistent with this. I’ve read some pretty dramatic examples of it. Take one example from a few years ago; you recall about ten years ago, the United States was engaged in what the World Court condemned as the unlawful use of force against Nicaragua. The World Court condemned the United States for its aggression against Nicaragua and it ordered it to desist from its crime as well as the unlawful economic warfare, and of course the U.S. dismissed the judgment without concern. And in fact, Congress voted right after it another $100 million to increase the unlawful use of force against Nicaragua. Well, at that time the selling point, what the Reagan administration used to sell Congress on a need to do this, was the announcement by the government of Nicaragua that they were conducting a revolution without borders, and that became the centerpiece of the U.S. propaganda campaign. It was all over the media, the journals, as I say, it induced Congress, “to step up the war.” The Sandinistas actually announced that they were going to conquer the world, in case you didn’t know it. They were going to carry out a revolution without borders. Well, that’s an interesting case; in fact, it was based on some reality as propaganda usually is. It was based on a speech by a Sandinista leader, Tomas Borje, in which he said “every country has to carry out its own revolution. We can’t interfere with anyone else, but we would like to construct the model that would work so well that others want to follow it.” So in that sense, he says that “our revolution transcends borders.” So in a certain sense, the U.S. propaganda was correct. Again, he was issuing a challenge to others that want to develop a model or follow, and that requires a defense response, namely international terrorism and aggression and terror and torture and so on because after all, we have to defend ourselves from that challenge. So there was something true about the fabrication. Incidentally, the fabrication was perfectly well-known. It was exposed instantly right in the mainstream in the Washington Post within days actually but nobody cared. It was just too useful. So therefore it continued to be reiterated as a Sandinista revolution without borders. It’s kind of an interesting fact about our own intellectual culture that this kind of thing can happen so easily and so often. [26:35]

Another point of view from which you can gain some perspective on the reality of the Cold War, I think, is to carry out the following test, which is indeed useful after any war. It is very interesting to ask after any war is over to ask who’s rejoicing and who’s unhappy. When you carry out that test, it often makes looks rather different than the way it was interpreted. It tells you a lot of what it was really about. So let’s look at the Cold War. Who’s rejoicing and who’s unhappy? Well, in the East, the people who are rejoicing are easy to find, that’s the old communist party leadership. They are rich beyond their wildest dreams, just delighted with everything that’s happened. Obviously, they are victors in the Cold War. They are now managers of the U.S. enterprises being set up there, sort of taking on the role of typical Third World elite – very rich, very powerful, working for the bosses somewhere else, and very well-off, so they are delighted. They are called the capitalist nomenklatura very often. That’s the old Communist party hacks who are now very powerful, very rich, very much beloved by the West so they are the victors. They won the Cold War. So who’s unhappy about the end of the Cold War in the East? Well, there are regular polls now taken by the West about the attitudes in Russia and so on. Western-run polls are pretty accurate. And one of the questions they ask regularly is “what do you think is the best period of Russian history?” The latest one that was taken, two-thirds said the pre-perestroika period, before Gorbachev, that was the best period, that’s up fifty percent in 1992. The optimism about the future has declined. That’s Russia, but the point is it’s rather general through the region. The people are delighted that the tyranny has collapsed but they are less than happy about returning to the third-word status that they had before so they are less than happy about the fact that since 1989, in Russia there has been about a half a million excess deaths resulting from the reforms according to a recent UNESCO study, which indeed approves the reforms but gives the figures. [29:10]

So there are people who won the war in the East and people who lost the war in the East. What about in the West? Well among the people who are rejoicing the end of the Cold War are Western business leaders, for example, the directors of General Motors and Daimler-Benz and Volkswagen and so on. And they’re delighted with reasons that are explained with great clarity in the international business press, for example, the British Financial Times which has been pointing out that the big gains out of the Cold War, a typical example is an article called “Green Shoots and Communism’s Ruins.” It’s all horrible over there but there’s something good, some green shoots. The green shoots are the effect of the capitalist reforms has been to cause tremendous impoverishment and unemployment so it is now possible for Western investors to get “highly trained, skilled, and educated workers for a fraction of the cost of the pampered Western workers,” I’m quoting, “who will have to abandon their luxurious lifestyles,” as Business Week added. So they’re delighted. On the other hand, who’s unhappy in the west? Well among the people who are unhappy are the pampered Western workers who are less than overjoyed about having to give up their luxurious lifestyles. Now that General Motors or Daimler-Benz cannot only threaten and in fact bring down their wages and benefits and increase their working hours and so on by moving or threatening to move to Mexico, but now also to Poland and Slovakia and so on, so they are less than excited. They lost the Cold War. Well, if you look at it this way, there are winners and there are losers. The winners are the Communist party leadership and the Western business leaders. The losers are the people in Eastern Europe and the people in the West. Actually, that’s not uncommon after wars. It relates to Adam Smith’s point about who the “we” are when you talk about “we.” Well that gives you another point of view on it. [31:23]

This alternative and I think more realistic perspective on the Cold war makes even more sense when you look at it from a broader historical perspective. The differentiation of East and Western Europe goes back to the fifteenth century. The last time they looked alike was in the fifteen century. At that point, Western Europe was beginning to develop and Eastern Europe was beginning to turn into its service area. Its Third World, as we would call it now, providing resources, raw materials, cheap labor and investment opportunities and markets and so on. That was beginning around the fifteenth century actually, pre-Columbus on a fault line incidentally that kind of runs through Germany. And that difference continued to deepen right into this century. So, say Russia was becoming relatively impoverished relative to the West, more and more up until the First World War, and for large parts of Eastern Europe, continued up to the Second World War. So the East-West relationship was a First World/Third World relationship, what’s called a North-South relationship these days, one of the euphemisms that’s used for the European conquest of the world. Now, the North-South conflict has a certain logic to it, the logic is that the South, the service areas or the Third World, they are to pursue only what’s called complementary development, complementary to the interests of Western power. They are not supposed to follow these bad ideas about development on the basis of the principle that the beneficiaries of the people’s resources should be the people of that country, got to knock that out of their heads. They are to follow a complementary development which supports the interests of the rich men and the rich societies – a Churchillian Realistic relic – and if they try to pursue a path of independent development, that has got to be stopped. It’s sometimes stopped by violence sometimes in other ways, but it’s got to be stopped. That’s the North-South conflict. [33:45]

There’s another part to it. If that independent development goes on and it begins to look successful, that is, if there is a demonstration effect, then they become what is called in the planning documents, “a rotten apple that might spoil the barrel,” or a virus that might infect others, and obviously you can’t allow a virus to spread so they’ve got to be eliminated. For example, Allende’s Chile was described by Henry Kissinger as a virus that might infect people all the way to Italy, not because Chile was going to conquer Rome but because it might send the wrong message to Italian voters, namely that social-democratic parliamentary procedures can succeed. That’s gotta be stopped so the government was overthrown and the Nazi regime was instituted and supported, and that’s very typical. And that’s very typical. So Problem one is independence, Problem two is the virus effect. That’s the basic logic of the North-South conflict. And if you think about the East-West conflict, a good part of it fits into that framework. There was a big piece of the Third World following a path to independence, and furthermore, it was becoming a virus. It was imposing that challenge that was so threatening from 1917 at least until the 1960’s for the reasons I’ve mentioned. Well, Russia’s not a typical piece of the Third World, it’s not like Grenada. It’s a sixth of the world, even when it was a deeply impoverished Third World country under the czar, it still had a big military force which frightened people and that was even more so in the twentieth century. So this particular aspect of the North-South conflict took on a life of its own and that’s called the Cold War. But basically, a lot of it falls into the traditional North-South framework, I think when you think it through from this point of view, which I think is the accurate one. I should also add that the aftermath of the Cold War is completely intelligible and indeed predictable in these terms. Most of the region is going back to where it was. So the parts that were part of the industrial West like the Czech Republic and Western Poland are again becoming like the Industrial West, and the parts that were deeply impoverished Third World countries are going back to that status; they look more and more like the Third World with the small wealthy elites, the old Communist party to a large extent, and the suffering and impoverishment mass of the population, typical wherever you go in Mexico, the South, Egypt, anywhere. [36:30]

Well, this position is reinforced, I think, when you look at the continuity of policy right through the whole period. So let’s take the period when the Cold War ended in 1989 – it certainly ended by the fall of the Berlin Wall in November 1989. And just look what happened since. We have a huge Pentagon system. So what happened to the Pentagon budget since the end of the Cold War? We needed this huge military system because we had to defend ourselves from the monolithic and ruthless conspiracy. Okay, the monolithic and ruthless conspiracy isn’t there, so what happened to the Pentagon system? The answer is the same. It’s actually higher in real terms rather under the Nixon right now by eighty-five percent after the Cold War average and going up. The current Congress is driving it up. So that obviously couldn’t be the reason. The reason we were told for fifty years can’t be the reason. Actually, there is a new official reason. The reason is now we have to defend ourselves from the technological sophistication of Third World powers. That’s literally the case. It’s not from the monolithic and ruthless conspiracy anymore and that has about as much plausibility as the other one so obviously it’s a different reason and it’s not very hard to figure out. [37:42]

What about other policies? Well, take say Cuba, on the front pages right now. For thirty years, we had to defend ourselves from Cuba. We had to carry out the world’s biggest international terrorist campaign and economic warfare and so on and so forth because we were defending ourselves from the monolithic and ruthless conspiracy. Okay, so the Berlin Wall falls, and we have no monolithic and ruthless conspiracy, so what do we do? We intensify the pressure against Cuba. We make the embargo tighter and now even more so. So something’s got to be wrong with that story. The first event that took place after the fall of the Berlin Wall was the U.S. invasion of Panama a few weeks later. Now that is so typical of an event that it barely merits a footnote in history. It’s the kind of thing that happens over and over. But there was a difference this time. For a long time, every such action was justified by defense against the monolithic and ruthless conspiracy. We had to defend ourselves from the Communists and their revolutions without borders and so on. They were gone, so this time we were defending ourselves from Hispanic narco-traffickers led by the arch-demon Noriega, who was in fact kidnapped, brought here, and tried for crimes that he committed while he was on the CIA payroll. A small point. But that was a difference but not a very significant difference. [39:18]

But at the time of the fall of the Berlin Wall, the United Nations was in session. That was their winter session. And there were indeed some Security Council vetoes, three. One Security Council veto was on Israel’s actions in the occupied territories, voted 14 to 1. The United States vetoed it. The other two were condemnations of the U.S. attacks on Panama, both vetoed by the United States. The General Assembly also had some very lop-sided votes, which are similar to vetoes but not technically vetoes. There were two, in fact. One was a resolution condemning the continuation of the unlawful use of force against Nicaragua, voted unanimously, the U.S. and Israel alone against. Another was a resolution condemning Washington’s illegal economic warfare against Nicaragua, again two votes against, United States and Israel, That’s actually one vote when you think about it. It’s like Russia and Ukraine were counted two votes. This incidentally continues. Just recently, there was a vote in the General Assembly resolution condemning the illegal U.S. economic warfare against Cuba, two votes against, United States and Israel. The preceding year, the United States has gotten Romania, but it dropped off. Actually, that’s a very traditional pattern. Recall the standard line about the grim-faced Soviet ambassadors and the Soviet vetoes that were paralyzing the nations. The only thing with that are the facts that are not debatable, perfectly clear and explicit facts. Since the 1960’s, the United States is far in the lead in vetoing Security Council resolutions. In second place is the United Kingdom. France is a distant third, and the Soviet Union is fourth. That’s not controversial, that’s a fact. The same is true for the General Assembly. There are plenty of votes in the General Assembly with numbers like 153 to 1 or 150 to 2 or something like that on a wide range of issues such as aggression, human rights, international law observations, international law of terrorism, and so on. If you look through them, you’ll find consistently the one is the United States with maybe Israel or El Salvador or somebody dragging along. That’s a very consistent pattern since the 1960’s. It’s almost totally suppressed in our free press; not only is it suppressed, but there’s just endless lying about it. The opposite is claimed dramatically different from the easily documentable and uncontroversial facts, which is another interesting fact about our intellectual culture. You can think about it and draw the obvious conclusion. [42:22]

Well let’s put that aside and turn to ethnic conflict. There has definitely been ethnic conflict at the end of the Cold War, namely within the imperial system that collapsed in the Soviet Union. So inside the former Soviet Union, the Balkans, where imperial systems have collapsed, along with ethnic conflict. However, that’s hardly a new phase in history and doesn’t call for any deep thought in leading intellectuals. In fact, it is standard and expected with decline of some system of authority and tyranny. So post-colonial Africa quickly broke into ethnic conflict. Or to take the most recent case prior to the collapse of the Soviet empire, take the Portuguese empire. That’s the last empire that collapsed in 1975. Immediately, that led to violent ethnic conflict in Africa and Southeast Asia where the Portuguese colonies were. The three most important were Mozambique, Angola, and Timor. These are the most dramatic cases of ethnic conflict in the modern era, and they don’t have anything to do with the Cold War – they go back to 1975. With regard to Mozambique and Angola, there isn’t a lot of time, so perhaps I can just quote the eminent British historian Basil Davidson, who says in his words, “Those responsible for the contrasubversions against Mozambique and Angola will be cursed by history for enormous and terrible crimes which will long weigh heavily on the whole of Southern Africa.” He is referring to you and me, incidentally, if it is not obvious, and he is quite right, in fact, too kind. The United Nations Commission on Africa estimates over 1.5 million dead and over sixty billion in damages in the Reagan years alone, 1980 to 1988 by way of South Africa with strong U.S. support. That’s within the framework of what’s called hereby constructive engagement. And in Angola, it continues at a horrible level worse than the Balkans, in fact. Well, that’s two of the ethnic conflicts. The third, Timor, is not a slight matter. It’s the worst slaughter relative to population since the Holocaust, a clear, unambiguous ethnic conflict indeed the worst case in post-war history, outright aggression still continuing. We’re getting to the twentieth anniversary in a few weeks. And it is true that the United Nations failed to stop it, a big failure. So let’s dismantle the United Nations until we look a little more closely. And we find that it is true that the United Nations failed to stop it because the U. S. blocked the United Nations. In the words of our ambassador Daniel Patrick Moynihan, the U.S. government wanted things to turn out as they did, “and it was my task,” he writes, “to render the United Nations utterly ineffective in anything it might do to prevent the aggression and I was very successful in this task.” He takes great pride in it, then points out that within a few weeks, about a tenth of the population has been slaughtered; approximately the level of total casualties in Eastern Europe under the Nazi attack, he says, I’m not adding that. Then he goes on to the next sentence. [45:58]

So it’s true that the United Nations was indeed rendered utterly ineffective but is not the problem with the United Nations. As for the attack itself, the U.S.’s role was decisive, not only diplomatically but also militarily. The invading Indonesian army was ninety-percent equipped with American arms under a treaty that required that they can only be used for self-defense. Henry Kissinger, who was then Secretary of State, secretly sent more arms immediately, right after the invasion. A couple years later, the Indonesian army had actually began to run out of arms because of the ferocity of the assault, so President Jimmy Carter took off a little time from sermons about human rights and escalated the flow of arms at the point when the slaughter was really approaching genocide in 1978. There are consequences to this. Ambassador Moynihan, now Senator, is hailed all over the place for his dedication to international law and moralities, lone voice of honor at the United Nations, standing up against all kinds of Third World tyrants, now proclaiming about the United Nations that unless it is able to stop the genocide in Bosnia, it has no right to exist, and so on and so forth. Jimmy Carter, need not mention Kissinger, also giving speeches about the importance of peace-keeping at the United Nations and so on. What about the coverage of all of this here? Well, interestingly the coverage is quite high, pre-1975, in context of concern of the collapsing of the Portuguese empire. When the invasion took place with decisive diplomatic and military support, coverage began to decline. What there was was mostly all, in fact, reiteration of State Department lies or quoting Indonesian generals. By 1978, when the atrocities peaked and new U.S. arms were flowing, coverage reached zero in the United States. Not a word anywhere, also interesting. The story continues. There were changes. By the 1980’s, coverage began, sometimes accurate coverage. But it is interesting in character. The tone of the coverage is given, for example, by a New York Times editorial headed “Shaming of Indonesia.” Well, okay, shaming of Indonesia but what about shaming of the United States or shaming of the New York Times? That’s a perception you’re not allowed to have. Or you read we didn’t do enough, we made a mistake, or we didn’t do enough to stop the carnage and the terror and so on. Well the fact is we did more than enough as Ambassador Moynihan himself written and as the record of military aid shows. It wasn’t that we didn’t do enough – that’s like saying the Russians had said “we didn’t do enough to stop the atrocities in Hungary.” Yeah, that’s not quite the way to put it. [49:20]

In the 1980’s, it has changed. Now there is in fact coverage and some good things have happened. There has been enough popular pressure in the last couple years to induce Congress to put some constraints on U.S. participation in this still-continuing atrocity. That caused the Clinton administration to have to search for devious ways to avoid the Congressional restrictions which indeed it has done. More or less, that’s important; it’s symbolically significant and might even, with enough pressure, lead to Indonesian withdrawal. That’s conceivable. There have also been big changes inside Indonesia that we don’t hear about. Human rights groups, student groups, labor leaders, independent intellectuals and so on have began to speak quite openly, condemning Indonesian invasion of East Timor, and in fact speaking up for human rights and rights to working people and so on. Now in Indonesia, to stand up and talk about these things are not so simple. It’s not like here. Here, you do it and nothing happens to you. In there, you do it and you are a terrorist, a tyrannical and vicious state. But they’re doing it, and that might be another thing called “Shaming of the United States” – not that we don’t report it and support them, but that we don’t do it ourselves. It is certainly a lot easier. [50:46]

Well, the end of Portuguese empire twenty years ago led to ethnic conflict that is far worse than the consequences of ethnic conflict at the end of the Soviet empire. The end of the French empire, a long, slow process, that led to still-worse consequences, the Algerian wars, the wars in Indochina. Our own wars in Indochina led to four million people dead and three countries in total ruin. In this case, the aggressors benefited from impunity within the doctrinal system and these aren’t even called ethnic conflicts because we are one of the participants. But if we used the term in any meaningful sense, these are ethnic conflicts on a huge scale, a dwarfing of anything happened after the fall of the Soviet empire. There was a Cold War element in all of these things but it was very far from the margins when you take a serious look and indeed, that is recognized in internal documents. [51:43]

Well, let’s take a look elsewhere, say the Middle East. There is a symbol of ethnic conflict, namely Lebanon. For quite some time, twenty years, nothing to do with the end of the Cold War, Lebanon occasionally makes it to the front pages here. So for example, after the Oklahoma City bombing, there were big headlines about how Oklahoma City looks like Beirut, a big tragedy, the horrors of Beirut coming right into mainstream America, furthermore, if it turns out that the people who did that horrible atrocity were from the Middle East, we are going to bomb everybody in sight and so on and so forth. Well, that was the reaction to the Oklahoma City bombing and it was not entirely false. Oklahoma City was indeed looking like Beirut. Of course, Beirut has been looking like Beirut for quite some time. For example Beirut has looked like Beirut exactly ten years earlier, almost to the day. That was when the largest car bomb in history went off in Beirut. This was the worst terrorist act in the Middle East at the peak of international concern of terrorism. It was huge car bomb, very much like Oklahoma City. It was set off outside a mosque timed to go off to kill the maximum number of people when they were leaving; it killed mostly women and children, much like Oklahoma City, a huge catastrophe. Now in that case, it is not too difficult to chase the perpetrators to the ends of the Earth, bomb any country that’s harboring them, and so on. At least the U.S. Air Force has the capacity to bomb Washington or California or Texas and so on, with maybe a few extra bombs in London. And the reason is because, as it is perfectly and openly acknowledged, the bombing was carried out by the CIA with the assistance of British Intelligence. So it is true that Oklahoma City was looking like Beirut for good reasons because Beirut looked like Beirut, and there’s no problem finding the perpetrators and punishing them. Just this Sunday, the Clinton administration called upon all the nations of the world to join with us in ending the horror of international terrorism and making sure that any nation that tolerates international terrorists becomes a pariah and is punished and so on. Again, that is easily within our power. But somehow, none of this ever gets discussed. It’s not that the press or intellectuals are unaware of the fact that the Oklahoma City bombing was a virtual replicate of the Beirut bombing ten years earlier – of course they’re aware of it. I know, personally – I brought it to the attention of lots of journalists in the United States and England, if they haven’t been aware of it themselves, which they probably were. But this is un-discussable and un-reportable. Just as you cannot speak of U.S. aggression or ethnic conflict when there’s a conflict between us and people in Indochina that ends up with four million killed and so on. So Lebanon is the very symbol of ethnic conflict and there are some reasons for the problems there. [55:09]

There is also grand success in the Middle East right next door in overcoming ethnic conflict. The success just won a couple of Nobel Peace prizes recently. Oslo II just took place. “It was a day of awe,” as the headlines said, in which we celebrated the U.S. triumph in bringing to an end, or at least close to an end this terrible ethnic conflict between Jews and Arabs in the Middle East. Actually, what happened there was a little bit different. There isn’t much time to talk about. In fact, what happened was a most impressive power play by the United States which tells us a lot about the New World Order and the failures of the United Nations. The fact of the matter is that for about twenty-five years, the United States has been rendering the United Nations utterly ineffective in anything it might do to bring about a diplomatic resolution to that conflict. That certainly has been true since February 1971 when Egypt accepted official U.S. policy and called for a full peace treaty with Israel on international borders with all the security guarantees and all the wordings of the resolution. In fact, it is identical to U.S. policy with the support of virtually the entire world. Israel recognized it as a genuine peace offer but rejected it. There was a split in the U.S. government as to whether to continue with the traditional policy or to shift to opposing our traditional policy and to oppose negotiations and diplomatic settlement, and Kissinger won that battle, achieving what he called “stalemate,” meaning no diplomacy. Ever since then, the United States has been opposed to diplomatic settlement. Well that settlement was organized by the United Nations, a U.N. mediator. That’s one time the U.N. was rendered utterly ineffective by a U.S. veto. That became a literal veto a few years later, in January 1976, when the Security Council debated a resolution calling for a political settlement, supported by the entire world, in fact – the Arab States, PLO supported it, Western Europe supported it, non-aligned countries, Eastern Europe. It was vetoed by the United States out of history, like the February ’71 event – that was under Kissinger again. The same thing happened under Carter. The resolution eliminated the Security Council. The issue, therefore, came up regularly in the General Assembly, in fact for every year. The votes were always 150 to 2 and so on. The last of those votes was in December. The last serious vote was in December 1990. That was the last of them in the annual votes – it was a 144 to 2, the usual number. Then what happened after December 1990? Well, right after that came the Gulf War. The Gulf War effectively got the rest of the world to understand – actually George Bush put it rather clearly – that the New World Order was in effect, in his words, “What we say, goes.” Certainly in the Middle East. And the rest of the world just backed off. Europe pulled out of the game, non-aligned countries were out of it, total disarray, the Arab world completely collapsed. At the point, the U.S. rammed through its own completely rejectionist proposal, which involves limited instead of complete withdrawal and no rights at all for the Palestinians. That’s the position the U.S. has upheld to the world for twenty-five years and now was able to ram it through. A genuine peace process could be instituted, as it was immediately at Madrid. It’s genuine because it was under unilateral U.S. control and it followed the U.S. rejectionist position. That’s exactly what has been implemented. In fact, what’s been implemented under Oslo II is harsher than any other proposal that the Israeli government itself had ever made from 1968 right up to the present. So naturally, it is a day of awe. It is another case in which the U.N. failed for reasons worth thinking about. [59:37]

My final comment is going back to the U.N. after fifty years. There is a good deal of self-righteous commentary about its failings. I’ve given some indication of why and where it failed. I think you can check to see if you think this is right. The lion’s share of that responsibility falls not very surprisingly on the world’s most powerful states, and in particular, its most powerful state exactly as any rational person would have expected – the most powerful state has indeed been rendering the United Nations “utterly ineffective” in Ambassador Moynihan’s words, since the 1960’s. When the United Nations fell under what is called here the tyranny of the majority, sometimes known as democracy, and it just stopped following orders – that was one of the consequences of decolonization. The commentary on all of this is quite amazing. I sampled some of it, but the whole story is amazing. Well in the last couple years and increasingly now, the United States is proceeding to dismantle the United Nations. On May 1st, Congress announced radical cuts in U.S. assistance to UNICEF and similar organizations – that was very well-timed. On May 1st, UNICEF had its annual press conference. UNICEF, is of course run by an American, the U.S. insisted on that – Carole Bellamy, and she gave the press conference which wasn’t reported but interesting. UNICEF estimated that the number of children who were dying from easily treatable diseases – meaning you can cure it for a few pennies a day – had risen from eleven million a year to thirteen million a year. That’s what UNICEF was trying to deal with, so on that day, aside from not reporting the UNICEF report, Congress cut aid to UNICEF. In fact, UNICEF will disappear as it has the wrong priorities. The FAO, Food and Agricultural Organization, is also slated for disappearance, as it again also has the wrong priorities, the poor and hungry people around the world. The International Labor Organization, that’s going to go the same way and there’s a reason for that. The ILO deals with worker rights and the U.S. has the worst record in the Western Hemisphere and Europe with the exception of El Salvador and Lithuania, so we’re third actually in ratifying conventions on workers’ rights including child labor and things like that. And furthermore, the ILO committed an additional crime two years ago. It criticized the United States – it very rarely criticizes a rich industrial country, but it broke the pattern and criticized the United States for violating international labor standards by the employment of permanent replacement workers, which is in gross violation of universally accepted international labor standards. So they have to go, they’re obviously not to be allowed, and they’re going to disappear. [1:02:59]

The U.N. Development Agency, same story. The U.S. has sharply cut funding for it and is going to get rid of it, it has the wrong priorities, the vast majority of the world’s population. There used to be a monitoring office just to provide data on trans-national corporations. In fact, it was the only source of information on trans-national corporations. That was killed a couple years ago. It was the wrong information. It was pretty hard to get the information anyway, but you could get it, and now you just can’t. UNESCO has a Third World orientation that is almost dead and will die under a good deal of blatant fraud about a new information order, which the fraud about it was well-documented in scholarly work published by university presses but unreviewable. UNCTAD, the United States Conference on Trade and Development is slated to disappear and its functions will be taken over by the World Trade Organization so it’s irrelevant. For those of you who know these issues, this is total nonsense. The problem with UNCTAD is that it keeps refuting the neo-liberal fundamentalism of the World Trade Organization based on the idea that it’s false and fabricated and so on. They were given the wrong analysis. They’re continually undermining the claims about the wonders of the free world market that are preached by the World Trade Organization, but preached in a very special way. They preach to the poor, abroad and at home. They have to accept market discipline. They are not preached to people like, say Newt Gingrich and his constituency, Cobb County, Georgia, which gets more federal subsidies than any other comparable county in the country because it is represented by the biggest welfare freak in the country. And in fact, quite typically, the wealthy and powerful have never accepted market discipline. They have massive state protection in all sorts of ways, and in our case, the biggest form of subsidy transfer from payments to the rich is the Pentagon, which is why the budget doesn’t go down but in fact, only goes up. So no market discipline for them, but plenty of market discipline for the poor, and UNCTAD makes the mistake of documenting, explaining, and analyzing the consequences of all this so they have to go and be taken over by the World Trade Organization which doesn’t have these defects. [1:05:41]

In fact, the more democratic elements of the United Nations are slated for dismissal, and maybe the whole thing will go. That’s not been passed unnoticed, I should say. The South Commission, which represents the overwhelming majority of the population of the world published an important book a couples ago called The Challenge to the South published by Oxford University Press, which called for a new world order based on justice and freedom, and they explain what’s going on in the world rather well. And they pointed out that the more democratic elements of the U.N. are being dismantled, the parts that have a commitment to the general population than just those who matter. None of this ever gets discussed or reported apart from the margins, just as the actual records of vetoes and General Assembly votes and not much else. Again, these are things that might interest us, it might even concern us, at least for those who has some concern for the nature of our own society and our own culture. [1:06:55]

Well, as to the principle that explains the attitudes towards the United Nations that are articulated by the intellectual culture. I’m afraid the principle is all too simple. Insofar as the United Nations is following the orders of Churchill’s “rich men and the rich societies” – exactly to that extent – it is honored. To the extent it deviates from that, it is condemned. It’s rare in a complicated world for a simple criterion to be such a good predictor, but if you look carefully, you’ll find that this is an extremely good predictor of the whole oscillation, up and back, including the hopefulness in 1990. Well, if Churchillian Realism continues to prevail on the global system, and incidentally increasingly so at home as well because there’s an obvious domestic analogue to all this, if that’s the case, then the future is going to be bleak. But we should remember that these are, by no means, laws of nature nor are they laws of society even if such laws exist, but these are human decisions that can be made differently. Within human institutions that have no particular claim to permanence or legitimacy, as throughout history, all of this can be changed as it has been in the past and in the same ways as in the past, and the age-old struggle for greater justice and freedom can be advanced if we so choose. Thanks. [1:08:27]