Home | About | Donate

What Principles Rule the World?


What Principles Rule the World?

Noam Chomsky

[This piece, the second of two parts, is excerpted from Noam Chomsky’s new book, Who Rules the World? (Metropolitan Books). Part 1 can be found by clicking here.]


"What inspires the most lethal assailants today is not so much the Quran but a thrilling cause and a call to action that promises glory and esteem in the eyes of friends.” In fact, few of the jihadis have much of a background in Islamic texts or theology, if any."

The lack of common perspective, stemming from poor education and conclusively, ridiculous ideology, rules the world. Repatriations can not placate a hungry body, or a soul that is only shown egregious wrongs against their specific people, whether the tribe identified is through race, religion, culture or class.

Violence continues to be the way of acquiring from a region what it does not want to part enough with. Per "Why we fight" violence might also result from having surplus arms, along with a lack of perspective, due to poor education and ridiculous ideology.

Those of us reading the article and nodding our heads do not have any fingers on weapon triggers.
And our principles do not matter.


Proof that the war ON terror is a war OF terror:

"The evidence reviewed by political scientist Timo Kivimäki indicates that the “protection wars [fought by ‘coalitions of the willing’] have become the main source of violence in the world, occasionally contributing over 50% of total conflict fatalities.”

Most astute historians now realize that dropping the bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima were not just unnecessary overkill, they essentially provided an "opportunity" to show Russia how these (then) new weapons would operate. In other words, it was part macho show of military force and part future deterrence.

Currently, with Saudi Arabia proving such a "good" customer to all the disgusting weapons being churned out by U.S. weapons contractors, it's sought an excuse to use them. Enter: Yemen, a poor and defenseless nation. The Saudi weapons deployed there are the modern war equivalent of shooting fish in a barrel.

With these 2 examples (of many) to serve as prelude, it would not surprise me if Drone Manufacturers likewise sought "opportunities" to show off their newest weapons. Hence this:

"Obama’s global drone assassination campaign, a remarkable innovation in global terrorism, exhibits the same patterns. By most accounts, it is generating terrorists more rapidly than it is murdering those suspected of someday intending to harm us -- an impressive contribution by a constitutional lawyer on the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta, which established the basis for the principle of presumption of innocence that is the foundation of civilized law."

Any individual or entity who uses high level weapons thinks they can mock the law of karma with impunity.


I've shared this anecdotal info. on other occasions but it's relevant to the point I wish to make.

Many years ago I had a running debate published in the San Juan Star. It was my challenge to the Department of Mosquito Control as run through the University of Puerto Rico.

The results of their mosquito spraying program (which used the banned chemical Malathion) was such that every year, anywhere from 47-51% of mosquito populations would be killed.

As many naturally realize, the surviving mosquitoes would largely prove immune to the existing dosages. And so the logic was to increase the dosage of poison sprayed. Yet the results ALWAYS remained the same: never more than approximately 50% of mosquitoes alleviated.

What went UNRECOGNIZED was how this approach would speed up "natural selection" to inadvertently produce lineages of stronger mosquitoes. (Proximate Caribbean islands were experimenting with more diligent efforts to remove standing, stagnant water and had as good or better results than the toxic pesticide spraying campaigns).

One can apply the lesson of the mosquito sprayers to similar efforts to destroy pesky leaders in foreign nations. There, too, the law of "natural selection" would work to put in the NEXT strongman...

Violence does not solve violence. "An eye for an eye" makes the world blind. (Gandhi)

This is the quote I am responding to:

"Another characteristic feature of such interventions is the belief that the insurgency will be overcome by eliminating its leaders. But when such an effort succeeds, the reviled leader is regularly replaced by someone younger, more determined, more brutal, and more effective. Polk gives many examples. Military historian Andrew Cockburn has reviewed American campaigns to kill drug and then terror “kingpins” over a long period in his important study Kill Chain and found the same results."

What's true in nature is true everywhere.


Readers should REALLY take in the ramifications and meaning of the following quote:

"Careful studies of al-Qaeda and ISIS have shown that the United States and its allies are following their game plan with some precision. Their goal is to “draw the West as deeply and actively as possible into the quagmire” and “to perpetually engage and enervate the United States and the West in a series of prolonged overseas ventures” in which they will undermine their own societies, expend their resources, and increase the level of violence, setting off the dynamic that Polk reviews."

Hindsight reveals that previous empires fell due to far too much expenditure on foreign conquest rather than investments in their own infrastructure.

Cui Bono?

Conspiracy theorists, as they are called, know lots of things about the JFK assassination that the average person does not. Ditto 911. And also, this idea of "A New World Order."

That New World Order would grant hegemony to corporate overlords and as is already seen in efforts to push the TPP and TIPP, sovereign laws of nations (those hard-won to protect the rights of workers and important environmental systems) would be abrogated. In addition, as the Piketty Study reveals, enormous sums of wealth have been effectively directed towards the top of the global financial "food" chain since the collapses that occurred in 2008.

Former Chief Justice William Brandeis aptly explained that a society could EITHER have extreme concentrations of wealth OR it could appreciate Democracy. The two are as incompatible as is a military empire inconsistent with a nation that truly honors transparency and civil liberties.

The deliberate exportation of good jobs to foreign lands, the Army Corps. of Engineers granting a C or D grade to too much of America's infrastructure, the fate of water in a city like Flint, Michigan... all point to divestment in this "land of the free."

Proponents and beneficiaries (clue: 1%) of this New World Order may well be using foreign wars to gut the nation's treasury and prop up a global trade in arms that induces so much fear that many call out for authoritarian government protectors. In addition, their massive surveillance drift nets keep tabs on all citizens.

This is not the world most of us have envisioned... nor wish to reside in.

When too much of a nation's treasure is directed at war, soldiers, and weaponry (what I term "Mars rules"), then everything declines. The intent on spreading death is inconsistent with even the faintest respect for life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness... as granted by Source.


I enjoy much of Noam's writing - love how he marshals credible evidence showing the madness and brutality of what is claimed to be normal and responsible - this is the extremism of American centrism.
Turning consensual reality on its head, Noam demonstrates the folly, ignorance and brutality of mainstream media.
The truth sucks - maybe we should do something different than participate in the reign of centrist terror politics.
Pay now or pay later.
It hurts way less to pay now.


Scott Atran states that
"What inspires the most lethal assailants today is not so much the Quran but a thrilling cause and a call to action that promises glory and esteem in the eyes of friends.”

But surely an expert in "terrorism" would know that this misses the point. They may be inspired by glory and esteem in part but what turns their crank is the relentless oppression and exploitation of the Middle East, from Libya to Palestine to Afghanistan, by Western forces, mainly the U.S., and by Israel. Remember the 1.3 million dead? Is it possible that simple revenge would be reason enough? It would be for me, and if the reader is honest enough to put themselves in the shoes of someone whose family was killed and whose country was destroyed, it would be enough for you, too.

What motivates Scott Atran, I wonder, to avoid stating this obvious fact?


I'm sure that you're missing the point, 0.Field. Your blaming the "terrorist" attacks of jihadis on poor education is non-sense. Just because they didn't have the privilege of sitting through 16 years of mind-numbing classes doesn't make them ignorant.

Your blaming them on a ridiculous ideology is racist non-sense. The Quran doesn't preach violence any more than the Bible.

The reason that the men and women of the Middle East are fighting back is that we have killed countless innocents. We have slaughtered hundreds of thousands of young boys whose only crime was to try to protect their country from a brutal and illegal invasion. We have overthrown elected governments to install our own brutal governors. We have corrupted tribal leaders to accept huge bribes of money and protection for selling us their resources for next to nothing.

The establishment does not want the Western public to know what motivates the "terrorists". Ever wonder why Bin Laden was shot in his house and not brought to trial? Because the people of the West might have learned about the crimes of our brutal leaders and allies and felt some sympathy as they prosecuted him for his brutal crimes.


I think you are missing the point I am making.
I love how you wrote my name.

I did not mean education in the sense of the classroom
I did not mean ideology as religion alone.
I understand that regions history.

Thanks for the response.


We must somehow make it clear to the super rich that if they continue to use wealth to purchase power they will lose both.