notes on resistance. >> it was in 2003 that philosopher and author, linguist noam chomsky first appeared on this program in depth. we have invited him back to take

your calls and talk to you one more time. since 2003, he has written dozens of books. one of those books was, " consequences of capitalism." here is professor chomsky talking about one of his more recent books. noam: a major poll just came out from two research -- major polling agencies. in which they asked people, they gave people a choice of 15 serious problems, asked them to rank them in terms of urgency. divided by republicans and democrats. among republicans, the very last one at the bottom was global warming. at the top was illegal immigrants and the debt.

debt, incidentally, became a problem last november 4. up until then, the debt was fine. republicans were creating a two enrich very rich people, so there was no problem. november 4, biden took it over and might use it to help others. poor people. it is not that the people who said that actually believe it, that is what they hear in the bubble in which they are contained. you listen to the murdoch tv station, fox news, read the murdoch press, and that is what you hear. when you are stuck in that bubble, that is what you believe. the real problems are illegal immigrants, terrible problem. the data suddenly became a problem. at the bottom of the list is destroying the environment, in

which life can be sustained. all of these are signs of the collapse of not only the arena for rational discourse, but general social collapse. the social order is collapsing. it didn't just happen by itself. it happened because of a plague that was set in motion 40 years ago, we discussed a lot of it in the book, the plague of neoliberalism. which was actually started in the 1970's, a massive business campaign to institute it. it took off with reagan and thatcher. if you look at their prescriptions, it is obvious what is going to happen. reagan's inaugural address, he said the government is the problem, not the solution. decisions have to be taken out of the hands of government.

well, they don't stop being made. where are they going to be made? in the private sector. they are going to be made by powerful corporate tyranny is, which is what corporations are. unaccountable to the public. the government, of course, has a flaw, it is partially accountable to the public and can be controlled somewhat. but private charities are free, no accountability. the second point was friedman, the -- who pronounced that corporations have one responsibility, to their owners. shareholders. period. nothing else. corporate rights are the gift from the public. there's plenty of advantages that come from incorporating, it is a gift, but they do not have

any responsibility. just to themselves. put these two things together and decisions that had to over to private tyrannies who have no responsibility other than to enrich themselves. margaret thatcher comes along and says there is no society, just individuals. somehow managing on the market that they are supposed to survive in. the first step that both reagan and thatcher took was to destroy any possible defense against this assault. their first steps, first come over to attack labor unions with illegal measures like strikebreakers. that opened to door to corporations to do the same. the one-way way people have to defend themselves, by organizing, taken away. put all this together, you would

have to be a genius to figure out what is going to happen. actually, 40 years later it was studied by the rand corporation. super respectable american corporation. they tried to estimate the transfer of wealth robbery, we should call it, the transfer of wealth from the lower 90% of the population, middle-class and working-class, to the very top, which turns out to be a fraction of 1%. their estimate was about $50 trillion during the 40 years of neoliberalism. that is a vast underestimate that includes other things which are now on the front pages. when reagan came in, he opened the spigot for businesses to do whatever they like. tax havens had been illegal

before then. and blocked by the treasury. opened it up, there's probably another tens of trillions of dollars. changed the rules on corporate management, which the government said, allowing ceos to be compensated with stock options instead of salaries. that means anything you can do to raise the stock, like buybacks, may ruin the corporation but it is good for you to get a higher income. that is the result. also, executives were permitted to pick their own board, the board that would determine their salary. what do you think is going to happen? take a look at the figures. ceos salaries have skyrocketed. carrying all of top management along with them. extended to the public sector,

university presidents, hospital -- and so on. meanwhile, the majority of the population gets by from payday to payday in a precarious existence. it is a major assault on the population. it has happened all over the world. australia, europe, not as severe as in the united states, but severe. people are hager -- people are angry, disillusioned, resentful, easy prey for demagogues of the trump variety who says, i will save you. and it will end in distress for everything. why should i believe with the centers of disease control say about the pandemic echo they are probably just -- pandemic echo they are probably just run by crooks in washington. so, you have a breakdown of the social order.

it is happening over much of the world. >> live from his home in tucson, arizona where he is america plus professor at the university of arizona, noam chomsky. professor chomsky, what issues -- what is on your mind these days? noam: well, there are lots of things going on in the world. right now, one of the major ones is, of course, the war in ukraine. there's many others. there are background issues. we are, like it or not, the human species, racing to imminent disaster. there are two huge problems. one is the growing threat of nuclear war. which would, basically, end

modern civilization as we know it. the other is the destruction of the environment. inexorable. we know it has to be done, we are not doing it. if we do not turn that corner soon, we will reach an irreversible tipping point and it will be a matter of slow moves towards catastrophe, irrevocable catastrophe. that, in addition to what is right on the front pages, the background of it. there is plenty to be on everyone's mind. >> professor chomsky, you have been active for decades on nuclear war, economic policies, social justice, what is the progress you think you have made, or that the world has made? noam: there has been, over long

periods, there has been progress. we happen to be -- we happen to have been, for the past 40 years, in a period of serious regression. but, there are ups and downs before. if you think back to what society was say, in 1960, 60 years ago, this was a society in which we literally had laws against miscegenation, which were so extreme that the nazis refused to accept them. the one drop of blood loss. -- laws. the rights of women were still not recognized. it was not until 1975 that women

had the legal right, guaranteed legal right to serve on the federal juries. that means, to be regarded as peers, as persons and not property. which they basically were in british common law that the country to go over. they were, in many respects, minimal rights were not respected. well, that has changed. that is an improvement. beginning in the late 1970's, there was a shift in the nature of the state capitalist system, which was described in the previous comment, the move towards the neoliberal system

that has been quite harsh for the general population here, and across the world. an enormous concentration of wealth and a precarious existence for many, which has led to understandable feelings of anger and resentment, distrust of authority, contempt for institutions. that can take positive forms. let's have changes for the better. there are such elements that can also take very dangerous forms. i am old enough to remember 90 years ago when there was, as today, a very serious threat, the threat of the depression,

deep depression, much worse than anything today. my extended family was first immigrated, new increments -- new immigrants, first-generation immigrants, working-class mostly. they were, and this was -- there were two ways out of the depression. one was taken by the united states. the u.s. led the way towards a social democratic revival, committed to and -- by a revived militant labor movement. organizing, militant labor tactics, led the way to the new deal measures which pioneered postwar social democracy, an

enormous lift for the population. that was one way out. the other way out was what happened in europe, which sank to the depths of fascism. those were the ways out. actually, there are residences today -- residences -- it would be utterly ironic if the united states continues to unravel and move towards a kind of proto-fascism, while europe hangs onto the -- of social democracies that have resisted the neoliberal assault. and perhaps revise these very positive tendencies. it doesn't have to.

the choice is in our hands. meanwhile, there are imminent problems. the war in ukraine is on the front page headlines. it is not the only one. literally millions of people are facing starvation in afghanistan. millions of people facing imminent starvation. people who a little bit of money can't go to the markets where there is food, to buy food for their starving children because the banks are shut. they can't get access to the money. where is the money? new york. the u.s. refuses to release to the people of afghanistan their own money. the banks are supposed to be

fiduciary institutions. you place your money in them, with the assurance that it is yours to attain when you need it. not in this case. the u.s. government has stepped in, not just in this case, but others too, to block people from getting their own money. there is a pretext for this. the pretext is, we have to assure that victims of 9/11 have a right to compensation from afghans who had nothing to do with 9/11. the rural people of afghanistan who are starving had nothing at all to do with 9/11. in fact, those with good memories will recall that the taliban offered total surrender,

which would have meant handing over to the united states the suspects in the 9/11 attack, the al qaeda suspects. remember, at the time, they were suspects. the fbi informed the press months later that they suspected them, but did not have definitive evidence. but, the taliban offered to turn them over. the u.s. reaction was, we do not do surrenders. romney. echoed by george bush. rumsfeld, i am sorry. echoed by george bush. george w. bush. now, the afghan people have to starve to death because we hold their funds. and there are other things happening in the world.

thankfully, there seems to have been an agreement for a two month reduction of fighting in yemen. the worst humanitarian disaster in the world, according to the united nations food -- united nations. the saudi government, which is the main force responsible for the disaster, along with the united arab emirates, saudi arabia had been blockading, intensifying its blockade of the only port in which food and oil can be imported into the starving country. the official death toll last year was 370,000 people.

the actual death role is unknown. again, the united nations warns that hundreds of thousands of children are facing imminent starvation. the saudi and emma rossi -- emirate air forces cannot function without u.s. equipment and u.s. intelligence. u.s. trading. we are assisted by britain, a few others, that the u.s. is in the lead. these things can be changed. the things that can be uppermost in our mind. what can we do? what can we do about suffering, major problems in the world? whether it is existential problems the existence of the

species like global warming or nuclear war, or whether it is the terrible, miserable suffering of the people of ukraine, under brutal and violent aggression by the russian army. people starving to death in afghanistan. or yemen. we can mention other things, but what can we do about all of those things? that is what we have to be asking ourselves. that is what should be on everyone's mind. >> this is your chance to talk with noam chomsky. if you have been interested in public policy for the last 50 or 60 years, chances are you have heard of professor chomsky, perhaps even read some of his hundreds of books. the numbers are on the screen.

for those of you of the east and central time zones. 8201 for the mountain and pacific time zones. you can also send a text message. please encode -- please include your first name and your city. we also have several social media ways of getting a hold of us. we will scroll through those on the screen. i want to quote professor chomsky from one of your most recent books, requiem for the american dream. you say that some of the problems of government in the u.s. today stem from an excess of democracy. why do you say that? noam: actually, i did not say that. i quoted it. the quote was from a very important study, about 40 years ago, 50 years ago, 1975, it is

the first study of the trilateral commission. the trilateral commission is an international commission of liberal internationalists. you get a rough idea of their political stances by the fact that the carter administration was drawn almost completely from within the ranks. so, that group of people in the united states, they -- their counterparts in europe and japan, liberal internationalists were the trilateral commission. they came out with a very important report called, the crisis of democracy. they were responding to the activism of the 1960's, which considerably civilized society. and led to the developments that

i mentioned briefly before. the trilateral commission warned that there is a crisis of democracy. the crisis is what you quoted, an excess of democracy. there is too much democracy. what is happening, they described during the 1960's, is that segments of the population that are supposed to be passive and obedient began to try to enter the political arena to press their own demands. these are what are often called special interests. young people, old people, working people, women, farmers, minorities, these people are not supposed to be making noises in

the political arena. there supposed to be quiet, obedient, apathetic, show up every couple of years to push a button, go home. and then go home and let their betters decide for them. what to do. well, that excess of democracy, they said, is putting too much of a burden on the state. so, we must have, what they call moderation in democracy. people should return to their passivity and obedience. they also talked about particular sectors of society, like the universities. they said the universities and the churches are not doing their job of indoctrination of the young.

their phrase, not mine. we have to do better indoctrination of the young so that they are not out there in the streets protesting the vietnam war and calling for civil rights, or women's rights, other things which are too much. so, that is the liberal internationalists. there's actually another major argument that came out at about the same time also in response to the activism of the 1960's. the powell administration. it was meant to be secret. this was a man who richard nixon appointed to the supreme court, justice powell. powell issued a memorandum to the chamber of commerce, to the business world, and it was in a

way similar to the trilateral commission report. but, much harsher. the document was intended to be confidential but it surfaced pretty soon. it is available is -- it is available publicly. this memorandum urged the business community to take up a forceful reaction to the attack on business that was going on in the 1960's. they said businessmen were being persecuted, the rate of profit is declining. we are under attack. the universities have been taken over by crazed radicals led by herbert marcuse a, who of course nobody had ever heard of. the business world is under attack by ralph nader, who is demanding that automobiles have

safety measures built in them. and moving for consumer rights and consumer safety and other domains. so it, the -- so, the business world cannot tolerate these attacks. it went on to say look, we have the resources, we have the money, we can fight back. we can refuse to accept this attack on our power and privilege. in fact, that resonated. that was part of the background which led to the neoliberal reaction of today. -- as quoted in earlier remarks were for the program, the roughly $50 trillion robbery of the middle-class and working-class that has taken place in the past 40 years,

since it started in the late quarter years and escalated under reagan and thatcher. and spread around the world, under u.s. power, structural adjustment programs which were imposed by the imf, which is under u.s. domination. which had a devastating effect on much of the global south. more than i can talk about now. but, going back to excess of democracy, that was the phrase from the trilateral commission report. which i did write about when it appeared, and have referred to sense. but, those two documents said a kind of -- set an ideological framework. one from the liberal internationalists. another from the business run

right-wing. they kind of set the frame in which, over the coming years, the neoliberal programs were developed. imposed. we have been living under that assault for 40 years. with pretty harsh effects. you're actually harsher effects in other countries. -- there are actually harsher effects in other countries. what actually happened in the late 1970's, there was what was called -- pretty high inflation in the united states. the carter administration responded to it. with a very short rise in interest rates, which increased

under the reagan years. well, during the 1970's, countries like mexico, other countries in the south had been urged by the world bank, the u.s. run world bank, they had been urged to take out extensive loans. mostly from u.s. banks. citibank. citigroup, the conglomerate. many others. they were deep -- they were deeply in debt. when the high interest rates were introduced, their debt is linked to u.s. interest rates. so, they were in deep trouble. they couldn't pay. they began to default. they had to take loans from the

international monetary fund, which imposed harsh conditionality's. they had to cut back social spending, cut back efforts and development -- efforts in development, and other similar measures which devastated the populations. it had horrifying effects and much of the third world. yugoslavia, which had been more or functioning country, fell apart under the impact of the structural programs which intensified ethnic conflicts and laid the background for the horrors that will -- that took place in the early 1990's. the worst case was actually rwanda in the 1970's. there already had been significant conflicts between

hutu and tutsi. my friend edward herrmann and i had written about it in the 1970's. in the 1980's, rwanda, like other countries, was hit very hard by the structural adjustment programs. and the society, which was already very fragile, collapsed. the conflicts that existed were extensively intensified. i won't go into details, but that's part of the background of the horrendous developments that took place a few years later in the 1990's. actions have consequences. maybe you do not anticipate them, but you should. that was the third world, the global south, the rich countries like the united states, it's

pretty much what was described by the rand corporation. it is all part of the neoliberal reaction to the former period of what is called sometimes, regimented capitalism. state capitalism based on new deal measures. it is worth remembering how far we have moved from those days. take dwight eisenhower. the last conservative president, in the traditional sense of the word conservative. eisenhower, if you read his statements, sounds like a flaming radical today. eisenhower said that any person who does not accept new deal measures, the measures of social welfare developed in the new deal, and continued in following

years, anyone who does not accept these measures does not belong in our political system. that's eisenhower. anyone who denies working people the right to unionize, a firm essential rights, such a pe such a person doesn't belong in our political system. that was the 1950s. for some years into the 60s. then we get into the reaction which escalated under reagan. compare eisenhower with what you hear today from the remnants, of what remains of the party that he represented. quite a change. tells us a lot about the regression of the past 40 years. >> host: let's get our callers

involved and begin with barbara in massachusetts. barbara, go ahead and ask your question of noam chomsky. >> caller: thank you for your amazing career. continuing with president eisenhower, his famous statement about the emergence of the military-industrial complex. we all watched decades of grotesque spending on weapons, but now we see this conflict in ukraine where tiny munitions like stingers and javelins and switchblade drones and other kinds of drones, these tiny micro weapons are able to take out the elephantine macro weapons of the tanks and the jet fighters and naval ships. what do you make of this

transition to micro warfare and its implications? thank you. >> it parallels a new era of warfare which is more dangerous, more threatening to everyone, but let me just ask a slightly different question. i mentioned before that we should be concerned constantly with what we can do and what we should do. one thing we can do is send weapons. there is an argument for that. ukraine is under foreign attack by a brutal military force which has no mercy and they have a right to defend themselves. but there is another question.

what is our goal? do we want to escalate the war? more ukrainians die? more destruction? . or good or do we want to move toward a peaceful negotiated settlement, one of the most respected individuals in the us diplomatic corps, ambassador chas freeman, a highly respected individual with a wonderful record, a couple days ago he came out in an interview and said us policy seems to be to fight the russians to the last ukrainian. that is the policy. no feasible goals that can lead to an exit from this tragedy. so we can keep pouring in arms,

we are good at that, to escalate, more ukrainians will die, more russians will die. is there a possible diplomatic settlement? yes there is. chas freeman outlined it once again. everyone knows what it is. the settlement, this has been going on for 30 years, i should say, not just started today, the settlement is a rough outline, un-neutralized ukraine, not part of a military block, and internal settlement that will guarantee the rights of the russian speaking

minority, providing some form of federal solution like switzerland, belgium, others, in which minority groups have a degree of autonomy in their own regions. that is formulated in an agreement called minsk ii. some version of that has to be the possible outcome. if we don't want to just fight to the last ukrainian we have to offer vladimir putin an escape hatch. he has to have some way to escape from this without what amounts to suicide. if we tell him, if we send a current message, you are going to face war crimes trials, nothing you can do about it, sanctions will continue no matter what happens, we are

telling him fight on to the last ukrainian. it might sound, sounds very heroic, but for the ukrainians it is a death warrant. we have to come out with a proposal, we have 2 support the proposals that are on the table, have been for a long time for settlement that offers putin some kind of escape, like it or not that is a necessity and it will have to be, based on neutralization of ukraine, some kind of diplomatic arrangement for a degree of

autonomy for the russian oriented areas. those things are on the table, the us isn't supporting, the us actually has an official policy. unfortunately it doesn't seem to have been reported in the united states press, at least i can't find it but the policy is there, you can read it in government documents, i have quoted it repeatedly, the policy was set in september of 2021, september 1, 2021, it was a joint statement of the us and ukraine, noticed this is a couple of months before the russian invasion. the document is basically a policy statement of the united states reiterating and amplifying the policy of the had been in effect for many years. it is worth reading.

first, it says the door to ukrainian entry into nato is wide open, we are inviting you to join nato. it says the united states will intensify the sending of advanced military weapons to ukraine. it will continue with joint military efforts in ukraine, it means us ukrainian military operations. all of this facing weapons within ukraine and russia. all of this is part of the enhanced nato admissions program. you should look at the exact wording. i am paraphrasing but it is roughly that.

let's recall the horrors that followed. it didn't just start then. it has been going on for 28 years. look back, george hw bush administration, the first president bush, in 1990-1991, the soviet union was collapsing, there were intensive discussions with george bush, james baker, his russian counterpart mikael gorbachev, the germans, how much call, extensively involved in this, the question was what would be the shape of the post-cold war world with the

soviet union collapsing? there were several visions. gorbachev's vision was what he called a common european home from the atlantic, from lisbon all the way to vladivostok, no military blocks, common european home, mutual accommodation. this was an extension of a program of charles they gaulle in earlier years, emmanuel macron has been pressing something similar, a common european home from the atlantic to the euro incorporating russia within a european and

maybe eurasian peaceful system with no literary blocks. that was one vision. the other one goes back 50 or 60 years is the us vision called atlanta cyst based on the atlantic alliance based on nato and europe which the us dominates and controls, that's a deep issue in world affairs, at the end of the second world war, with europe subordinated to the united states or will it move toward the european common home along the lines of they gaulle, gorbachev's proposals in 1990.

the us had no interest to oppose the european common home but it had a compromise version and that was what was agreed by bush and baker in the united states, in germany gorbachev in russia, nato, germany would be unified and would join nato which is quite a concession on the part of the russians, recall their history. germany alone had practically destroyed russia several times in the past century to allow a unified germany to join a hostile military alliance was not a small step. gorbachev agreed on condition, the condition was that nato

would not move 1 inch to the east beyond germany. in fact nato forces wouldn't even go to east germany. that was the condition. perfectly explicit, unambiguous. you want to see the actual wording, look it up in the online national security archives at georgetown university which have an authoritative record of the official documents. no ambiguity. gorbachev agreed to that. the bush/baker administration adhered to it. they adhered to it. clinton came in a couple years later, the first few years of the clinton administration, he also adhered to the agreement. by 1994, with his eye on domestic politics, minority

voting groups and so on clinton began to vacillate, to offer some hints of the east european countries joining nato. in 1997, presumably with his eye on the 1998 quote, clinton invited several east european countries to the borders of russia to join nato, boris yeltsin was then president, was very close to clinton. clinton had intervened to have him elected in 1996. yeltsin bitterly objected to this, so did gorbachev, so did every russian leader. us statesman george cannon,

former ambassador to russia under reagan leading russia specialist under the government, numerous others, henry kissinger, numerous others pointed out to washington they are making a terrible mistake. i should say that includes the current cia director william burns and former cia director stanfield turner, william perry, secretary of defense under clinton was so outraged by this he practically resigned in protest. 50 specialists in russia wrote a warning letter to clinton saying this is extremely dangerous. we should not be doing it. you are calling on russia to become militant and aggressive instead of accommodating in a common european home. clinton went ahead.

george w. bush who came later toward to shreds, 2008, invited ukraine to join, was vetoed by germany and france but it remains on the table. everyone, all the people i quoted, us diplomats and russia specialists and so on understood perfectly that for russia there are some definite red lines that no russian leader would tolerate, none, yeltsin, gorbachev, anyone, ukraine and georgia within the geostrategic heartland joining a hostile military alliance, they will never accept that,

the us forged ahead, september 2021 policy statement amplifies it, stated explicitly, we will go ahead and we will continue to arm ukraine. if you want to imagine what that is like from the russian point of view, understood by high-level us statesman it is as if mexico were to join a chinese run military alliance, carry out joint exercises with the chore chinese army, place weapons in mexico aimed at washington. we wouldn't tolerate that for one second. not mexico, not anywhere in latin america.

remember the cuban missile crisis and you can see, noticed that this is no infringement on the sovereignty of mexico. mexico was essentially neutral. it is not part of any military alliance. it has restrictions. it cannot what we just described. it cannot join the chinese run military alliance, carry out military operations with the people's liberation army, training and advanced weaponry from chinese or military experts, place weapons on the border of washington, nobody bothers to say that it is perfectly well understood. notice what i've just described is the september 2021 us official policy on ukraine and

russia. none of that justifies the russian aggression which is a kind of crime that ranks with the us invasion of iraq, the hitler/stalin invasion of poland, other examples of what the nuremberg tribunal called the supreme international crime of aggression, not of defense. nothing justifies that. but to understand is not to justify, if we care about ukrainians and even if we care about world peace, this thing could escalate easily to a major conflict with the us, with nato which could go on to

a terminal nuclear war. we should try to understand, and again, recognizing that understanding is not justifying. the people i mentioned like george cannon, henry kissinger, william perry, william burns, cia director, and many others, canon is no longer with us, would not be justifying the russian aggression when they explain the background for it in which we played a role and continue to play a role by not joining today in offering and developing diplomatic options supporting those that are already on the table. going back to ambassador freeman, that was his point, his crucial point. as long as our position is you

are finished, prudent, you are done, war crimes trials, permanent sanctions, no way out for you, we are killing putin -- we are going to fight you to the last ukrainian. that is not something we should be doing. we should be moving towards peace. we spend a lot of time talking about the kinds of weapons we can provide, but the real thing we should be talking about is how can we move towards a peaceful settlement which will end this horror, not to the last ukrainian. >> host: you are watching booktv on c-span2. joining us is noam chomsky, his first appearance on this program has written dozens more books. the next call for him comes

from maureen in towns river, new jersey. go ahead. >> caller: i am a great admirer of yours and it is a pleasure to speak with you. i wondered about your thoughts and any optimism about the recent -- last year, locations in new york, now that the amazon warehouse in staten island is unionizing, if you see any of that having an effect, emboldening people throughout the country to start unionizing and recognizing they can take this power into their own hands. >> host: let's get a response. in case you didn't understand, talking about amazon unionizing it if you think that is a good sign and your other thoughts about those types of issues.

>> guest: labor has been under bitter attacks through this whole neoliberal period. you may recall that reagan's first action was to attack unions using what were internationally regarded as illegal means, scabs, permanent replacement workers, a bitter attack on the labor movement. margaret thatcher who was carrying out the same programs in england opened her programs the same way, major attack on unions, that opened the door to private corporations saying we can do it too. others launched anti-union activities also using internationally band methods like scabs and so on.

the laws were changed to make labor organizing much harder. there is a national labor relations board which is supposed to protect workers rights. it was defunded, barely functions. bill clinton came along. another major attack on labor, nafta, the agreement with mexico and canada, was bitterly attacked by the labor movement. they were in favor of an agreement but not this one. labor came forth with the proposal, labor action committee proposal for a north american free trade agreement which would be based on the principle of high wages, high growth.

they were seconded by the office of technology assessment. congress's research bureau which has since been disbanded. congress doesn't seem to want independent information but it existed then and they came out with something similar to the labor movement proposal, efforts to build a high growth, high wage trade system. clinton went through with the corporate based system, low wage, low growth, but great for profits. that was nafta that was later extended to the uruguay realm, the wto agreements which have the same properties. bitter attack on the labor movement. in effect we have some evidence

about how great an attack it was a couple years after nafta, a study was undertaken under nafta rules by kate bronson brenner, a labor historian at cornell university, under nafta rules, undertook a study of the effect of nafta and union organizing, turns out that the effect was dire. nafta, along with the refusal of the government to apply labor laws led to a very sharp reduction in union organizing by illegal means, a business could, if there was an effort at organizing, the business could put up a banner saying

transfer operation mexico to call in workers for obligatory meetings, tell them you go ahead with this union organizing, we will move to mexico. they didn't intend to do it but the morning was enough. meanwhile a major industry had developed, there are major industries working on what used to be called scientific methods of strike breaking, lots of techniques, many of them illegal, but it doesn't matter if you have a criminal state that doesn't enforce the law. the effect of all this over the years has been a sharp decline in the labor movement. this is happening at a time when workers want to unionize, workers preferences, the majority want to be in unions but unionization declines every year.

under attack from a state corporate program of attacking labor. that is what it amounts to. going back to the amazon strike, a dramatic break from that, despite the enormous advantages corporate business system has been given by state criminality which is what it is, despite the enormous advantages amazon workers on staten island managed to win, they will be immediately under attack by amazon by the means i have described but it is a small victory. there are a couple others. there are small signs of revival of labor.

it started in nonunionized areas in red states like my state, arizona, west virginia, teachers who are not unionized began to strike not just for higher wages but for better conditions for children. part of the neoliberal program has been to defund education to try to destroy the public education system. under the trump years we had a secretary of education who was openly committed to destroying the public education system. public education is one of the great achievements of american democracy. in the late 20th century the

united states pioneered, led the world in developing public education. mass public education, enormous contribution to democracy, and american achievement at the university level too. grants for universities unfortunately taking away native american land wasn't pretty but the land grants enable the establishment of major universities, great state universities. mit where i taught all my life was a land-grant university, that was an enormous contribution, it is under sharp

attack, i quoted the crisis of democracy calling good for more indoctrination of the youth, bitter attack on the educational system. there was also defunding, funding for state colleges and universities sharply declined, at the k-12 level, the effort to destroy one of the major contributions of the united states towards democracy and public welfare and it is still continuing. teachers began to strike in the red states, west virginia, arizona, calling for better funding for schools, so a teacher doesn't have to sit in front of 50 kids unable to teach because there's no resources and no possibility, teachers fighting not just for

better salaries which they richly deserve but for better conditions for children in schools. they got a lot of support in arizona. over tucson where i lived, and all over the place, supporting the teachers, businesses support the teachers. and arizona passed a referendum calling for more funding for the schools that were badly needed. the battle continues but this is a major growth of labor organized which has extended to the major labor movement.

not an enormous statistic. starbucks, there was general motors victory, amazon is the latest but there's a long way to go, the national labor relations board has to be reconstituted so that it carries out his legal responsibility of defending workers from legal attacks by business which devastated the labor movement. the biden administration has been trying to do it but it has been blocked by 100% rocksolid republican opposition joined by a few right-wing democrats that came through very recently, very good representative

appointment who was prolabor was blocked and there is a big battle to overcome. as i said i am old enough to remember the early 1930s. kind of similar. the labor movement in the 1920s had been crushed. the united states has a very violent labor history much worse than europe. woodrow wilson, the red scare, the worst regression in american history crushed to the vibrant, militant labor movement, 1920s, almost nothing left. early 1930s in the wake of the depression, began to revive. cio organizing, labor actions, sitdown strikes.

under that impetus, it was a sympathetic administration. you got the new deal measures that greatly improved the lives of americans enormously and led the world to the postwar social democratic movement. maybe it will begin today but it is going to be a battle, a major battle. the amazon victory is a striking example but it is going to be a long haul. the attack on labor continues right now, relentless, bitter, it will play plenty of dedication and commitment to overcome it. >> host: we have an hour left with her guest noam chomsky this afternoon and we will continue take your calls.

noam chomsky has appeared on c-span many times. national reputation sprang forth in 1967 when he wrote a responsibility for intellectuals essay in the new york review of books and it was in 1989 that he gave a lecture on thought control in the modern society. here's a portion. >> the title of this talk i suppose you saw somewhere is necessary illusions, thought control in democratic societies. the title is intended to be paradoxical. thought control and indoctrination are inconsistent with democracy. you can't have thought control in a democratic society. there is a standard view about this matter, the standard view is expressed by supreme court justice powell who speaks what

he calls the societal purpose of the first amendment. that is enabling the public to assert meaningful control over the political process. he happens to be speaking about the media and their crucial role in affecting this, similar remarks could be made and should be made about the educational system, publishing, intellectual life generally. but the media or particularly important in providing free access to information and opinion and allowing a democratic process to function in a meaningful way so the media therefore fulfill what the new york times on sunday called their traditional jeffersonian role as a counterbalance to government power and if one takes jefferson's seriously, as he may or may not have taken himself he was presumably gone further speaking not just of

counterbalancing government power but counterbalancing other concentrations of power specifically the kinds the developed in the post jeffersonian period, corporate power which is the dominant feature of modern social life. all of this seems obvious, what else could be the foundations of democracy? it is worth bearing in mind that there is a contrary view and it is prominently the dominant view among liberal democratic theorists. it goes back to the origins of modern democracy, the english revolutions of the 17th century. at that time, great concern was expressed over popular agitators, itinerant preachers and workers with their little printing presses and pamphlets and public speeches which were removing the cloak of mystery behind which parliament and the

king were carrying out there narrower struggle that you read about in history books. these people were, in their words, people who wanted to be represented not by lords and gentry but men of their own kind, men who know the people's sorts. and observing their activities, one contemporary historian warned that by revealing the workings of power they will make the people so curious and so arrogant they will never find humility enough to submit to civil rule which is a big problem. well after these radical democrats had been crushed by 1660, john locke wrote day laborers, tradesmen and dairy maids must be told what to believe. the greatest part cannot know,

therefore they must be leave. these concerns arose once again during the american revolution as they typically do during popular revolutions. it was not until the 1780s that the radical democrats in the american revolution were crushed and there was no far that people would be represented by people at that time, men of their own kind to know the people's sorts, they would be represented by those qualified to rule over them of whom they were permitted to make a selection, the modern democratic political system which follows the principle laid down by the founding fathers that those who own the country, are the covenant, quoting john j. all of this comes to the

present, the rich tradition expressing these same views comes down to the present, in the modern version, ryan niebuhr, foreign policy analyst, explains rationality belongs to the cool observer but because of the stupidity of the average man, he follows not reason but faith, this faith relies upon necessary illusion, offering me my title, necessary illusion and emotionally potent oversimplifications which have to be provided by the myth makers, the cool observers, folks like us, smart guys. walter lippmann, a journalist a few years earlier talked about manufacture of consent which he said became a self-conscious art and regular organ of popular government and

revolution in the practice of democracy. that is appropriate because the common interests largely elude public opinion entirely and can be managed only by a specialized class. the same concerns explain a good deal of the fear of radical movements abroad right up to the president. in the early 19th century the czar of russia was deeply concerned about the contagion of revolutionary ideas coming from american democracy which might undermine the conservative world order that he and others were presiding over and a century later the roles were reversed but the same ideas were expressed at the time when woodrow wilson sent troops to join the western intervention against the bolsheviks. his secretary of state echoing

the czar a century of earlier warned the bolsheviks were appealing to the proletariat of all countries to the ignorant and mentally deficient who by their numbers are urged to become masters. the same ideas appear explicitly in public relations industry, the patron saint of the modern public relations industry, edward bernays received his training in the grill commission which he was a member of and later developed the concept of engineering of consent, the essence of democracy and something he practiced, for example in demonizing the capitalist government of guatemala. paving the way for the cia coup, the public relations

industry from the very beginning, rick described the task as controlling the public mind, educating the american people about the economic facts of life to ensure favorable climate and business. and proper understanding of the common interest. the public mind is the only serious danger confronting the company, and at&t executive commented 80 years ago and those problems have been addressed ever since. there is also an academic twist to all of this, one of the leading american political scientists, a major figure in the field of communications harold glass well wrote an interesting commentary on this in 1933 in the international encyclopedia of social sciences, the entry under

propaganda, those more honest days, people called them what they were, he wrote an entry in propaganda in which he explained the we must not succumb to men being the best judges of their own interests. they are not. the best judges are the elites who must be insured the means to impose their will for the common good. the means, he said are a whole new technique of control largely through propaganda and it is necessary to do this because of the ignorance and superstition of the masses. he explains why it is particularly important for democracy. it is not the case as the naïve might think indoctrination is inconsistent with democracy. rather the whole line of thinkers observed is the essence of democracy. a military state or feudal state or what we would call a totalitarian state it doesn't

matter what people think because of bludgeon over their head and you can control what they do and carefully think at all and control what they do but when the state loses the bludgeon. you hear this problem it may make people so curious and so arrogant they can't submit to a civil rule and have to control what people think. to make sure they don't get out of control. >> host: that was noam chomsky in 1989, one of 28 appearances. noam chomsky has made on c-span over the years. he joins us now live from his home in tucson arizona. michael, please go ahead and ask your question.

>> caller: hello and thank you for your humanity and your scholarship. my question, if you answer yes, we here in the south, i'm calling from broward county, probably the school district under most attack by a governor and a lot of the forces you describe in covering and free thing. >> host: what is your question? >> caller: it has to do, we had our governor coming out and saying he wished to increase natural covid herd immunity in order to increase what he viewed as a benefit. the very definition when you are pushing something like herd immunity for fatal disease, the definition of criminal eugenic genocide.

using students as smallpox blankets. >> host: covid herd immunity is the question, governor desantis in florida. noam chomsky. >> guest: for question is about governor desantis and covid immunity. >> host: covid herd immunity. >> guest: herd immunity. there is a powerful anti-vaccination movement in the united states. not following policies advised first serious health officials. in florida and elsewhere.

a million americans have already died. hospitals are overflowing with mostly unvaccinated patients. for more mutations. we have the means to if not eradicate, greatly control and diminish the harm caused, and to prevent or limit the possible mutations which could be much more harmful.

if they are not followed there will be more suffering, more pain, more deaths, more crushing of hospitals, to suspend normal operations. because of the overflow of the largely unvaccinated. filling up the covid boards. i have experienced that myself. it has been serious. there is a major problem and a lot to do. it is critically important to get vaccination in large regions of the world.

don't have access to vaccines. with europe and the united states in the early part of this early plague tended to monopoly nations of vaccinations for themselves. it is worse than the us record, the biden administration has taken some steps to try to break through the monopolization, large part of which goes back to the wto that i mentioned earlier. which provide free trade agreements, that are not free trade. to ensure high profits for

pharmaceutical corporations for mega media corporations and others. intellectual property rights, exorbitant rights which allow them to overcharge and make extraordinary profits even though in the case of the pharmaceutical industry much research and development was done at public expense including the moderna vaccine but the rules of the mislabeled free trade agreements allow them for monopoly pricing grants, the germans have been more adamant in protecting this than we have. the effect is to deprive large parts of the world of the vaccines they need.

this is a threat to us not just to them. it means a large pool of unvaccinated people which provide the virus opportunities to mutate, and the variants that have appeared over the years have either been highly lethal but not very contagious like ebola or highly contagious but not very lethal like omicron. can't guarantee that that will continue. the question is what can we do? what we can do is apply the means that are available,

intensive vaccination, protected spaces for people who want to be safe from infection, distancing, masks, many mechanisms that can be used to reduce the spread of infection and to ameliorate the crisis, largely overcome it. we have to pursue those measures, florida under desantis, does not have a good record on this. >> host: jim, you're on with noam chomsky. >> caller: a great honor to talk to you. my question is the internet, your thoughts on it. it has not been that long since it came into being, the last 20, 25 years it has taken over the world so thank you very much. >> host: professor?

>> guest: didn't catch it. >> host: the impact of the internet over the last 25 years. >> guest: the impact of the internet. quite extraordinary. i was present at the origin of what is now the internet, in the 1950s. i was at the research laboratory of electronics at mit which is where the early ideas were formulated. it became the are but a net, later turned into the internet. it is interesting if you remember, the internet was overwhelmingly developed on public funding.

it was a largely publicly created achievement. later it was privatized, handed over to private power for profit but that was many years later into the 90s. the internet has now become a major phenomenon. mixed consequences. the internet does allow us to discover things that we otherwise would not have known, that offers tremendous access to information. for years, many years, 50 years, the article you mentioned, how the media operate, a kind of combination of information and indoctrination system.

combination of both. you used to have to go to the library and work with microfilm machines to try to find out what was in the new york times. now i can do it by clicking a button. you can find things you never would have found. a crucially important document, september 2021, us government policy statement on ukraine. you can find that on the internet. you are not going to find it in the media even if you went to libraries you wouldn't find it but now you can pick it up from the white house official page on the internet. this tremendous source of

potential information and enlightenment, i stress potential. it matters how you use it and unfortunately it is often used to limit understanding and to restrict information. there is a natural tendency, understand it, partially share it, to turn at once to internet sites which reinforce your own positions. i know i'm going to hear the kinds of things i like to turn to and that tends to create bubbles, small bubbles of self reinforcing doctrines and ideas where people become not only ignorant, even immune to it because they are hearing and getting reinforced by what they want to hear.

a very widespread phenomenon we are all familiar with and quite dangerous. it is undermining the possibilities of interchange and interaction across society which are a prerequisite for a functioning democratic society based on an informed electorate aware of the views of others, understanding the views of others, that is the basis of a healthy society, that is what it was like during the new deal period, during the 1960s it was also true over a wide range of at the time most of the younger

population. i was in my 40s at the time so i was one of the old folks but this is deteriorating. while the internet could be a mechanism of liberation and enlightenment, it can also be an instrument of control, indoctrination, device toughness, breakdown of social order, it has all that potential like a lot of technology, the hammer doesn't care whether you use it to build a house or whether a torturer uses it to crush somebody's score, the hammer is indifferent and a lot of technology is like that. .. enormous force for

enlaytonment -- enlightenment, liberation, mutual aid an mutual understanding. but we have it make that decision. the internet will not make it for us. >> john is call in from el paso, texas. >> host: john is calling in from el paso, texas. please go ahead, , john. you are on booktv. >> caller: i hope you don't mind if i change my question. i first asked, was going to ask if the united nations could solve the problems in yemen and afghanistan and ukraine, but now i'm really concerned with whether or not you y think that economic sanctions are an act of war? >> host: did you catch that,th professor? >> guest: it's worth remembering that sanctions, it sanctions are carried out by the united nations, they are legal.

we can ask whether they are advisable, but they are at least legal. most of the sanctions are carried out by the united states. actually, more than half of the world's population is now under one or another form of u.s. sanctions. these have no legal authority. the united states isth using sanctions wildly to punish people, sometimes, sometimes with vacation maybe but sometimes not. but we do not want the world, at least i don't want a world in which one power, which happens to have enormous force in it, behind it, is capable of deciding who gets sanctioned. that's not a livable world. sometimesme the sanctions are

grotesque. take cuba, for 60 years cuba has been under direct attack by the united states, begin with the kennedy administration. kennedy carried out a major terrorist waraj against cuba. not much discussed here, but it was real and very serious, it's part of what led to the missile crisis that almost destroyed us. then harsh sanctions were imposed. well, they continued when russian support was withdrawn and cuba faced really serious problems with the limited support they were getting under the harsh u.s.. sanctions regim. at that moment bill clinton outflanked the republicans from the right, from the right by

increasing the sanctions, increasing the torture, and then came the law which made it even worse. u.s. sanctions or what are called third-party sanctions, others have to adhere to u.s. sanctions even if they oppose them. and in the case o cuba, dramatically the whole world opposes them strenuously. you take a look at the annual votes in the united nations on the cuba sanctions. they are condemned every year. by now they are condemned by everyone. the last boat was one 100 8. the two worth the united states and israel which has to follow u.s. orders as a client state.

actually it doesn't even observe the sanctions but it has to vote with the united states. why do other countries observe u.s. sanctions even though they oppose them? because they are afraid of theit united states. it's a frightening country. europe opposes the sanctions. it opposes the iran sanctions vigorously, but it has to go along because you can't step on toes of the united states. it's dangerous. in fact, the united states has the capacity to throw countries out of the international financial system, which mostly runs to new york, and can carry out other measures. nobody's willing to face that, so countries can't provide, say sweden, medical equipment to cuba. they can't sell something that

uses nickel that the imported from cuba. what's the reason for this? well, one of the good things about the united s states is its quite an open society, much more so than others. we have ae lot of information about what our government is doing, not perfect, but a lot, a lot of material gets declassified, unlike other countries. that's a very good thing. so we can look back through the records of the kennedy and johnson administration in the 1960s and ask why the torture of cuba, and it is torture. well, the reason is -- i'm quoting -- successful defiance ofti u.s. policies going back to the 1820s to the monroe doctrine, which established the u.s. right to dominate the

hemisphere, to turnth the hemisphere into a sphere of influence as it is called for the united states. well, back in thek 1820s the united states wasn't powerful enough to implement it. britain was much more powerful and impeded the u.s., but over time as predicted by u.s. leaders, john quincy adams,, others, british power waned and american power increased, and finally the u.s. was able to impose the monroe doctrine. cuba was acting and successful defiance of u.s. demand to dominate the hemisphere and determine what happened here. ha. so we have to for clear them make them suffer bitterly and brutally and europe joins in, the whole world joins in because they are afraid of the united

states. same with iran. therefore the joint agreement on nook weapons signed by the obama administration 2015. iran lived up to it completely. u.s. intelligence confirms that iran completely lived up to the agreement. it sharply limited iran's capacity to develop nuclear systems whether they intended to develop nuclear weapons we don't know. they say they weren't but maybe they were. president trump dismantled it. tore it to shreds violating security council ordersment security county had ordered all countries maintain the jcpoa.

trump decided i don't like it, i'm going to tear it apart so he destroyed it. then he punished iran for the u.s. violation of security council orders by imposing harsh sanctions on iran. europe bitterly opposed that but they have to conform for the reasons i mentioned. that is now maintained by the biden administration. there is a chance that we might be able to restore the agreement. trekkie thing. well, we can look through the rest of the world. there are u.n. sanctions which one can debate whether they are right or wrong but at least they are legitimate. but u.s. sanctions have no

legitimacy, nor would those of or countries if other countries were capable of imposing them. to a limited extent they do but not much. it is mostly a u.s. weapon. and we should look into them closely. take the -- there are some about which we've extensive evidence if we want to learn. so take the clinton administration, clinton, blair, u.s. -- u.k. sanctions on iraq in the 1990's. very hash sanctions -- harsh sanctionsed a murder through the u.n. but basically u.s.a.-british sanctions. there were distinguished international diplomats who administered the sanctions. the first was an ash diplomat

dennis holiday. he resigned in protest because he said the sanctions were genocidal. he said they are bitterly harming iraqi civilians. hundreds of thousands of children are dying and the economy is being destroyed and they are not harming sa -- saddam julio jones the population is suffering and has to shelteren the umbrella of the brutal government so it strengthens the tyrant, harming the population to the point where it is general r genocidal. he resigned. he was replaced by another distinguished international diplomat. he had researchers all over the

country observing what was happening, knew more about iraq than anybody in the west. he resigned in protest because, as he put it, the sanctions are genocidal. he reiterated and strengthened what dennis halladay had said. he also published an important book called "a different kind of war" in which he described in detail the brutality and sadism of the u.s. after british sanctions and what they were doing to population while they were strengthening the tyrantment we are not a fascism i was -- fascist country but try to find it. i don't think there's a single a in united states or britain. you can find it in detail, what

sanctions are like when they are applied in a brutal and sadistic manner and you can't prove it but he kind of suggests and i think there's some plausibility to this that the sanctions may have saved saddam from being overthrown from within that happened to a lot of tyrants, brutal u.s. backed tyrants. marcos in the philippines. duvalier in haiti. in romania the worst of the gangs doctors in the -- gangsters in the soviet system supported by the united states until virtually the day of his overthrowing.

within after -- one after another were toppled by internal revolts. same thing happened in south korea. possibly it could have happened in iraq but not under the conditions of the sanctions which so punished the population an demoralized them and so forced them to shelter under the saddam umbrella that there was no possibility of overthrowing the government. cannot prove it but that might have happened. well, that is one case of sanctions where we can learn a great deal from the book. it is very detailed and instructive but we can only learn it if we try. if we decide we want to accept the indoctrination, ok, then it doesn't matter that it is a free country. well, there are other cases you

can look at. the usual discussion of sanctions is do they achieve their ends. so, there's a lot of criticism of the iran sanctions, public criticism in the united states, because they didn't work. they didn't force iran it accept u.s. demands. it is not the right question. the right question is, what right does the united states have to destroy the agreement in violates of security council orders and punish iran because we destroyed the agreement? that is the question that should be asked. what right did we have to compel others to adhere to or decision to punish iranians because we withdrew from the agreement. those are the questions that

could be asked and similar questions could be asked in other cases. cube is the obvious within. venezuela, others. remember, u.s. sanctions are so widespread that they actually reach over half of the world's population. earlier i quoted chaz freeman one of the highly regarded members of the u.s. diplomatic corps and he goes into the illegality and cruelty of the sanctions. it is worth listening to and worth thinking about. >> in your book who rules the world there is a chapter that is spwaeulted "the u.s. as a leading terrorist state" kathy

in albuquerque, go ahead. caller: the one issue that weighs heavily on my mind is immigration. i have a feeling it will only get worse because of global warming. i don't know if there is anything to do to make it better. i don't think we should turn these people away because it is not easy to leave a place they are familiar with and go somewhere. i don't know if you agree also that it will get worse because of global warming and what we can do. >> thank you, ma'am. noam: i sort of half got it but not sure if i got it completely. could you complete the essence? >> she is concerned about immigration and thinks it will get worse because of tkpwhrpbl -- global claimant change. noam: immigration is an interesting question. we don't have much time but one thing away might do is look at the u.s. record on immigration. the u.s. is in an unusual

position. it has extraordinary advantages. very low population density enormous resources. what is year lift on immigration? up until the 20th century immigrants were welcomed from europe, white immigrants. why? not a pretty story. we were wiping out and exterminating the indigenous populations. the country was being opened,for settlement and needed lots of white faces to settle it. 1920 the other centals -- or kwrpbtales were blocked. 1924 the first strict immigration restriction was

inposted. the words were not used but in effect it was aimed at italians and jews. that is the effect and design of the immigration act of 1924. many jews ended up in extermination camps because at the couldn't get into the united states. happens it include the recommendments of my extended family but that's the least of it. this law stayed until 1965. other arrangements were made which are worth discussing. i have no time for it today. today the u.s. has, it is not alone, europe is even worse. europe is even more brutal anti-immigration policies than the united states. europe has spent centuries

devastating and destroying africa. it is now working hard to ensure that people escaping, trying it escape from the wreckage of european savagery can make it european shores. europe even has a military installations in central africa, niger, to try to prevent miserable refugees from making it to the mediterranean, where at the might enter european shores. so, you want it feel good about it, europe is worse but our policies are horrendous. people who are fleeing from the destruction of their societies by u.s. terror under reagan in the 1980's, murderous terror operations killed hundreds of thousands of people, hundreds of

thousands of refugees, orphans. much of it is extended. people are trying it escape. in honduras there was a military coup in 2009 condemned by almost the entire continent, accepted by obama and hillary clinton, who basically supported it. turned honduras even into more of a horror chamber than it had been to a huge wave of flight. we now turn them back at the border or separate parents from children at the border under trump. it is disgraceful. the pope, pope francis properly said that the refuse gentlemen crisis is not a refugee crisis, it is a moral crisis of the wealthy, of the rich, of the west.

well, the question that it will get more extreme, we are now intensifying the threat and danger of global warming which will be devastating. it will lead to huge flight. countries like say bangladesh will become unlivable. post of south asia is literally going to be virtually unlivable. large parts of africa. what are the people going to do? they are going to have it flee, hundreds of millions will be trying it flee. not so great here either. in arizona where i live there's a long drought that may have very severe consequences but it is nothing like the poorer countries of the world. they are going to be shattered by this. and, yes, will there be enormous

immigration problems. the way it deal with it is to stop immediately or assault on -- our assault on the global environment. we are destroying the environment which can sustain life on earth. we must start immediately following the strong advice of the scientific community, by p.c.c., that we cut back fossil fuels right away. a certain percentage every year, right away until we end use of fossil fuels within a couple of decades. we're finish. ok. >> professor you have spoken for decades with conscience woven throughout the remarks an

writings in the manner of dr. chomsky. he has two new books coming out a world in our hearts and not on resistance. noam chomsky is been a guest for the past two hours on "in depth." >> booktv every sunday on c-span2 features leading authors discussing the latest nonfiction books. at noon eastern on "in depth" join joint on my conversation with journalist sam quinones who will discuss immigration issues, america's drug epidemic and his latest books the least of us come true tales of america and hope in the time of fentanyl and meth. at 10 p.m. eastern on "after words" creator and host of the rubin report dave rubin shares his thoughts on how to revive the american dream with his book don't burn this country.