Deconstructed Special: The Noam Chomsky Interview

the current moment is the most grim moment in human history and the wrecking ball in the white house just doesn't give it in he's having fun he's serving his rich constituency so what the hell let's destroy the world [Music] welcome to deconstruct it I'm Matty Hussam this week who better to speak with about a combination of domestic and international crises from violence in Syria to the Democratic presidential race in the u.s. than the legendary writer activist and political theorist Noam Chomsky want to know what he makes of impeachment - I'm in Trampas impeachable a hundred times over you know it's a major crook is it politically wise I frankly doubt it today in a special episode of deconstructed I speak to the one the only Noam Chomsky my guest today has been a scathing critic of US presidents and especially u.s. foreign policy for more than 50 years he rose to prominence as an outspoken opponent of the Vietnam War and was even included on Richard Nixon's enemies list an academic activist and best-selling author he's been described as the founding father of linguistic philosophy but he's best known today as the intellectual hero to anti capitalists anti-imperialists socialists and anarchists I'm talking of course about Noam Chomsky who is often referred to as one of the 10 most quoted sources in the humanities along with Shakespeare and the Bible and yet you rarely if ever see him quoted published or invited onto the mainstream media whether it's the New York Times op-ed page or CNN primetime Chomsky the arch anti interventionist surprised a lot of people last year on my colleague Jeremy Scahill intercepted podcast when he said that the US should maintain a troop presence in Syria in order to deter Turkish aggression against the Kurds does he still feel that way today in the wake of President Trump's controversial withdrawal of US troops and what's his view on impeaching Trump and on the presidential prospect of his old friend senator Bernie Sanders recently and I should add shortly before Trump announced the death of Isis leader abu bakr al baghdadi noam chomsky joined me for an interview from his new academic base at the University of Arizona where aged 90 he's now laureate professor in the Department of linguistics and chair of an environment and social justice program professor Chomsky thanks for joining me on deconstructed very pleased to be with you in recent weeks we've seen some pretty gruesome images coming out of northeastern Syria rebel groups backed by Turkey on the offensive killing and mutilating not just Kurdish fighters from the SDF the us-backed Syrian democratic forces but women and children to this house you see here there were children playing a mortar fell and killed a boy the girl she lost her leg am i right in saying that you didn't support President Trump's decision to withdraw US troops from the frontlines in Syria that's correct for a long time I've been trying to organize support for opposition to the withdrawal and and why is that because from the left at least the call for withdrawal was based on anti imperialist principles but principles have to be understood in connection with the human reality of the existing circumstances a small US contingent with the sole mission of deterring a planned Turkish invasion which was obvious is not imperialism its protecting the Kurds from an expansion of the atrocities and massacres that Iran has been carrying out both within Turkey itself and in the areas of Syria that he's already conquered and a lot of people listening especially on the Left might be surprised to hear you say this they might say Noam Chomsky we associate him with anti interventionism with opposition to u.s. foreign policy and US military interventions abroad why are the Kurds the exception to that you know life long career long opposition to US military interventions especially in the Middle East if you take a look at what it's not intervention Syria was already invaded by Turkey the troops that are there we're essentially doing nothing except deterring an expansion of a further invasion you have to not deal with slogans as if it's a religious catechism you have to ask how they apply in particular complex human circumstances I take your point but I do want to explore this a bit more broadly because I've agreed with a lot of what you've written over the years in terms of u.s. foreign policy in Afghanistan in Iraq and Latin America and as you know and you've written so eloquently on a lot of these interventions invasions bombing campaigns regime changes are justified on humanitarian grounds on with leaders saying what you're saying that we should protect civilians a liberal interventionist listening to you speaking I might say well why didn't Noam Chomsky support the Kosovo intervention to protect Albanians why didn't he support no-fly zone for Syrian Arabs in Idlib Aleppo who were being bombed by Assad why only the Kurds let's take your first example Kosovo I opposed the NATO bombing because it was known both to the Clinton administration and to the press which refused to report it that the bombing would radically increase the level of crimes and atrocities against the people in Kosovo General Wesley Clark informed the Clinton administration weeks earlier that that's exactly what would happen he informed the press when the invasion began that that's what was that gonna happen the reason I opposed it was because there were diplomatic options available and instead NATO meaning the u.s. chose to undertake a major military attack consciously knowing that it would greatly increase atrocities as the Serbs couldn't react by bombing Washington so they'd react on the ground you have to ask yourself in each circumstance what are the consequences of your decisions if you don't do that you're not a moral human being now you're perfectly right that every monster you think of in history has declared that whatever acts are going to carry out are for humanitarian reasons now if you have a brain functioning what you do is ask is this correct or isn't it correct you don't say because Hitler said it was a humanitarian intervention in the Sudetenland therefore there are no humanitarian interventions no of course but in Syria for example as you know very complicated conflict with people are you know people of good faith and bad faith on many sides there are a lot of Syrian Arabs who would say why didn't Noam Chomsky ask for US troops to protect us when we were being butchered by acid why only for the Kurds when they're being butchered by Iran because there was no way for a small contingent of US troops to deter Assad what in fact was done was that under Obama when they were still planning to overthrow the regime the CIA was providing heavy weapons to the rebels who were by then mostly jihadi rebels there's word tonight that the CIA has been delivering weapons to rebels in Syria over the last two weeks according to the Washington Post the Obama administration is sending vehicles and other equipment to boost the muscle of rebel fighters in Syria's two years Civil War they in fact slowed down Assad's advance but quite predictably they brought the Russians in to escalate the conflict there is growing concern among top officials in the Defense Department over Russia's growing involvement in Syria's Civil War it's escalating by the day and so are the risks of a confrontation with the US so yes you have to ask yourself what are the likely predictable consequences in every situation you can't find formulas in human affairs that will determine the action in every particular case and just on just on Iran because as you know L know a lot of US politicians especially on the right they want American troops in Syria partly to quote/unquote deter Iran at a time when we're applying maximum pressure on Iran by giving them a stronger hand in Syria we've actually weaken that pressure president Trump if you remove all of our forces from Syria you're throwing the Kurds over Isis will come back on your watch and Iran will take over how worried are you about a u.s. attack on Iran next year because it's election year and would trump behind in the polls I for one can see the appeal for Trump of launching a new war in the Middle East in the run-up to November well first of all let's separate those two issues a small contingent of troops to deter Turkish aggression would have nothing to do with Iran so we put that aside what is the prospects for a war against Iran it's hard to say I don't think the Trump administration could answer I don't think they want a war the war could have extremely harsh effects not only out Iran but much more generally so for example Saudi Arabia's major oil production almost all the oil production is in the northeast corner right in the Shiite areas very close to Iran they have missile capacities they could devastate one of the main oil producers in the world there could be many other consequences so I don't think the United States wants a war with Iran what they want to do is torture Iranians as much as possible in the hope that destruction of the economy will lead to some breakdown inside Iran but that can easily get out of hand any accidental incident in the Gulf could blow up suddenly and could lead to an attack tensions on the rise in the Persian Gulf once again the United States says Iran is behind attacks on oil tankers in the Gulf now lawmakers say the Trump administration says it already has the legal authority to begin a war with Iran wouldn't really be an invasion the u.s. is buckling within to read that's much too costly it would be an attack from a safe distance and of course as you say that could escalate as well no one knows what the unintended consequences of such dangerous action could be I want to talk about the Donald Trump presidency especially with impeachment on the cards but before I do does the seemingly global rise of the far right of authoritarianism and nativism from Putin to all ban to duterte - Narendra Modi in India how much does that worry you and what do you think is driving it at this moment in human history of course it's worrisome it's very hard to detect geo strategic planning in the chaos of the Trump administration which is highly personalized and so on megalomaniac and so on but you can kind of detect something yeah the effort which is overt and Steve bannon's case to construct a kind of a reactionary international which will consist in the middle east of the most reactionary states in the region Saudi Arabia's the crown prince of Saudi Arabia a friend of mine you've done really a spectacular job United Arab Emirates Egypt under the Sisi dictatorship Egypt has a great leader who's highly respected he's brought order Israel which is no four to the right Netanyahu a very special man has done a great job to be kind of a base for us power in the region and that extends beyond to try to bring the Modi's India into it Prime Minister Modi is doing a truly exceptional job for India or bond is another case salvini in Italy Faraj if he merges in the first brexit period also Naro and brazil but as eros is there a particular social or economic or political driver of all this that links all this together sure yeah it's very simple and straightforward forty years of the neoliberal assault on the general population which has been extremely harmful almost everywhere it's led to anger resentment contempt for institutions and when you have a period of unfocused anger resentment and so on it's fertile territory for demagogues to arise and try to mobilize it and blame it not on its sources select not on the international financial institutions that are lying behind it to a substantial extent but the focus is on scapegoats typically people even more vulnerable than you are immigrants Muslims Afro Americans discuss way back to Ronald Reagan's welfare queens and so on and other demagogues in the piste so yes that's rising there are also counter forces that are rising now they're very significant you know it's pretty common these days to quote grump she's famous interregnum via that generating them with morbid symptoms but there are more of its symptoms in their positive symptoms and it's a real question which will prevail let's talk about Donald Trump specifically you have witnessed I think 16 presidents over the course of your lifetime Donald Trump being the 16th how does Trump stack up against the rest of them is he sweet generous in your view yeah he's off the spectrum but the fact is that that's true of the Republican Party generally two well-known commentators and from the American Enterprise Institute Thomas Mann a Norman Ornstein years ago described the Republican Party since Newt Gingrich as a radical insurgency that has abandoned parliamentary politics and is now often a different dimension what's actually happened is that during the neoliberal period both of the political parties have shifted to the right so the mainstream Democrats the ones who are now meeting with their billionaire friends to try to figure out how to get rid of the Sanders and Warren they're basically what used to be called moderate Republicans the Democrats abandoned the working class by the late 70s the last bit of the show of interest was the humphrey-hawkins 1978 full employment bill which Carter watered down so they had no teeth and after that they kind of gave up the hand of the working class over to their class enemy of the Republicans who try to mobilize them on what are called cultural issues yes they're shafting them at every turn including Trump but you can try to mobilize them on the basis of you know abortion immigrants yes the guns anything but the real issues and I agree with you that the Republican Party is he said you call them the biggest threat to mankind in terms of their views on climate change as you say the radical insurgency but having said that even a Ted Cruz or a Mike Pence as radical as they may be they still fit within some sort of understandable political prism Trump as you say is off the spectrum yeah have you ever seen a Western democratic leader like him in your lifetime who behaves like him talks like him no but it's worth looking back a little bit so for the last I suppose 15 years they take a look at the Republican primaries every Republican primary a candidate who arose from the base was so outrageous that the Republican establishment tried and succeeded in suppressing them Michele Bachmann carbon dioxide is not a harmful gas it is a harmless gas Rick Santorum I don't want to make black people's lives better by giving them somebody else's money Herman Cain you Becky Becky Becky Becky stands dance o madman and they managed to suppress them what was different in 2016 is they failed and with the guy who came into office over there opposition it was megalomaniac narcissist kind of like a three-year-old who's enjoying the opportunity to smash everything in sight and knows he can get away with it and if a very good politician he has his finger on the pulse of his voting constituency it's a kind of an adoring constituency that'll support him no matter what he does and he's playing to that gallery the only policy that you can discern clearly in the Trump administration is a very simple one me anything that benefits me I'll do no matter what the consequences if it destroys the world okay but while acknowledging that point and you're 100% right to talk about his kind of narcissism and ego mania but is it also fair now to describe the president as a white nationalist a white supremacist because when I spoke to you in 2016 shortly after his election you made the point in that every far-right nationalist neo-nazi has been encouraged and excited by his victory you said but then you said we don't know what direction he'll go in we don't know if he'll go in that direction given the last three years charlottesville the you know what's been going on recently attacks on synagogues and mosques his far-right rallies where he they chant send them back it's pretty clear that he has now gone in a full-on white nationalist white supremacist direction isn't it but that's part of the problem of the Republican Party its primary constituency is extreme wealth and corporate power those are the ones they serve so you take the one legislative achievement of the Trump administration the tax scam that was for the rich and the very rich and the corporate sector take deregulation does it help working people to eliminate health and safety conditions in the workplace does it increase profits okay we know the answer same across the board so you run across the legislative programs yes the ones that are carried out by the really evil characters Mitch McConnell before him Ryan and so on those policies are dedicated to the traditional Republican constituency but you can't get votes on those policies so you have to mobilize some kind of a voting base and the way they did it is as I described it as you know mobilize the racists so if it turns out that white nationalists are the voting base that you can mobilize Trump will become a white nationalist I think it does him too much credit to attribute to him beliefs like support for white nationalism or fascism or anything else his motive is himself and he's a good enough politician to understand that the only way he's going to get support is by appealing to those sectors of the population one should bear in mind the butter cynicism of the Republican Party since Reagan take their actual planks one unbreakable commitment of the Republican Party is anti-abortion what's called pro-life where'd that come from you go back to the 1960s the leading Republican figures the Ronald Reagan George HW Bush all the rest of them were what we call the pro-choice what changed well in the 1970s a Republican strategist Paul viber had the brilliant idea that if the Republicans pretended I stress pretended to be anti-abortion they could pick up the evangelical book and the northern working-class Catholic vote so they turned on a dime they all became passionately anti-abortion take climate change was an interesting one you go back just 10 years 2008 John McCain when he ran for president had a global warming plank that's very strong but something there are vital measures we can take in the short term even as we focus on long term policies to mitigate the effects of global warming the Republicans were in fact toying with cap-and-trade what happened very simple David Koch who died recently if the Koch brothers launched a huge campaign major juggernaut a bribing congressman threatening them intimidating them huge lobbying organization fake popular organizations to you know knock on doors and so on they switched no part of the Catechism is you have to be against climate change let's talk impeachment the Democrats have launched in Pietschmann inquiry into President Trump specifically around this suggestion that he was pressuring a foreign country Ukraine to dig up dirt on his political opponent and even withholding military aid until they agreed to do so do you support the House Democrats decision to finally start an impeachment inquiry into Donald Trump well first notice something they're going after Trump not on his major-crimes indeed but because he went after a leading Democrat does that remind you of anything yes Watergate they didn't go after Nixon on his major crimes they were off the record it was because he had attacked the Democratic Party good point uh so yes they'll protect themselves is it right the right thing to do I mean Trump is impeachable a hundred times over you know he's a major crook there's no doubt about it is it politically wise I frankly doubt it I think it'll turn out pretty much like the motor report pushing that I thought was also a political mistake what'll happen is probably the house will impeach goes to the Senate the Republican senators are utterly craven they're terrified of Trump's voting base so they'll vote to turn down the impeachment request the Trump will come along say I'm vindicated see it was the deep state that the treacherous Dems trying to overturn this election now vote for me I had the filmmaker Michael Moore on the show last week and he thinks that eventually this evidence is gonna pile up against Trump that's so damning we've already seen some of the testimony from the acting US ambassador to Ukraine and others that actually he thinks Republican senators some of them who you know who need to save their skins will join Senate Democrats to vote to remove Trump from office you don't seem to buy that I think you may find a handful who will find a way to evade taking a position but if you just look at the record of the party I gave you a couple of examples but we can go on yeah it's very hard to imagine any bit of principled emerging it's true that if some of them thought they were really gonna suffer for it politically or in other ways maybe they change but that doesn't seem too likely just take a look at Trump's voting base you know they're pretty regular polls and studies they haven't changed they by his line here's our hero the one man in the world who's willing to stand up for us although whether it works or not in the Senate it doesn't mean the House Democrats shouldn't take a stand regardless of whether Republican senators convict can Trump be beaten at the ballot box next November is there a Democratic candidate who you think can beat him or more than one candidate well here it's very interesting to see what's what's being done you may have seen a day or two ago in The New York Times was a big article about a meeting of the Democratic centrists the establishment the billionaires the donors you know the mainstream political figures and it was about their concern about just what you ask is there a Democrat who can defeat Trump and they went through the possible Democratic candidates and discussed their flaws and then asked can we bring in someone else like you know Bloomberg he showed Obama so take a look at the leading candidates they listed war and Biden and Mayor Pete do you notice somebody missing senator Sanders doesn't make the cut of these lists there's a very good reason for it he has absolutely infuriated the liberal establishment by committing a major crime it's not his policies his crime was to organize a political or ongoing political movement yeah that doesn't just show up the polls every four years and push a button that keeps working that's no good the rabble is supposed to stay home their job is to watch not to participate but to be fair to Elizabeth Warren who you mentioned a moment ago she has upset a lot of big Democratic donors some Democratic donors on Wall Street are reportedly threatening to vote for President Trump or sit out of the 2020 election cycle if the party nominates Elizabeth Warren is she someone you're not impressed with our impressive what's your take on senator Elizabeth Warren I think she seems to be quite honest I think many of her plans are perfectly reasonable she's working with quite serious economists some of them friends but she doesn't pretend to try to in stopping to institute radical institutional changes Sanders does furthermore she has not organized a mass political movement which Sanders did and it's had a lot of effects that's how you get people in Congress like Ocasio Cortez and others because of this movement I began to assert and recognize my inherent value and that's scary and nobody in the political mainstream what's there but but some argue as you know Bernie Sanders is a deeply controversial figure for good reasons are bad you know he's a divisive figure again for good reasons are bad depending on your perspective some would say with Elizabeth Warren you get the best of both worlds you get left wing policies but you get a candidate who can reach out across the Democratic Party why not go with her instead of Bernie Sanders well you can make that calculation I think it's up to individuals to decide but Bernie's got your vote it's fair to say if I were voting in the primary I would vote for him but I think Warren would be a reasonable candidate almost anybody who can think of you know the guy next guy you meet in the street would be better than troncos of course even Joe Biden what's your view of Joe Biden you know he's a he's a kind of a mild Obama nothing very special I suspect in a debate with Trump I think he'd probably be overwhelmed just by the the the showmanship and the deceit and the lies but he'd certainly be a better candidate than true I suspect you're right about him being overwhelmed one of the things that a lot of Bernie Sanders supporters point is they say look Elizabeth Warren says she's a capitalist to her bones Bernie says he's a socialist um do you think it's accurate to describe Bernie Sanders at number one do things accurate to describe him as a socialist and number two how would you define your own politics your own ideology I don't think the word socialism should even be used in this context Bernie Sanders is a decent person I like what he's doing to be quite frank his major policies would not have surprised President Eisenhower very much I mean he's a progressive New Deal Democrat politics have shifted so far to the right during the neoliberal period that things that were sort of conventional in mainstream 50 60 years ago now sound radical so why do you think he calls himself a socialist giving it something to help him with Elektra why do you think he describes himself as a socialist then well you know what a socialism mean these days socialism means the New Deal in the United States you don't call it socialism and put socialism as a curse word and we were a very business room society that's my point he uses the word to self define in that way when it doesn't really help him and you're saying he's not one he is if you were to use the term that way most terms of political discourse have almost totally lost their meaning so Reagan is called a free-market Republican I mean his administration intervened radically in the market over and over for the benefit of the rich so on that point then dare I ask how would you define your own politics their own ideologies their label we could give you why now I don't even like labels but I've been more or less I hate to use the word because it's so misunderstood but one or another form of anarchists all my life and never saw any reason to change actually I think most people are a darkest in the traditional sense how would you define that to someone listening at home saying well what's what does that mean if Noam Chomsky's an anarchist well what does anarchism in and it the whole long tradition actually going back to classical liberalism it fundamentally means opposition to structures of authority and nomination unless they can justify themselves illegitimate structures of domination and hierarchy ranging from paternalistic family to business which is a tyranny in which people rent themselves as slaves to international affairs anywhere across this domain if you find illegitimate Authority should be eliminated I suspect most people believe that of course that means lots of consequences it means they should be opposed to private tyrannies people who are called libertarians in the United States strange notion very anti libertarian are fundamentally calling for a rule by unaccountable private tyrannies I don't see anything libertarian about that that's a very good point and I kind of know where you stand on the economy and on foreign policy what I'm wondering is where do you stand on issues of put reform do you think it's time for the Democrats to take action to fix the ridiculously undemocratic and archaic US political system would you for example support abolishing the electoral college in the Senate filibuster would you backpacking the Supreme Court to undo Gorsuch and Kavanagh would you support statehood for DC and Puerto Rico well yes taking each case on its own take the electoral college that's bad enough that take the Senate I mean the Senate is one of the most undemocratic institutions in the Western world take a look at the number of voters that each senator represents okay yes if a country tried to enter the European Union with the US political system they'd be turned down by the European Court of Justice I mean there's a whole history here that has to be thought of the Constitution in the 18th century though it was a pretty conservative doctrine nevertheless by the standards of the 18th century was pretty novel and even progressive in some respects but to adhere to the 18th century Constitution in the 21st century is a pretty strange phenomenon of an take the people who are called original lists you know the right wing originalist that Gorsuch and so on who say we have to interpret the Constitution the way the founders and the framers in the 18th century understood it I mean it does that even approach rationality to discuss the modern world the way somebody in 1780 perceived it so you would like to see the Democrats take a much stronger line on some of these issues on changing some of this stuff well you're living in the real world not in some ideal world we're actually facing a constitutional crisis the way the demography and the political structure are organized it's increasingly becoming the case that a very small sector of voters yes maybe 20% or so who were white often white nationalist a Christian often evangelical traditional older less educated rural can actually run the country and that can't be changed by amendment because there's enough votes in the small states to prevent it how do you deal with this well you have to deal with it piecemeal in some fashion maybe you'd like to say this very reactionary system should be overturned but that's like saying I'd like to have peace on earth but you could do stuff like pack the Supreme Court which doesn't require any a Constitution amendments that's a possible tactic but even that wouldn't get you very far I mean it could avert some of the extreme reactionary decisions of the Roberts Court which is the most reactionary in living memory has to go far back to find anything like it but the serious issues like for example the unamended commitment to a radically undemocratic Senate that's going to be hard to change before we finish you've lived through and documented analyzed the Cuban Missile Crisis the Cold War the Vietnam War Watergate the Reagan era the Iraq war the financial crisis given that how unique how toxic even is this current political moment that we're living through right now the current moment not just political is the most grim moment in human history we are now in a situation where this generation in fact in the next few years is going to have to make a decision of cosmic significance which is never arisen before will organized human society survive and there are two enormous threats it's a threat of environmental catastrophe which at least is getting some attention not enough of the other is the threat of nuclear war which is increasing sharply by the Trump administration in fact these have to be dealt with quickly otherwise there's nothing to talk about and notice that the wrecking ball in the White House just doesn't give a damn he's having fun he's serving his rich constituency so what the hell let's destroy the world and it's not that they don't know it some months ago maybe a year ago by now the one of the Trump bureaucracies the National Transportation Administration came out with what I think is the most astonishing document in the entire history of the human species got almost no attention it was a long 500 page environmental assessment in which they tried to determine what the environment would be like it's at the end of the century and they concluded by the end of the century temperatures will have risen seven degrees Fahrenheit you know approximately that's about twice the level that scientists regard is feasible for organized human life the World Bank describes it as Cataclysm so what's their conclusion conclusion is we should have no more constraints on little motive emissions and the reasoning is very solid we're going off the cliff anyway so why not have fun has anything like that ever appeared in human history there's nothing like it I think there's nothing like this administration in particular one last question before I let you go you're about to turn ninety-one years old you're still going strong doing interviews like this one teaching at the University of Arizona what keeps you going what motivates you I'm sure a lot of people listening would like to know what's the alternative that's fine it's easy personal life you know the political scene the issues that have to be addressed professional work which is exciting all the things in life that make life worth living do you ever get exhausted having to campaign and argue and debate and push for these things decade after decade no not really just more incentive as time goes on professor Noam Chomsky thank you so much for joining me on deconstructed very pleased to be with you [Music]

Channel: Workplace Democracy

Views: 10,521

Rating: 4.8728604 out of 5

Keywords: Chomsky, Trump, Noam Chomsky, Politics, Foreign policy, impeachment, Syria, climate change, Republican party, Neoliberalism

Id: KSSzGW8vk7o

Length: 37min 6sec (2226 seconds)

Published: Sun Nov 03 2019

Reddit Comments

[u/phoeniciao]

Have you guys considered that if or when the top soil decides they want to survive, the toil of human suffering will be even greater? They will toss anything in the fire so they can escape, doesn't matter if it works

[u/dougb]

Everyone who isn't a billionaire is going to get depopulated. Volunteering to suck dick isn't even going to save you.

[u/k3surfacer]

The few richest are betting on going to the space and let the slaves on earth provide for them.

I think it will work for them.

[u/whhe11]

To the extent that that proves true, the complacency of the majority of people especially in the US and Canada as well as the lack of real ethics or principals in European governments dealings with the rest of the world is are in part to blame, less so then the actions of the biggest companies and the billionaire class as a whole.

[u/ATworkATM]

The only thing we can do is strike. Their bottom line is all that matter to them. I call to the labour gods: organize fellow workers. Demand what is rightfully yours. Disrupt the cycle.

[u/DrStickyPete]

does anyone have the link to the document he's referring to