Noam Chomsky – Conversations with History

(bright music) – Welcome to A Conversation With History, I’m Harry Kreisler of the Institute of International Studies. Our guest today is Noam Chomsky. Noam, welcome to Berkley. Where were you born and raised? – I was born in Philadelphia, 1928. Stayed there til I went
through undergraduate school, University of Pennsylvania, then went off to Harvard
for a couple of years in a research fellowship,
and then graduate school. When I was done with
that, went over to MIT, and I’ve been in Boston ever since. Around Boston since about 1950. – Your parents both
were Hebrew grammarians and taught Hebrew school? – My father was professionally
a Hebrew scholar, and his main work was Hebrew grammar, and my mother was a Hebrew teacher. My father sort of ran
the Hebrew school system in the city of Philadelphia. My mother taught in it. He taught in Hebrew college later. There’s a university of Jewish studies, graduate university of Jewish studies, that’s the college which he taught in. But they were all part of what amounted to a kind of Hebrew ghetto, Jewish ghetto, in Philadelphia. Not physical ghetto, it was
scattered around the city, but cultural ghetto. – And was Hebrew the
language spoken at home? – No.
– No? – Second. It was in the background. So for example, by the
time I was eight or nine, say Friday evening, my
father and I would read Hebrew literature together. – [Harry] And looking back,
how do you think your parents shaped your perspectives on the world? – Well, those are always very
hard questions to answer, because it’s a combination
of influence and resistance, which is difficult to sort out. I mean, undoubtedly, the background has shaped the kinds of interests and tendencies and
directions that I’ve pursued, but it was… It was independent. I mean I think more direct influences actually came from other
parts of the family. – [Harry] Mhm, please, go ahead. – Well, my parents were immigrants and they happened to
end up in Philadelphia, but my mother from New York, and my father from Baltimore. When he came over in
1913 for whatever reason, his family went to Baltimore and my mother’s family, from another part of
the Pale of Settlement, came to New York. And there were two different families, there was the New York family
and the Baltimore family, and we were in the middle in Philadelphia. So we naturally went out
the back, but close by. The families were totally different. Now, the Baltimore family
were ultra-Orthodox. In fact, my father told me that they had become more
Orthodox when they got here than they even were in the shtetl, the little town in Ukraine
where they came from. In general there was a tendency among some sectors of immigrants to intensify the cultural tradition, probably as a way of
identifying themselves in a strange environment, I suppose. So that was that family. The other part of the family, my mother’s, was mainly Jewish working class. Very radical, the Jewish
element had disappeared. This was the 1930s, so they
were part of the ferment of radical activism that
was going on in the 30s in all sorts of ways. And of all of them, the one who actually did
influence me a great deal was an uncle by marriage, who was an extremely interesting person. He came into the family when
I was about seven or eight, and became a big influence. Married my aunt. He was brought up in New York, also from an immigrant family, but he’d grown up in a
poor area of New York. In fact, he himself never
went past fourth grade. It was, you’re on the streets, you know? This criminal background,
all sorts of stuff. What’s going on in the under
class ghettos in New York. He happened to have a physical deformity, so he was able to get a newsstand under a compensation program
that was run in the 1930s for people with disabilities. He had a newsstand on
72nd street in New York. Lived nearby in a little apartment. And I spent a lot of time there. That newsstand became
an intellectual center for emigres from Europe, lots of German and other
emigres who were coming, and he was a very educated person. Like I said, never went past fourth grade, but maybe the most educated
person I’ve ever met, self-educated. Without going through the whole story, he ended up being a lay analyst on a riverside apartment in New York, but the newsstand itself was a very lively intellectual center with
professors of this and that arguing all night, and working at the
newsstand was a lot of fun. – So newspapers and events of the world were mixed up with ideas, almost like a coffee
house without the coffee? – Yeah, the newspapers were
kind of like an artifact, so for example I went for years thinking that there was a
newspaper called Newsinmira. The reason is that as people
came out of the subway station and raced past the newsstand, they’d say, “Newsinmira.” Well, I heard it that way, and I gave them two tabloids, which I later discovered
are the News and the Mirror. (laughs) I noticed that as they
picked up the Newsinmira the first thing they opened
to was the sports page. – I see, I see. (laughs) This is an eight year
old picture of the world. But yeah, there were newspapers there, but that was kind of like the background of the discussions that were going on. And then through him and
through other influences, I kind of got myself involved in the ongoing 30s radicalism. And that was very much
part of the Hebrew based, Zionist oriented, this
is Palestine, pre-Israel, Palestine-oriented life. And that was a good part of my life. I became a Hebrew teacher, myself, for Zionist youth, later, combining it with the radical
activism in various ways. Actually, that’s the way
I got into linguistics. – One of the formative influences, as I understand it, in
this period for you, was reading George Orwell. And also in terms of events, really in addition to the Depression, the Spanish Civil War. Tell us a little about that mix. – It came the other way. Orwell’s great book, in my
opinion, his greatest book, Homage to Catalonia, I think it was first published 1937, but it was suppressed. A couple hundred copies published. Both in England and the United States, it was essentially suppressed. The reason was it was very anti-communist, and in those days that didn’t sell. During the second World War
it was totally suppressed, because you couldn’t be, you
know, there was Uncle Joe. So it didn’t sell, what he was doing. I think his book finally
reached the public, this is from memory so
maybe the dates are wrong, but I think it was around 1947 or ’48, with an introduction by Lionel Trilling, and it was presented as a Cold
War document at that time. I mean Orwell, who had died
already, would have hated it. And that’s when I found
Homage to Catalonia, but I’d been interested
in the Spanish Civil War long before. – And you actually wrote, your first essay was as a ten year old on the Spanish Civil War. What did you say then, and what do you think now about how that event and your
response to it influenced you? – Well, the article, like you
said, I was ten years old. (laughs) I’m sure I would not
want to read it today. But I remember what it was about, because I remember what struck me. This was right after
the fall of Barcelona. The fascist forces had
conquered Barcelona, that was essentially the end
of the Spanish Civil War. The article was about the
spread of fascism around Europe. So it started off by talking about Munich, and Barcelona and the spread
of the Nazi fascist power, which was extremely frightening. And then just to add a little
word of personal background, we happened to be, for
most of my childhood, the only Jewish family in
a mostly Irish and German Catholic neighborhood. Sort of a lower middle class neighborhood, which was very anti-Semitic,
and quite pro-Nazi. I mean it’s obvious
why the Irish would be, you know, they hated the British, not surprising the Germans were. But I can remember beer
parties when Paris fell, and the sense of the
threat of this black cloud spreading over Europe
was very frightening. I could pick up my mother’s
attitudes, particularly, she was terrified by it. And it was also in my personal life, ’cause I saw the streets. Interesting, for some reason, which I do not understand to this day, my brother and I never talked
to our parents about it. I don’t think they knew that we were living in an
anti-Semitic neighborhood. But on the streets, you know, you go out and play ball with the kids or try to walk to the bus or something, it was a constant threat. And it was just the kind of thing you didn’t talk to your parents about. You knew, for some reason,
you didn’t talk to them. To the day of their death, they didn’t know. But there was this
combination of the knowing that this cloud was
spreading over the world, and picking up, particularly, my mother’s attitudes,
very upset about it, my father too, but more constrained, and knowing from the uncles and aunts, some of the background, and living it in the streets
in my own daily life, that made it very real. Anyhow, by the late 30s I
did become quite interested in Spanish anarchism and
the Spanish Civil War where all this was being
fought out at the time. It was right before the
World War broke out, but a kind of microcosm,
what was going on in Spain. By the time I was old enough
to get on a train by myself, around 10 or 11, I would go
to New York for a weekend, stay with my aunts and uncles and hang around at anarchist bookstores down around Union Square
and Fourth Avenue. There were little bookstores from emigres. Really interesting people, to my mind they looked about 90, they were maybe in the 40s or something. (laughs) These people who were very
interested in young people, they wanted young people to come along. I spent a lot of attention
talking to these people, this real education. And then out of that,
when I wrote the article, it was with that background. It was long before I heard of Orwell. – These experiences we’ve described, you were saying that it
led you into linguistics but it also led you into
your view of politics and of the world, and you know, you’re a
libertarian anarchist, and when one hears that in the way issues are
framed in this country, and you know why there’s
often so many misperceptions, because of things that you’ve written. Help us understand what that means, in other words, it doesn’t
mean that you favor chaos or no government, necessarily. – Well remember, the United States is sort of out of the
world, on this topic. Britain is to a limited extent, but the United States is like, on Mars. So here, the term libertarian
means the opposite of what it always meant in history. Libertarian, throughout
modern European history, meant socialist anarchist. It meant the socialist
movement, the worker’s movement, and the socialist movement sort of broke into two branches, roughly. One statist, one anti-statist. The statist branch led to Bolshevism and Lenin and Trotsky, and so on. The anti-statist branch,
which included Marxists, left Marxists, Pannekoek,
Rosa Luxemburg, others, to kind of merge, more or less, into an amalgam with a
big strain of anarchism, into what was called
libertarian socialism. So libertarian in Europe,
always meant socialist. Here it means ultra, you know, Ayn Rand, or Cato Institute or something like that. But that’s a special US usage, having to do with a lot of things quite special about the way
the United States developed, and this is part of it. There it meant, and always meant, to me, socialist, and the anti-state
branch of socialism, which meant highly organized society, completely organized,
nothing to do with chaos. But based on a democracy
all the way through. That means democratic
control of communities, of workplaces, of federal structures, built on systems of voluntary association spreading internationally. That’s traditional anarchism. At least, anybody can have
the word if they like, but it’s a mainstream, probably the mainstream
of traditional anarchism, and it has roots, you know, coming back to the United States, it has very strong roots in the American working class movement. So if you go back to, say, the 1850s, the beginnings of the
Industrial Revolution, this was right around
the area where I live, in eastern Massachusetts
textile plants and so on, the people working in those plants were in part, young women
coming off the farms. They were called factory girls. So the women come to the farms,
work in the textile plant. Some of them were Irish
immigrants in Boston and that group of people. They had an extremely rich
and interesting culture. So kind of like my uncle who
never went past fourth grade, very educated, reading modern literature. They didn’t bother with
European radicalism, that had no effect on them, but the general literary culture they were very much a part of, and they developed their own conceptions of how the world ought to be organized. They had their own newspapers. In fact, the period of the
freest press in the United States was probably around the 1850s. In the 1850s the scale
of the popular press, meaning run by factory
girls in Lowell and so on, was scale of the commercial
press or even greater. And these were independent newspapers, a lot of interesting scholarship on them, you can read ’em now. Just spontaneously,
without any background, never heard of Marx or
Bakunin or anyone else. Now, they developed the same ideas. They thought that, from
their point of view, what they called wage-slavery, renting yourself to an owner, was not very different
from chattel slavery, that they were fighting
the Civil War about, and you have to recall that
in the mid-19th century, that was a common view
in the United States. For example, it was the position
of the Republican party. It was Abraham Lincoln’s position. It was not an odd view, that there isn’t much difference between selling yourself
and renting yourself. So the idea of renting yourself, meaning working for wages, was degrading. It was just an attack on
your personal integrity. And they despised the industrial
system that was developing, that was destroying their culture, destroying their independence,
their individuality, constraining them to be
subordinate to masters. There was a tradition of
what was called Republicanism in the United States, we’re free people. The first free people in the world. This was destroying and
undermining that freedom. This was the core of the
labor movement all over, and included in it was the assumption, just taken for granted, I’m quoting, “Those who work in the
mills should run them.” In fact, one of their main
slogans, I’ll just quote it, was, they condemned what they called
the new spirit of the age. “Gain wealth, forgetting all but self.” (laughs) That idea, the new spirit, that you should only be interested in gaining wealth and
forgetting about your relations to other people. They regarded it as just a violation of fundamental human nature, and a degrading idea. Well that grew into, that was a strong, rich, American culture, which was crushed by violence. The United States has a
very violent labor history. Much more so than Europe. Now, it was wiped out over a long period, but with extreme violence. By the time it picked
up again in the 1930s that’s when I sort of personally came into the tail end of it. Right after the second World
War it was just crushed. So by now it’s forgotten. But it’s very real, and see, I don’t really think it’s forgotten, I think it’s just below the surface in people’s consciousness. – And this is a continuing problem, and it’s something that emerges
your scientific work also, mainly the extent to which histories and traditions are forgotten, and actually to really
define a new position often means going back and
finding those older traditions. – Things like this, they’re forgotten in the intellectual culture, but my feeling is they’re probably alive in the popular culture, in people’s sentiments and attitudes and understanding and so on. I mean, I know when I talk to, say, working classes audiences today, and I talk about these ideas, they seem very natural to them. I mean, it’s true,
nobody talks about them, but when you bring it up, I mean, the idea that you have to
rent yourself to somebody and follow their orders and that they own, and you work there, and you built it but you don’t own it, it’s a highly unnatural notion, and you don’t have to study
any complicated theories to see that this is just
an attack on human dignity. – So coming out of this tradition, being influenced by it, and
continue to believe in it, what is your notion of legitimate power? Under what circumstances
is power legitimate? – Well, the core of the
anarchist tradition, as I understand it, is that power is always illegitimate unless it proves itself to be legitimate. So the burden of proof is always on those who claim that some authoritarian, hierarchic relation is legitimate. If they can’t prove it, then
it should be dismantled. Can you ever prove it? Well, it’s a heavy
burden of proof to bear, but I think sometimes you can bear it. So to take a homely example, if I’m walking down the street with my four year old granddaughter, and she starts to run into the street and I grab her arm and pull her back that’s an exercise of power and authority but I think I can give
a justification for it. Obvious what the justification would be. And maybe there are other cases where you can justify it, but the question that
always should be asked, for most, in our mind, is
“Why should I accept it?” It’s the responsibility of
those who exercise power to show that somehow it’s legitimate. It’s not the responsibility of anyone else to show that it’s illegitimate. It’s illegitimate by assumption. If it’s a relation of
authority among human beings which places some above others, then that’s illegitimate by assumption. Unless you can give a strong argument to show that it’s right, you’ve lost. It’s kind of like the use of violence, say, in international affairs. There’s a very heavy
burden of proof to be borne by anyone who calls for violence. Maybe it can be sometimes justified, personally I’m not a committed pacifist, so I think that yes, it
can sometimes be justified. So I thought, in fact
in that article I wrote, in fourth grade, I thought the West should be using force to try to stop fascism,
and I still think so. But now I know a lot more about it, I know that the West was
actually supporting fascism, supporting Franco, supporting
Mussolini and so on, and even Hitler. I didn’t know that at the time, but I thought then, and I think now, that the use of force to stop that plague would have been legitimate, and finally, was legitimate. But an argument has to be given for it. – Is there less of a burden of proof when you’re looking at
weaker power entities, looking at the powerless, basically, is the burden of proof less for them? – No, same.
– Same. – I mean, take, say, people living under a military occupation, or under racist regimes and so on. Now, they have a right to resist, actually everyone in the world except the United States and Israel believes they have a right to exist. If you look at the UN resolutions. – Talking about Palestine now, yeah. – Palestine or South Africa, I mean, if you take a
look at the major UN, there are major UN
resolutions on terrorism. One in 1987 denouncing the plague of international terrorism, calling on everyone to
do something to stop it, it passed with two negative votes, the United States and Israel. The reason was exactly
this, they explained it. It said said “Nothing in this resolution “will prejudice the right of people “to struggle for
independence against racist “and colonialist regimes and
foreign military occupation.” That referred to South Africa and Israel. So therefore the United States objected, because it opposed, it
does not grant the right of people to struggle against
racist and colonialist regimes and foreign occupation. The US and Israel are alone in that. When the US votes against a resolution, it’s out of history, so
you don’t read about it, but it’s there. The war against terrorism,
isn’t new, it’s old, the US is alone in opposing it. Now, grant, I believe that
the world right on this and that the US is wrong. There is a right to resist
racist and colonialist regimes and foreign military occupation, but then comes your question. Is there a right to use
violence to do that? Well, no, I think the burden of proof is on those who say there
is a right to use violence and that’s a hard burden to meet, both morally and tactically, and frankly I think it
can very rarely be met. – I’m curious, I think
I’ve read interviews where you have tried to separate your approach in science to
your approach in politics, but I’m curious as to whether, I’ll ask the question again, let me ask you this, how does your approach to
the world as a scientist affect and influence the
way you approach politics? – See, I think studying science is a good way to get
into fields like history. – Okay. – The reason is you learn
what an argument means. You learn what evidence is. You learn what makes sense
to postulate and when. What’s going to be convincing. You sort of internalize the
modes of rational inquiry, which happen to be much more advanced in the sciences than anywhere else. On the other hand, you know, applying relativity theory to history isn’t going to get you anywhere. – No, no, yeah. (laughs) – It’s a mode of thinking, and I try at least, with what success others have to judge, to use the mode of thinking that you would use in the
sciences to human affairs, and I think it’s a good idea to do so. As to other connections, there may be some but
they’re pretty remote. If you think about the core notions of what I was calling anarchism, which as I say, is just deeply rooted in popular traditions everywhere, for good reasons, I think, it’s based on a certain conception of, if you sort of try to take it apart, it’s based on some kind of conception of what Bakunin once called
an instinct for freedom. That people have an instinctive drive for freedom from domination and control, and I think that’s, you can’t prove it, but it’s probably true. The core of the work that I’ve been interested in in language, is also interested in a
kind of human freedom. The cognitive capacity
to create indefinitely and its roots in our nature. Now, historically, people
have drawn a connection between this. So if you look at the, say, 18th century Enlightenment
and the Romantic period, this connection was explicitly drawn. So if you read Rousseau, or
Wilhelm von Humboldt and others, the connection between human freedom as in the social and political realm, and human freedom in the creative use of cognitive capacities,
particularly language, they did try to establish a connection. Now if you ask, “Can this be connected
at the level of science?” The answer is no. It’s just a sort of a parallel intuition which doesn’t link up empirically, but maybe could someday if we knew enough. – You said somewhere, I
think in this new book, on power, “You can lie
or distort the story “of the French Revolution
as long as you like, “and nothing will happen. “Propose a false theory in chemistry, “and it will be refuted tomorrow.” – Yeah, that’s the kind of thing I mean. Nature’s tough. You can’t fiddle with mother Nature, she’s a hard task mistress. So you’re forced to be honest
in the natural sciences. In the soft fields, you’re
not forced to be honest. Nobody’s gonna undermine, I mean, there are standards, of course. On the other hand, they’re very weak, and if what you propose is
ideologically acceptable, that is, supportive of power systems, you can get away with a huge amount. In fact the difference
between the conditions that are imposed on dissident opinion and on mainstream opinion
are radically different. I might give you concrete
examples, if you like. – [Harry] Yeah, do. – Okay, so for example, if
I write about terrorism, say I’ve written about terrorism and I think you can show
without much difficulty that terrorism pretty
much corresponds to power. I don’t think that’s very surprising. But the more powerful states are involved in more
terrorism by and large, and the United States
is the most powerful, so it’s involved in massive terrorism by its own definition of terrorism. Well, if I want to establish that, I’m required to give a
huge amount of evidence and I think that’s a good thing, I don’t object to that. I think anyone who makes that claim should be held to very high standards, through extensive documentation from the internal secret record, from historical record, and so on, and if you ever find a comma misplaced, somebody ought to criticize you for it. So I think those standards are fine. Now, let’s suppose that you
play the mainstream game. So, for example, Yale University Press just came out with a volume
called the Age of Terror. The contributors are leading historians, many of them Yale, the
top people in the field. You read the book the Age of Terror, the first thing you notice is
there isn’t a single footnote. There isn’t a single reference. They’re just off the top
of your head statements. Some of the statements are
tenable, some are untenable, but there are no criteria, there are no intellectual
criteria imposed. The reviews of the book are very favorable and laudatory, and maybe
it’s right, maybe it’s wrong, I mean, I think a lot of it’s wrong, and demonstrably wrong, but it doesn’t really matter. You can say anything you want, because you’re supporting power and nobody expects you
to justify anything. For example, if I was, say, in the unimaginable circumstance that I was on, say, Nightline, and I was asked, say, “Do you
think Gaddafi is a terrorist?” I could say, “Yeah,
Gaddafi’s a terrorist.” I don’t need any evidence. Suppose I said George Bush is a terrorist. Well then I would be
expected to provide evidence. “No, you can’t say that.” – So you aren’t cut off, right then. – See, and in fact the structure of the news production system is you can’t produce evidence. In fact, there’s even a name for it. I learned it from the
producer of Nightline, Jeff Greenfield, it’s called concision. He was asked in an interview somewhere why they didn’t have me on Nightline, and his answer was, two answers, first of all, he says, “Well he talks Turkish,
nobody understands it.” But the other answer was, “He lacks concision.” Which is correct, I agree with him. Now, the kinds of things that
I would say on Nightline, you can’t say in one sentence, because they depart
from standard religion. If you want to repeat the religion you can get away with it between two commercials. If you wanna say something
that questions the religion, you’re expected to give evidence, and that you can’t do
between two commercials, so therefore you lack concision so therefore you can’t talk. I think that’s a terrific
technique of propaganda. To impose concision is a way
of virtually guaranteeing that the party line gets
repeated over and over again and that nothing else is heard. – And this is why so much of your work in the area of politics has really been focused on what you call the
manufacturing of consent. Mainly, the framing of issues, the way topics are put off
the table for discussion, and so in the end what your work suggests is that in focusing on that and coming to understand that then there’s hope for really understanding the problems we confront. – Oh yeah, actually, I should say, the term manufacturing
of consent is not mine, I took it from Walter Lippmann, the leading public
intellectual and leading media figure of the 20th century, who thought it was a great idea. He said, “We should manufacture consent. “That’s the way democracy should work. “There should be a small
group of powerful people, “and the rest of the
population should be spectators “and you should force them to consent “by regimenting their minds.” That’s the leading idea
of democratic theorists, and the public relations
industry, and so on. So I’m not making it up, I’m
just borrowing their conception and telling other people what they think. But yeah, that’s very important, and yes, there is hope. I think ordinary common sense suffices, no special training, like my uncle, to unravel this and see
what’s really happening. I don’t think it’s hard to discover that the US is a leading terrorist state, I think it’s obvious. – And when one reads your arguments, really, what you’re laying
out is fairly simple. Namely, if I can paraphrase, that if you’re suddenly calling Iraq a rogue state in the 90s, well, what were you calling it in the 80s? And were they doing the same thing? And at that time, were
you helping them do it? And this is your critique
of US foreign policy. – Well, you know, I think, I mean, if George Bush tells
us, like he did last week, and Tony Blair tells us, in this case, that we can’t let Saddam Hussein survive because he’s the most evil man in history, he even used chemical weapons
against his own people, I agree that far. But it gives hypocrisy a
bad name to stop there. You have to add, “Yes,
he used chemical weapons “against his own people, “with the support of Daddy Bush, “who continued to support
him right past that, “knowing what he was doing, “helped him develop weapons
of mass destruction, “welcomed him as a friend and ally, “gave him lavish aid
after all these crimes.” Unless you add that, it’s just, like I said, giving hypocrisy a bad name. Well, nobody does that. You can read the commentary and the learned opinion,
and leading figures, and they just stop, “used chemical weapons
against his own people.” Now, this is not difficult to understand. I think you can explain this to children in school, you know? And it takes major effort for the educated classes to prevent people from
knowing these things, and that takes dedication. It would be a lot easier
to tell the truth. Now, this is one example,
it’s a characteristic example. So, take, say, by the late 1990s, the last few years, there was a huge chorus of
self-adulation in the West, about how we’re entering
a new age of history in which the enlightened states bring humanitarian ideals to the world for the first time in history, following principles and values, and the proof of it is
we’re bombing Serbia. Well, at the very same moment, the same people were actively supporting terrorist atrocities which went way beyond anything charged to Milosevic in Kosovo. In fact, I just happened to come back from the site of one of
them, southeastern Turkey, where massive atrocities were going on. – Where the Turkish government is committing atrocities
against the Kurdish people. – Yes, that’s true, but
the way I would put it is the US government is
committing atrocities. – [Harry] By providing aide. – By providing virtually 80% of the arms, and in an increasing flow
as the atrocities increased, providing support, blocking criticism. The press is helping by not reporting it, and in fact, even more amazingly, Turkey is praised here, as a
model for opposing terrorism, namely by carrying out some of the worst terrorist atrocities of the late 1990s with our assistance. Well, you know, that’s an
impressive contribution of the educated culture. It wouldn’t be easy. It takes effort to do this sort of thing, and it’s not hard to explain. I can explain it in two minutes. I can even give you the
documentation, if you want. – Now, if we were at the
Council on Foreign Relations, which we’re not, the argument would be made, “Well, Turkey has to fit
into a larger strategic… “view of the world, “in which they are a modernizing
secular Islamic state.” Or not an Islamic state, they are a state that has
Islam within its population. What would your answer be to that? – So therefore we should help them drive two to three million
people out of their homes, destroy thousands of villages. – No, don’t go there. – Well, that’s the question. In fact, I think we’re
harming Turkey by doing this. We’re supporting the most
reactionary strains in Turkey. Like I said, I was just there. I was there talking about these things, and popular support for
opposing the military run regime is overwhelming. We’re supporting the military run regime, we’re supporting, we’re
preventing its modernization and development. In fact, that’s happening
throughout much of the world. But even if it were true that we were helping modernization, that in no sense justifies participation in some of
the worst acts of terror, or worse, I don’t know
if it’s worse, parallel, praising them as a model
for countering terror by carrying out massive terror. And you can generalize this. You know, take, say, let’s
go somewhere else, Indonesia. When Indonesia was following
an independent path in the 1950s and early 60s, US was strongly opposed, actually tried to break
up Indonesia in 1958. Finally, a military coup took place with the assistance of
the United States in 1965. The coup massacred maybe a
million people, nobody noticed. Mostly landless peasants. It was greeted here with
complete, unconstrained euphoria. It was described accurately. So, New York Times, it was
a staggering bloodbath, Time magazine, you
know, boiling bloodbath, and praise. It was praised because, what they called the Indonesian moderates, namely the ones who
carried out the massacre, were turning the country
into a US client state. Well, from then, 65 til 98, in that the Indonesian
leader, one of the worst, kind of like Saddam Hussein, one of the worst criminals
of the modern age, was lavishly praised and supported as a wonderful person, the Clinton administration
called him our kind of guy, because he was serving US interests while carrying out huge massacres and compiling one of the worst records of atrocities in the world. What happened to that in history? Well, you know, it’s history, but it’s not what you teach
people in high school, as you should in a free country. That’s the task of the intellectuals. Be careful to be sure that nobody understands what’s going on. It’s a major task. – You actually believe that there are two kinds of intellectuals. One, the kind that serves,
say, power, and are rewarded, and the other, those who stand outside, who basically call a spade a spade. – I mean, we all agree with that when we’re talking about enemies. So when we’re talking
about the Soviet Union, we all agree that there was a difference between the commissars and the dissidents. Now the commissars were the guys inside who were propagating state propaganda, and the dissidents are a very
small group on the fringe who were trying to call a spade a spade. And we honor the dissidents, and we condemn the commissars. – Because they were doing
that in our adversaries. – And when we turn around
at home, it’s the opposite. We honor the commissars and
we condemn the dissidents, and furthermore, this goes right through back through history. You know, go back to classical
Greece, and the Bible. So who drank the hemlock
in classical Greece? Was it a commissar or a dissident? (laughs) When you go to, say, the Bible, you know, you read the Biblical record, there are people called prophets, prophets just means intellectuals, they were people giving
geo-political analysis, moral lessons, that sort of thing. We call them intellectuals today. There were the people
we honor as prophets, there were the people we
condemn as false prophets. But if you look at the Biblical record, at the time it was the other way around. The flatterers at the court of King Ahab were the ones who were honored, and the ones we call prophets were driven into the
desert and imprisoned. You know, that’s the way
it’s been throughout history, and understandably. Power does not like to be undermined. – There’s an important point here that I want to bring out, which is if you’re comparing
our acting against Serbia at a time when we’re not doing anything about East Timor or Indonesia, or a number of other places. – It’s not that we’re not doing it– – Well, no that we’re
doing the wrong thing. – We’re intensifying the atrocity. – But I guess the really
interesting thing, is that as part of the self deception that is created by the media, we forget we’re doing in one place and set it where it would be very easy to do something about it, namely, stopping the military aide. Whereas in other areas,
for example Serbia, well, if you start bombing, you know, what are the
consequences for innocent people? – That’s another question. To which it is independent of what we should have done in Kosovo. Maybe we can guess at on its own, but what it does show
is that whatever we did it’s not humanitarian. Just take a look at everything
else that’s going on, you see that. So what should we have done in Kosovo? Well, here you have to look at the record, and the record is interesting, and it’s suppressed by the intellectuals. So there’s a massive literature about it, and if you look through that literature you’ll notice that something
is systematically omitted, namely the actual record
of what was happening. And we have a voluminous record, from the state department, from
the British defense system, from NATO, from the UN. As far as I’m aware, there’s
only one book in print that reviews that record, mine. And of course the book is condemned, because it reviews the record. What the record shows is unequivocal. Right up to shortly before the bombing the British were the most hawkish element of the coalition. Internally, now it’s released, then it was internal, regarded the guerrillas as
the main source of atrocities. This is after the Racak Massacre. – This would be the Albanian guerrillas. – Yes, they said they are the
main source of the atrocities. What they’re trying to do is to elicit a disproportionate Serbian response, which they did, which would
then bring in the West. Now, I don’t personally believe that, but that’s the British. We know that right up until the bombing, nothing much changed. It was an ugly place, I mean, you know, these are not nice guys. The Serbian occupiers
were doing vicious things, and not on the level of what we were doing in other places, but bad enough. But nothing changed up until the bombing. When the bombing was undertaken, it was on the expectation that
it would elicit atrocities. Not surprising, you start
bombing people, they react. And it did, I mean, you
look at the Milosevic trial, it’s for crimes committed
after the bombing, given one exception, but– – The bombing made by NATO. – After the bombing,
with an invasion threat, exactly as anticipated. Atrocities mounted, and they started expelling the population. Now, those are crimes, undoubtedly, this guy’s a major criminal, but the crimes happened to be provoked by the NATO bombing. Now, what you read is, well, we had to bomb to return
the Albanians to their homes. Yeah, except that they were
driven out of their homes after the bombing. Now, there were some displaced before, but the huge expulsion
was after the bombing. Before that, the West saw it as kind of, guerrillas trying to elicit
atrocities and responses, and responses. That’s the description. Well, if you don’t tell the truth, well, you may still decide
it was the right thing or the wrong thing, but unless you at least look at the facts, you’re not even in the real world. I mean, for example, it’s a fact, which we should look at, we can ask, was there an alternative? It was a bad place, no doubt. Was there an alternative to violence? Were there diplomatic alternatives? Well, you can look back, and you see, in fact, I wrote at the time, it looks like there are
diplomatic alternatives. I mean, Serbia had a
position, NATO had a position, if you actually look at the result after 78 days of bombing it’s a compromise between
those two positions. NATO gave up its most extreme demands, Serbs gave up their most extreme demands, and there was a kind of compromise. Could that have been
reached without the bombing and the atrocities? Well, there’s a good case that can be made that it was. But remember, the burden
of proof is on those who say you have to bomb. They try to put the
burden of proof on others. They can’t. It’s the ones who use violence that have the burden of proof. – Not everyone is Noam Chomsky, and can’t produce the extraordinary opus of works on these issues. So what is your advice for people who have the same concerns, who identify with the tradition that you come out of, and who want to be active
in opposing these policies? What is it they need to be doing that would be productive? – The same as the factory girls in the Lowell textile plant 150 years ago. They joined with others. To do these things
alone is extremely hard, especially when you’re
working 50 hours a week to put put food on the table. Join with others, you
can do a lot of things. It’s got a big multiplier effect. I mean, that’s why unions have always been in the lead of development of
social and economic progress. They bring together poor
people, working people, enable them to learn from one another, to have their own sources of information and to act collectively. That’s how everything has changed. Civil rights movement,
the feminist movement, the solidarity movement,
the workers’ movements. The reason we don’t live in a dungeon is because people have joined
together to change things, and there’s nothing
different now from before. In fact, just the last 40 years have seen remarkable
changes in this respect. – And in that sense, in addition to ending the war in Vietnam, the protest movement of the 60s really did change our consciousness. – Totally changed the country. – And it changed the
behavior of governments, what they had to do to
get what they wanted. – Yeah, I mean, this is a
good time to talk about it. This month, March 2002, happens
to be the 40th anniversary of the public announcement
by the Kennedy administration that they were sending US
pilots to bomb South Vietnam. That’s a US bombing of South Vietnam. That was the initiation
of chemical warfare to destroy food crops, driving huge numbers of people
into concentration camps. Nobody was there except the US and the south Vietnamese, and that was a US war
against South Vietnam, publicly announced, not a peep of protest. Now, the war went on for years
before protest developed, but by the time it did, not just the anti-war movement, the civil rights movement
and other rising movements, it changed the popular consciousness. The country just became
a lot more civilized. No American president could possibly dream of doing that today. And the same is true in many other areas. Go back to 62, there was
no feminist movement, there was a very limited
human rights movement, extremely limited, there was no environmental movement, meaning rights of our grandchildren, there were no third-world
solidarity movements, there was no anti-apartheid movement, there was no anti-sweatshop movement, I mean, all of the things that
we kind of take for granted just weren’t there. How’d they get there? Was it a gift from an angel? No, they got there by struggle, common struggle by people
who dedicated themselves, with others, ’cause you can’t do it alone, and made it a much more civilized country. There’s a long way to go, and that’s not the first time it happened, and it’ll continue. – I gather it’s your belief
that when we focus on heroes in the movement, that’s a mistake, ’cause it’s really the unsung heroes the unsung seamstresses or
whatever in this movement who actually make a difference. – They’re the ones that do things. I mean, take, say, the
civil rights movement. You think of the civil rights movement, the first thing you think
of is Martin Luther King. King was an important figure, but he would have been
the first to tell you, I’m sure, that he was
riding the wave of activism. The people who were doing the work, who were in the lead in
the civil rights movement, were young SNCC workers, freedom riders, you know, people out there
in the streets every day, getting beaten, sometimes killed, working constantly. And they created the circumstances in which Martin Luther King could come in and be a leader. And his role was extremely important, and I’m not denigrating it, it’s very important to have done that, but the people who were really important are the ones whose names are forgotten, and that’s true of every movement that ever existed. – If students were to watch this tape, how would you advise them to prepare for the future if they identify with the goals that you’re putting on the table? – Be honest, critical, accept
elementary moral principles. For example, the principle that if something is wrong
for others, it’s wrong for us. Things like that. Understand the importance of the fundamental anarchist principle, namely, prior illegitimacy
of power and violence, unless you can justify it, which is not easy. It’s their burden of proof, not yours. That’s true whether
it’s personal relations between a family or whether
it’s international affairs, and beyond that, try to join with others who share your interests to learn more and to act responsibly to improve the many very
serious problems in the world, which can be done. – There’s an important element of courage in this kind of work, is there not? And what is involved in that courage? – Oh, you know, in a country
like the United States, the level of courage that’s involved is extremely low. I mean, if you’re a poor,
black organizer in the slums, yeah, that takes courage,
because you could get killed. If you’re a relatively well
off, educated white person, the level of courage is minuscule. Just see what other people face elsewhere. Like I say, I just came back from Turkey. I mean, the people in the southeast, living a dungeon, millions of them. They show real courage when
they wear Kurdish colors, let’s say, or speak openly, let’s say, Kurdish as a language. They can end up in a
Turkish prison or worse, and that’s not fun. But let’s even go to Istanbul, you know, sort of more Western. I actually went there
for a political trial. The government was putting
on trial a publisher who had published a couple
of sentences of mine on the repression of the Kurds. Well, in Istanbul, the
writers, leading writers, journalists, artists,
intellectuals, and others, they are constantly carrying
out civil disobedience. Like when I was there, they purposely co-published
The Book of Banned Writings, writings of people in
jail, which are banned, co-published it, went to the prosecutor, I went with them,
demanding to be prosecuted. That’s no joke. Some of them have been in jail, some will go back to jail,
they face repression. But they’re not making
a big fuss about it, they just do it in their normal behavior, not waving flags and saying, “Look how courageous I am.” That’s just life. That takes courage. As compared with what they face every day, what we face is so pathetically small that we shouldn’t even
be talking about it. Yes, unpleasant things can happen, but not in comparison with
what goes on in the world. – Coming out of science, and the level of complexity in that field that you can comprehend
the field of linguistics, I’m curious as to whether this accounts for what I think I detect is a moderate or almost conservative view, on your part, of how much things can
change in the short term. I don’t know if that’s
a fair comment on you, but is that the case, that in some sense, by seeing so much, you understand that very little sometimes
can be accomplished but that may be very important? – Very important, and what’s more, I don’t think we should
give up long term visions. So I agree with the factory
girls in Lowell in 1850. I think wage slavery is an attack on fundamental human rights. I think those who work in
the plants should own them. I think we should struggle against what was then the new spirit of the age. “Gain wealth, forgetting
everybody but yourself.” Yeah, that’s all
degrading and destructive, and in the long term,
I don’t know how long, it should be dismantled. But the way you proceed, right now there are serious
problems to deal with, like three million Americans who don’t have enough to eat, or people elsewhere in the
world who are far worse off, and who are, in fact, under our boot. You know, we’re grinding
them into the dust. Those are short term things
that can be dealt with. Now, there’s nothing wrong
with making small gains. Like the gains that I
was talking about before, from the 60s til today, they’re extremely
important for human lives. Doesn’t mean that there are not a lot of mountain peaks to climb, there are, but you do what’s within range. Same in the sciences. You might like to solve the problems of what causes human action or something, but the problems you work on are the ones that are right at the edge of your understanding. Actually, there’s a famous joke about a drunk under a lamppost, and somebody comes up and asks him, he’s looking at the ground, “What are you looking for?” He goes, “I’m looking for
a pencil that I dropped.” They say, “Well, where did you drop it?” He said, “Oh, I dropped
it across the street.” “So, why are you looking here?” “Well, this is where the light is.” You know, that’s the
way the sciences work. I mean, maybe the problem
you’d like to solve is across the street, but you have to work where the light is, then you try to move it a little further, and maybe ultimately you’ll
get across the street. And the same is true in human affairs. I mean, I think the same is
true in personal relations, when you have a problem with your kids, that’s the way you have to deal with it. – One final question, and I understand your unwillingness to focus on heroes or to be made into a hero, but if an activist is
watching this interview what lesson might they draw from your life about what they can do in their life, with regard to the issues
that are of concern to them? – Last night, for example, I gave a talk in Berkeley
to a big mob of people about the US and the Middle East and Israel and Palestine,
Turkey, these things. Who is responsible for that talk? Not me, you know, I flew in from Boston, came over, and gave a talk. The people responsible for that are the people working on it. The people working day after day to create the organizational structures, the support systems, to go up and back to work with
oppressed people over there, and maybe their names
won’t enter some record, but they are the ones who
are leading everything. I come in and it’s a privilege for me to be able to join ’em for an hour, but that’s easy. Get up and give a talk, it’s no big deal. But working on it day
after day, all the time, that’s hard, and that’s important, and that’s what changes the world. Not somebody coming in and giving a talk. – Noam, thank you very
much for joining us today for this fascinating discussion of at least some aspects
of your life and your work. Thank you. – Thank you. – And thank you very much for joining us for this
conversation with history. (bright music)

  1. One is amazed that, in obsessing about homosexuality and homosexuals, the impostor somehow hopes to impute someone ELSE is prone to buggery…
    I say where there's smoke, there's a flamer.

  2. Society started off without any states. The strong overcame the weak and imposed a state to their benefit. Under anarchism how could would this be prevented from happening again, eg through violence and coercion? (Anarchism does my nut).

  3. I'd expect better from a troll. You should have realized that that was a troll, and it was intended to invoke an emotional response from you, and it has succeeded.

  4. When Chomsky talked about US being a terrorist state accusing others of terrorism and denying their own i remembered US flaunting "SHOCK and AWE" while bombarding Irak.
    It's right there in front of our eyes that the US government is a terrorist state. They themselves shout it at the top of their lungs. No need for proof.

  5. Communism has nothing to do with government.

    If you're a true communist, you believe in the abolition of the state.

    You're stalking about state socialism. Get your shit straight.

  6. dont think so. for the most part, majority of people that feel the same dont have access to the internet, school or the library

  7. That's heading towards anarchism. I've always thought of Communism as an economic political philosophy, more about the mechanics of distribution of wealth; the adverse philosophy being Capitalism. Fascism and Anarchism are another, separate spectrum, which are more social and deal with interaction between people, power and human rights etc.

  8. Noam Chomsky is an amazing intellectual, and he is an inspiration to all sincerely involved in trying to understand and address the serious flaws in human behaviour and the tyrrany of super-states over the less powerful states and of governments over under-privileged peoples.

  9. the Australian government used atomic weapons against its own people, we waited for optimized weather conditions for the highest possible fallout patterns… nobody knows very few care and we where part of the coalition to murder that fucked Saddam, hypocrisy *sarcasm alert* NOOOoo never…highest rate of bowel cancer in the world.. i wonder why ahahaha almost funny though we got a huge influx of Japanese immigrants after their power plant disasters, guess nobody told them..

  10. I wish all the picky cocksuckers of the world would just shut the fuck up. I guess we all have our dreams.

  11. I love how they STILL use that electronic, modal quasi-fugual contemporary music from the 1970s to introduce this series today. Reminds me of PBS library music. Anybody know the composer?

  12. Chomsky is so pathetic (yes, pathetic) when it comes to his worldview on what he calls "wage slavery." He seems to favor getting paid money not to do anything. He totally ignores the concept of consumer sovereignty. It isn't the owner that pays the worker's salary, it's the consumer. The consumer is the one who funds the company and thus the worker is ultimately the employee of the consumer. Chomsky's grade for Econ 101: F!

  13. He doesn't favour "getting paid money not to do anything". His is an argument typical of Marxism and the labour movement in general – that capital should be owned by the labourers, so that they get paid the true value of the work they put in, rather than being paid a wage which is less than that value (the remainder of the value of the good being produced and then sold being accrued by the bourgeois capitalist and shareholders in the company).

  14. You didn't even read my whole argument. It is not the "bourgeois capitalist" that decides on his wages; it's the consumer. For example, if no consumer purchases the store's products, no one gets any money including the "bourgeois capitalist." The worker's wages are perfectly proportioned to his input towards the final output. This is why some basketball players get paid more than others even though they are part of the same union. Lebron James gets more than others because he has greater input.

  15. The wages are themselves of less value than the output. I appreciate your point that the consumer pays the price that they are willing to pay, but the consumer is not the only determinant of sale price. The producer has to factor in numerous overheads when setting their price, such as cost of raw materials and, relevant here, the cost of labour. Above that is profit, which accumulates to shareholders. The point here is that labourers should share in the profits, not just overheads.

  16. Thus, even if as you allege the worker's wages are perfectly proportioned to his input towards the final output (which is rarely true), the value of the input, represented by wages, is less than the value of the output, represented by sales revenue. The need to satisfy consumers is not an excuse to exploit a labour force. Indeed, allowing labourers to share in profits increases their purchasing power, meaning that (when they consume) they may be willing to pay a higher price for goods.

  17. You said that it is "rarely true" that a laborer's wages are proportioned to their output. That is fact false as proven in the history of any country that allows the price of labor to be determined by free people (the market) and in economic fact (yes fact, not theory). If one is to allow the "exploited labour" force to share in the increased profits (which they already do) consumer prices will go up at the same rate to which they are paid a greater share, thus no one gains in real terms.

  18. You actually think entertainment is equivalent to knowledge? I guess you should just pray to god, eat, and shit and listen to this boring lecture about his opinion of history to gain knowledge, I don't give a shit. If you want to listen to this boring pit of opinions, be my guess.

  19. If the consumer does have sovereignty (which should maybe be a concept attached to more than a purchasing decision..) should they? Do you look around and see an informed public making decisions for the benefit of that public?

  20. Consumer sovereignty is attached to more than just a purchasing decision. It includes trade, work, wages, enterprise, etc. The answer to your second question is yes, people should be allowed to be free. And to the final point about an informed public, the answer is emphatically yes. There is a reason why China, Vietnam, and even Cuba are now embracing capitalism. The masses make independent decisions better than decisions forced upon them by a government.

  21. Stop crying. The Turks hold Istanbul and Constantinople is history.
    Get your frame of reference straight and face the fact you are racist.

  22. I definitely struck a nerve by calling him a coward because he obviously needs to feel acceptance from non whites to the point of spitting on his ancestors, so now he's just going to try and mob you by calling you a coward over and over with no actual substance.

  23. Generally people don't hate white people, they hate nutcases like you. It's an individual case. Shit, you're probably Chinese for all I know, having a laugh at our expense, either way, you're a rotten apple.

  24. Hitler on party unity (1934):
    The sense of community within the movement must be inconceivably intense. We must have no fighting among ourselves; no differences must be visible to outsiders! The people cannot trust us blindly if we ourselves destroy this trust. If we destroy other people’s trust in us, we destroy our own trust in ourselves.
    Even the consequences of wrong decisions must be mitigated by absolute unity.

  25. Hitler on party unity (1934):
    In questions of foreign policy, it is particularly necessary to have the whole nation behind one, as if hypnotized. The whole nation must be involved in the struggle as if they were passionate participants in a sports contest. This is necessary because, if the whole nation takes part in the struggle, they also will be losers. If they are not involved, only the leadership loses.

  26. For someone who has indoctrinated themvelves by listening to 100s of chomsky videos (and i mean idoctrinated in the most positive possible sense) it's lovely to hear answers on a more personal level, it gives an extra perspective on the issue, and an extra level to the reasoning behind them.

  27. "You can't fiddle with mother nature"……
    Isn't human nature part of mother nature? Why then, do people then keep trying to fiddle with it?

  28. Adohl Fittler
    2 months ago

    "You can't fiddle with mother nature"…… Isn't human nature part of mother nature? Why then, do people then keep trying to fiddle with it?       

    Isn't he referring to the "laws of" mother nature in science? i.e  the periodic table, the elements, gravity, physics, biology etc…. the "hard" studies as opposed to the soft. Which is to say, you cannot fiddle (argue) with things like the laws of gravity in order to make a point.

  29. Noam Chomsky one of the most important thinkers in this century. I made him a graffiti, but I think he deserves more. Check it here:
    Thanks for uploading this interested video.

  30. Lol, I love the intro music to these videos. I really do. And maybe this is just me, but I feel like if Harry Kreisler had a sort of personal theme song, the intro music to these interviews would be it. Just imagine him walking down the street and looking around distractedly while this music plays in the background. I dunno. Makes me laugh every time.

  31. square shooter from a time when back wages could have been considered for some one possibly blacklisted from teaching & administrative careers……

  32. Since 9-11, Chumpsky has steadfastly refused to discuss the evidence of government complicity and prior knowledge. Furthermore he claims that the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), Bilderberg Committee, and Trilateral Commission are "nothing organizations." When critiquing poverty, he never mentions the Federal Reserve and their role in manipulating the national debt.
    Similarly, he claims the CIA was never a rogue organization and is an innocent scapegoat; that JFK was killed by the lone assassin Lee Harvey Oswald; that the obvious vote fraud in 2004 did not occur; and that peak oil is real and good for humanity.
    What he does advocate is population control, gun control, support for U.N.E.S.C.O., and the end of national sovereignty in favor of a one-world government under the UN. In other words, the major goals of the New World Order.
    Chomsky’s role in propaganda paradigm is much like that of Karl Marx: to present a false liberation ideology which actually supports the desired solutions of the elite. Marx pointed out the inequalities and brutality of capitalism and then advocated a one world bank, army, and government with the abolition of private property and religion; in other words, the major goals known of the New World Order.

  33. Fucking Chomsky is wrong about the USA, the states are a necessary evil- he should stop criticising USA and start doing so to China- Russia – far more oppressive regimes. He's an ungrateful bastard but interesting nonetheless

  34. I'll hate fight Chomsky , my iron fist will impose upon him a wrath so grievous and unparalleled in delivery that his intellectual transgressions will fade into a mere footnote of obscure scholarly memoirs to incredulity

  35. He is a product of his environment and his up bring.  Unfortunately  he was misguided. I am a refugee from a former communist country in eastern Europe. But I appreciate the real freedom and the free enterprise system we have here. The founding fathers are my spiritual kinship.  Of course this is not a perfect system and there are those who take advantage of others.  But in the overall scope…  the quality of life in America is far superior than the rest or the world.  We must preserve the foundation of this country at all costs!

  36. Listening to Dr. Chomsky left me with some questions.
    1) How many "means of production" has he self purchased and turned over to the workers himself?
    2) Why couldn't "the girls" have saved their money and started their own factory?
    3) Couldn't do it, but someone else was to put up the money and give it to strangers of unknown management ability and work ethic??
    4) Even if "the girls" had founded their own factory wouldn't 49% of them always be slave laborers to the 51% as far as rules?
    5) The US we're told is always guilty implicitly or explicitly on the international scene, for, what we do and what others do. How about WWII? The Soviet Union's record of mass murder–equal to or exceeding the Nazis–was well known and yet we provided thousands of trucks, vehicles, tanks and aircraft to them during the war. Could it be some principles had to be swallowed because the SU fought 100% of the German army in '40 and '41 and never less than 70% there after? Was this tough decision made because there was a good chance that the Nazis would have won the war other wise? 6) Is Dr. Chomsky not aware that the Long War of the 20th century (1914-1990) was a war to decide if totalitarianism or parliamentary government was to predominate in the world and that even with mistakes aplenty, thank God parliamentary government won out?

    Dr. Chomsky complained that he couldn't make a coherent argument in the "two minutes between commercials" on talk shows, he had an hour here and although he was opinionated he was unpersuasive.

  37. Thanks. 22:00—Ethically, "There's a very heavy burden of proof to show any legitimacy for violence." Man, have Business and the Deep State torn that down. Wonderful that NC can add mockingly at 39:50 "the major task of the intellectual [in this war-state]: be careful to make sure that nobody understands what's going on." Hope we can anchor real progress where our real leverage is—in the work-place, where presently we give our lives to somebody else's profit.

  38. Let's all remember that it is EASY for Chomsky to presume to judge figures in history, when he now has the great luxury of 20/20 Hindsight, which they did NOT have at the time.

  39. Does anyone have the reference to the US supporting fascism that NC cites at around 22:00? I want to look into that more deeply.

  40. Chomsky will ultimately be remembered as a Zionist gatekeeper – you can do a search "Chomsky gatekeeper" and see for yourself.  Ultimately, he supports the Deep State because it supports Israel, the Homeland of the Jews.  Funny how he never encourages third parties. Vote Third Party (REAL third parties, not the Bernie Sanders' kind).

  41. Of course his membership in the white master race explains the totality of his success with absolute logical sufficiency.

  42.–wcM (Which is Washington DC)

  43. eye graduated from the wankervill then got filled in my late 20s and came and gone

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *