Add CNT files

This commit is contained in:
Jason Lobo 2020-11-07 15:17:39 +00:00
parent bced310608
commit 66a5ee5585
154 changed files with 93590 additions and 0 deletions

View file

@ -0,0 +1,960 @@
good people good night everyone and everyone sorry for the delay
I would like to thank the presence of each one in each one at the baron and say that the
professor tones who had a setback why we ended up being late
a little is and our idea is to follow the following dynamic is we give about 30
minutes for him to give a presentation of the political picture of how
he is seeing the situation is there will be a subsequent translation that the juliana
who is here wanted to thank and help us with
translation is we are broadcasting live who can share the networks
of the baron also the transmission and the idea is that he would do the 30 minutes and
then we open for a round of questions and that's when we have to
finish here until about 19 15 at the most because it is not to be so late then
wanted to thank and disabled to head rio the teacher shows that and have to
study female I touch fans of heavy journalist blogger
was
today i wanted to say a few words about two extremes is still given with the
press first about said press do
free world right the vanguard of the free world that would be the press in england
and the united states and then on the latin american press which is
known for having a very rightist orientation and with little space
for any divergent opinion it was pro tork jorge or the golden one in the form of mouth
as the sun and rain is to begin I wanted to talk about the press
English and wanted to quote a passage from a book that we all read that is is the
of george orwell of animals the sale of animals is what he talks about
that he's doing a satire is from the totalitarian world but that england
shouldn't be too full of self considering that in england it is
divergent opinions are usually suppressed without the use of violence
two years ago a year the hotel doesn't talk much about how these ideas are
divergent are suppressed but he speaks at least two ways as
that happen one is that the press is is the means of de
communication are held by wealthy men and the second is that people who have had
access to a privileged education that went to oxy went to cambridge
they simply know that there are certain things that are better left unsaid is this
introduction in which the world of these things was suppressed and only appeared in
in his papers and after 30 years that had already been published
we get to the media from Western countries, we will realize that it is
these two points that the geologist raised has a lot of subsidy in this one
press
regional joao da madeira we got works from a shopping media
corporation
we observe the structure of how the press works in these countries
Westerners we will see that they are large corporations that belong to
even bigger corporations that sell their product
advertisers who are actually the real customers of these corporations
so we have a business where the producers of their clients' news
who are advertisers and advertising companies have the same interests
and it is these interests that guide how this news is going to be modeled and how
what will be interesting to be printed
[Music]
the voice of an angel in having no smell of beautiful incense from oau portugal will be
the second question that he believes that what the abel said that the question that the
good education makes you know is what should be or shouldn't be said are you realize
that this is also working a lot because people who have
access to an elite education have been indoctrinated and trained to do so
very well to discern what should not be said and not say it
[Music]
we can go a step further than what was said and realize that this is already
has been internalized so there are certain things that you just didn't say
as you already know you shouldn't even let it go through your head
and it is something that what is called common sense as hegemonic
internalized
the singers james cameron joined the list of those who think go calm back the worst
pilot's first touch is the first step so understanding how the media
works like the media is put these instruments into operation and at that point
we already have thousands of pages literally written about how to
these structures work in practice and the result is exactly what we
can simply wait with one is what we can assume by already making her charge
actions is without study is not but the studies that prove these things although he already
has been is more than effects are they obviously have no interest
to publicize them and that's what you're going to talk about now
pocket is two examples of this are the farms the great great conflicts of
invasion in which the united states has been involved since the second world war
one of them was the invasion of indochina, right from the Vietnam war and another was the
invasion of iraq both with abominable consequences
the first 10 rock the hawks on the spectrum bank is war
Vietnam ended in 1975 and since then you have many opinions about it
but basically divide between two fields one of the fields thinks that the states
united could have won the war had they had a strategy is better and and
that this would have served a noble cause
[Music]
is the most interesting because although it is a little more it is beyond the left but not
not an inch more than what is established and one of the
most commented most interesting opinions was that of anthony do new
york times
tomorrow today is that journalist's opinion is basically that the war started as
an incredible but noko effort to do what was right and we know it was
do what was right simply because the united states that was
doing so by definition it would be doing what is right is harmless
simply because they lost the war and from the 70s when
it was very clear that that war was invincible which was actually clear
is that the united states was not going to succeed in not achieving democracy and the
freedom in that country at a cost that would be acceptable to the united states
the same bus right mall
is is most of the american press is about 70% of the press
American is and does not consider that the war is simply a mistake but is
something morally reprehensible
[Music]
the long ones is every time they did opinion polls the answer from
population was that war was not a mistake it was one thing is morally
reprehensible and each of these people who came to that conclusion that the war
was morally reprehensible had to come to that conclusion alone because
the opinions that were disseminated were those that the war was an effort is
wonderful but something is never these opinions that it could be something
morally reprehensible were shown last night the egg shows today
but when it comes to kicking because
erroneous mall new years mixtape in kabul
is how political scientists finally started to ask themselves why
people were answering that is that the war was was morally wrong is
they came up with the explanation that they are responding here because
the united states shouldn't and shouldn't have liked so much money and so many
American lives any conflict the other the other nerdy option because it would
morally wrong is unthinkable it is better not to mention it visit is another and
uol death was then that it would be easy to get a response from the people themselves if
you do an open poll asking for a qualitative poll
asking why they thought war was morally unacceptable but
this was not considered viable chopstick nobody really wanted there was this
that response and the other response option your cared for people who were very
outside the margin of mainstream media like professor johns himself who
treated the Serbian
to record students for a rigorous London blue hill
obama stayed in london at the beginning was completely supported by the elite and
when things started to go wrong this support started to cool down
but the heaviest criticism that this war heard yet was that of
president obama who considered the war
it just turned out to be a strategy that opinion about strategic error is not
it is an original opinion of obama, it was an opinion that some people
had some German generals had in
regarding the Nazi defeat for russia for example is and we condemn these
generals but the agent at the same time allows liberals to have that opinion
on strategic error iraq without major consequences
the water comes from araguaia in the 80s is a matter of a lack of
freedom of expression is not with several vehicles being closed the draft and the
professor jonas who was invited by a friend to give a lecture there
is is by a friend of his who was actually original from guatemala and not from
nicaragua and wii is not in 1989 he spent a week in nicaragua invitation is this
friend to study a specific newspaper called la prensa
[Music]
but the other object
in the urine and the clerk five laps
is this newspaper la prensa he was supporting is the war while the war
something was happening that would not happen in most countries
western countries and and yet the united states not only
attentive to it as they would never discuss it was not within the field of
things we could say about it
today had a workshop is again in relation to venezuela is under on the chavez
venezuela was harshly condemned by england the united states and by
other Western countries simply because a channel of
rtl tv was switched to a smaller channel at school
it rains he likes and hi i'm cruel
today, however, the pilot was far away [Music]
still without god is he with him agrees with a conjunction of that of england and
united states that it was a mistake by the Chavez government
he condemns this action in relation to the tv channel hebe disagree with the
second part that it would never happen in the united states in
england this would not happen in the united states in england because this
television channel would simply no longer exist and publishers would be
shot in public square is imagined you have a coup d'etat and us
united states for example where the team is publicly supporting this coup and
always ask continued is circulating in the country while supporting the coup that
what the country is experiencing year there was
the funk funk brand
however paulo costa the problem today i liked the
pleads for the attack because he can film the show and pulls up first director is the
left and center left governments that have passed to america
Latin America in recent decades has generally had an open posture in
relation to the press so the press continues to operate freely still
that the press was is practically universally against these governments and
make very harsh criticisms of governments and countries in those countries
free in central countries england united states etc
it would never happen if I would never have a press that would be
universally uniformly beating governments like Latin companies
American authorities were and were authorized by leftist governments
the store is in the middle of the Chavez government for two years that was already in power is he
i was naked in chile and was quite shocked to know what use
the liberals the people from chile with whom he talked with that he had access to
were very critical of venezuela and thought that xavi was implementing
an autocracy a dictatorship called him a murderer and he was surprised even
start reading the Chilean newspapers and they were all completely against Venezuela and
they only criticized and only showed things with what Venezuela was doing
doing
we stayed all day even during the years of the Chavez government is not a one
great Chilean opinion polling agency has done several polls is is in the
Venezuela and confidence and is of the Venezuelans in democracy and in
legitimacy of that of his government were among the largest on the Latin continent
American along with Uruguay and this discrepancy at the time of possession of these
research with the opinions they had was something that was never quite the
inter na lisa never much discussed by those same intellectuals who had
opinions is negative regarding Venezuela in
field think the Argentine newspaper what is the
landing is to run another example and ask you a question that I don't know
answer is is the largest polling agency in the world getting states
united is at a gallop and in 2013 she did a survey asking which country is
who wants to make more threats to the world more threatening to the rest of the world were not going
arise is still yielding a love that
felt the use today remember by jo
is this year is that the guys who asked this question the answer in the states
united was always iran russia north korea and the rest of the world the answer was
basically united states and this research was never published in the states
united and after that the agency decided to stop asking this question obama and it's
it all happened for years the crash theoretically was the government
progressive so you can imagine the result of this research today is but then the
people learned that certain things are not asked are not said is this
presentation was brief but I think you can cover a little of what
situation of the current panorama of the press in the said free countries and in america
which is known for being a right-wing media monopoly
it is tempting to continue because the examples abound
but we will stop here and open the questions
thank you teacher you have the chance teacher that is juliana i give you to you
guys let's do this is a process and the dragon quest means to i ii and win
it is paulo henrique pedro to see here in front of paulo favor we are sorry
you can't see rita so 3 then you write it down and there for him
paulo henrique pedro then you there we go to him to answer to open
three more teachers we are who i have been a journalist for a long time and today i
I dedicate especially to the job of doing political coverage on the internet
my question is how do you explain that president squid has not
faced the globe television network
(Laughter)
[Music]
the attack soon I don't understand them too but it took the band rock for years
she is loki this is what happened in brazil it was no exception was the
rule is the left that was in power in latin america was incredibly
openly surpasses surprisingly even open to let the press run from the
the way she wanted it is the same thing happened in nicaragua and
in venezuela is a diogo government was also hard
attacked by the press and left it with result to fight directly and without
to directly retaliate against this press is that it criticized him something that would never happen
in the central countries where if something like that is reproduced it is sc and it is
immediately stopped and the newspaper editors and one has one if they were just
arrested on an internship is he said these issues cannot be discussed
in the united states i mean can he can speak these things for a group
as well as ours but cannot be discussed in the press and even in
universities and in spaces where this should have discussed the chance professor
good night is the question i have here is to protect the center of the world are you sir
says in several articles and in different texts and not only you but many
people from the media including the global one that Brazil might become a
colossus we didn't reach the operations account
against corruption such as car wash is operations of corruptions that are
aligned to the united states this is what i wanted to know
that was a witty saleh ftmib site center world question quest in
a fiat idea brasil the club going up
uai two spouts the house itf is and famous couple
and got chan in a jeu de o car wash
kiss the globe the globe g1
he and I said that this actually became a reality that over the years
squid and dilma brazil has become has become a country
the most respected country in the world during those years and achieving the
organize the South American bloc in a way that has never been seen before and that
it can happen again
rita
I was not even for I come from a board of a communication project
was dismantled here in Brazil and also as people here sodom of
movement is probably the most democratic freestyle in Brazil but my
question is a disrespect to international society that could channel as
the bag of potatoes signed with society and from brazil show
Brazilian solidarity in an effective way and particularly when dealing with the
January state I will ask my question but do you want
translate before the practitioner must continue it is not like and it is projects
witnessing this is only the denial of the reality of the one where the
people followed those grenades a large exposure in full not
everyone thought here and ask me nothing critical of the state
is that I am finally doing what drugs especially the sample that the
curator of the exhibition said she wanted rap rap sabratha in the unit
could he understand well is it true money in fact the parking lots and
that's it for me you can think the connection of the information discourse that it rains has to
always have at each international scene of the girlfriend the head of the people from whom
is understanding on the page in this expectation to see from a distance I'm sorry
the question was very long and fields went public to communicate blackmail and
you passed out two chinas well in 2011 doing action xb in ius do lem
obama she rained on she wants you next edition hence I gave and wife and ed
[Music]
the girl who dances streets I think Celso is a debauchery at 10 and
[Music] Bahia that land said that this is the
great idea at last in order to prevent dengue in
about to the wind ao andante s the english and country and night and the end
of the month falling similar to the final but the question is mine
[Music]
[Music] this highlight of tchipipa uendel sa
laser kick the end of the slide there are generation kick the end of the straight nor rural
dislike word line in ryan bingham think that s so is right stop little new
generation x your ex time life aft to send brazil has a distant dream of
all dark
it is interesting to talk about the issue of torture in iraq because so far the
people don't even know a crime why is the united states never signed
the convention against torture and even when the united states is like that no
these international conventions they usually put what he called
reserves and and those reserves generally say that that does not apply to
united states so is he
they signed on to the issue of torture but excluding all practices that the
cies the torture practices that pt
hangs in iraq be today called the problem
is has a specificity on the issue of torture in iraq because unlike the
that happens in most other cases in guantanamo in the Latin dictatorships
of what happened in Brazil where the United States generally
supervise and train torturers but do not torture themselves is in the
iraq it was the american soldiers themselves who did the torture this
was considered somewhat problematic when they invaded the
iraq they needed some justification
one justification was that iraq would have weapons of mass destruction and the
another justification was that saddam hussein was bothered by al qaeda
although the two justifications were completely false they needed
collecting data and testimonials support these statements and for that they
did they needed for these tortures is waves to get
the information that finally the urgent as a cent
says the untrue information spoke puts the squid field tastes and
field the final issue of this is always impunity is not because nobody anybody
was was tried no one was punished by that time maybe people some
rounds of stature debates but no one is from the army elite
an example of this is the r15 jose is that in 1981 in cambodia is to release an order to
what if you basically shot it is with
with an air raid on anything anyone who had
movement
[Music]
[Music]
[Music]
[Music]
this phrase is actually even published in the new york times
in the context where nixon's tapes were leaked and published by the newspaper
but he didn't focus much on his knife anymore and no one spoke ill of anyone who
that in this sentence that called the project on the site is not good just for us if
organizing here has many questions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 people
I think it will not be possible to talk to everyone, so I will try to be very
fast and powerful to read the names of people who signed up for vcp
that everyone is fine I had written in a certain excuse
the group vinicius vinicius vanessa mariana
with your name so mariana so ready adriano you here your name
Julia and baby we are asked that I will not have it so let's try it
not see if it will be possible to talk everyone is my question is the teacher said
that the themes of communication the problems of communication are not discussed by
big media I wanted him to comment a little on what in the
his opinion changed with the emergence of the internet and the great
social media platforms are thought to have made a contribution and face
a little bit of common sense or if this is producing common sense ship and a new
monopoly space is communication
fine
in this sense it is this framework is conceptual that framework of operation of the area of
large media the traditional media can be changed modified is potentially
these new technologies can be changed the taste of new technologies this new
way to be the first found this great structure of functioning of the
mind with it will or will not the idea and today - in the scandal
sandro silva that the issue is much more for people like you than for
it is and that is something that has been discussed for quite a while currently the
question of net neutrality and how it works is that question that the
internet as well as various technologies was developed by people and and
so the incorporation program is basically being taken and that companies
like google for example tend to privilege the interests of others
big corporations and leaving ordinary people other people behind and
who and ethics in this regard has now been implemented the government has taken and what
this will probably continue in that direction if people don't
able to organize themselves to change something in that sense we had the
telesur would do 30 asked where he was right
captain in we have data on the lawyers who studied in the states
United are now working in the legal wars in Brazil children if they have
also given is the narrative of the construction of corruption as a regional narrative
also in the united states and also some movement in the united states to try and
implement this feature at national level 1 and 2 quickly is what is the
evaluation of the role of oea a in military interventions our militarism
in the region
the first thing that the repercussions in the united states of the narratives of
Brazilian jurists who studied in the Brazilians who are now working in the
legal wars and we also find here in Brazil a union between
this between the media and the one that exists today we have a judicial system
wanted to know if you are the tunnel also interest alliance of the mind of your
readers and if that simply acquisition from the quick start
professor james who hinted that ordering is dark and letter a un chan
and if the impact of the world is complemented the question is whether in the near future maybe
could elect a socialist government if it is politically seeking that it
would allow and what impact this could have
the night was still rainy
dell technology covered wilson jose ramos horta e costa
then they say 2 to 2
this to think about it you have to think first what does a
socialist government is in the united states today what has been what has been
called socialism for example the bather in god who who claims to
socialist is actually a social democracy
very mild and and if this space starts he can see the chance of a
of the government on these issues being elected is but this would be no less
surprising so there are ideas are also new
the government is already a socialist, it is much more difficult in the option that is
on the table now although he also doesn't think it's an impossible thing to
happen one day in the united states is for him what
what we need to do at this point is to build these perspectives for the future
in the present and finally planting seeds in the reality that we already have
am the same human person marks account of us distant from the historic flight and touched
for the goal and it was a request of what exactly people are studying the
united states is a known case is that of the latin
Americans who went to study economics in the united states and chicago
mainly and became known as the chicago boys and will return
for their countries and remembered for example those who voted for Chile
did and during the pinochet government and succeeded in a few years with a
chicago economists' advice is to destroy the economy of that
country and this is a relevant thing to think about now if we stop to think
the economist behind the employee is one of those kids from chicago too
so looking at this history you can imagine what it is
intending to do here in valenca and van
already sold made us try to close in time
good night teacher i am vanessa martina silva magazine editor
southern dialogues I would like to know from you is if the
Brazil based on this non-compliance with the UN decision regarding
of the candidacy of the president president lula brazil then becomes a state
scoundrel and in face of this situation is this positioning of Brazil currently
we must fear for real intervention by the united states in
venezuela since the protagonism that the country
Brazil exercised that in the region there was a void no longer has this leadership
good night teacher my name is ivan is a journalist from the forum magazine is mine
question is whether you think the era of reconciling democracy and
neoliberalism if it is being carried out there if there is no more possibility
neoliberal governments to be democratic since in Brazil for
example the neoliberal agenda is being imposed through a coup and
that this has also been observed in other countries in latin america
thank you west to blow out of hell s came in came and venezuela will give
[Music]
in the 90s the paul factor and the uol
did not understand the question is not whether the united states does not interfere in the
venezuela because they are already interfering
but perhaps the united states no longer has the same capacity to impose things
latin america that they had in the last 10 or 15 years
the countries of latin america managed to get rid of one of one of a subjugate
so straight from the united states is not like at the time of the dictatorships
Latin American countries that they all had not only support but specific direction
coming from washington on hi little fans
[Music]
fashion team work is in 1962 kennedy changed the armies' guidelines
Latin American security is the hemisphere for national security the
which is the same thing that you will take off the army collar and
army against its own population and that has spawned a series of
regimes the regime plague is throughout the
continent is dictatorial regimes he thinks the united states no longer
have that same power over Latin American countries but that is an issue
again that is not even discussed in the united states
good evening
[Music]
jorge joao e was the human rights commission of the un that made this recommendation
so that President Lula could be a candidate in the elections but it has to do
that the un and this commission are not respected by the united states for
example we cannot think of the un as an independent entity
because her action is limited by what the most powerful nations personally
united states whether or not they allow her to take jean on them
johnny love government is for an example of how and overcomes during is the war of
vietnam the attacks of the united states still
china have never been convicted nor even discussed and in conversation on several off
several people from the high ranking UN un have even discussed with him
that the question is whether or not to say anything is condemned any
the united states thing about closed vietnam is just to give an example
another funny example is that the united states has a rule that if any
American went to the international judo court
the international criminal court is the united states can and in saving that american
rescue this American what in Europe they call the invasion law
another question of democracy and the end of it sml berlin and democracy is
neoliberal and should involve the team more and night when it says team resolve was the
2010 man william together and mail
if silas and twitter those from the south the gaucho
[Music]
neither me nor my motto is again this is a question that is in the hands of de
people like you if those powers are allowed to act in accordance with your
interests
if they do not act according to their interests and and against the interests of the
most of the population but it is not just a question of the
liberalism leaving neoliberalism aside we are in a dodo phase of the
capitalism that anyone who wants to read it knows that we are
faced with a resistance problem even though the issue of heating
for example is jeopardizing the continued existence of the
humanity before that what the great
corporations and governments in different countries have done is not is just not
limit the use of fossil fuels for example but how to enhance this
use and invest more and more in it so it's an example is we don't even have
words is to describe and that kind of attitude
but it is a radical example of what capitalism is you should do is
you should invest in profit even when it means not investing in
continuity of the human species of human societies but this is what the
people are watching it happen now is I had ten questions
we had four more subscribers but we had a schedule agreement with the
professor johns that we would finish at 9 15 we are finishing at 9 and 18 wanted
apologizing for lasagna to julia will bring mariana priest year but we
ends here I wanted to thank the sounds that went well
efe amanda peet and phil is obliged to all and
children's ceis love of this finish wi fi internet
I want to thank the foundation perseu open that he was here with us doing the
live broadcast and I would also like to thank celso amorim who
intermediate teaches south dialogue here tonight but could not be here
with us so thank you amorim the foundation perseu open and to all who
were here brigade people
0
6
14
18
25
34
40
44
50
56
60
68
77
106
128
136
140
144
149
155
188
214
221
233
240
244
261
300
304
310
315
319
340
347
369
375
381
384
404
459
463
468
474
479
484
489
496
503
514
527
531
538
541
546
552
582
588
594
597
605
646
660
673
680
685
691
698
703
710
716
750
755
762
780
816
823
829
835
846
871
884
889
896
913
958
966
968
973
980
986
992
1016
1028
1037
1043
1062
1069
1098
1104
1109
1112
1119
1124
1149
1166
1174
1178
1184
1188
1192
1198
1211
1236
1239
1246
1252
1259
1264
1278
1328
1342
1347
1355
1361
1406
1410
1413
1422
1426
1436
1528
1536
1546
1554
1602
1625
1629
1677
1683
1690
1695
1702
1706
1734
1757
1762
1766
1809
1821
1853
1864
1869
1875
1878
1882
1886
1893
1897
1903
1911
1924
1941
1959
1965
1971
1976
1982
1988
1991
1995
2000
2007
2070
2074
2079
2084
2090
2097
2101
2108
2171
2179
2186
2192
2198
2203
2207
2213
2223
2249
2255
2263
2285
2307
2315
2324
2332
2338
2385
2390
2396
2402
2409
2415
2431
2436
2444
2451
2467
2476
2485
2490
2507
2531
2539
2547
2553
2573
2594
2638
2645
2651
2656
2661
2665
2671
2679
2685
2730
2735
2740
2754
2760
2766
2770
2774
2779
2797
2808
2820
2833
2858
2894
2914
2928
2934
2939
2944
2951
2959
2970
2976
2987
2992
3000
3003
3017
3029
3037
3044
3052
3061
3070
3082
3092
3099
3112
3126
3138
3151
3163
3168
3185
3201
3211
3216
3228
3239
3252
3344
3353
3358
3363
3370
3374
3378
3384
3390
3395
3459
3465
3470
3474
3480
3484
3551
3553
3561
3566
3571
3578
3587
3592
3665
3689
3697
3705
3715
3722
3727
3755
3762
3769
3787
3791
3796
3803
3808
3820
3827
3832
3836
3843
3852
3860
3866
3874
3880
3885
3891
3899
3907
3913
3927
3935
3942
3947
3952
4111
4119
4125
4132
4137
4145
4153
4159
4166
4172
4182
4187
4191
4196
4204
4208
4213
4218
4222
4229
4233
4239
4245
4248
4273
4279
4290
4295
4305
4434
4445
4492
4497
4503
4507
4510
4516
4524
4529
4536
4540
4545
4549
4564
4577
4668
4674
4678
4683
4691
4697
4703
4709
4715
4720
4730
4741
4746
4751
4756
4761
4769
4773
4776
4787
4792
4799
4803
4809
4815
4818
4881
4918
4963
5025
5028
5037
5041
5049
5055
5061
5083
5089
5164
5171
5177
5182
5186
5192
5197
5209
5222
5254
5282
5288
5293
5299
5306
5313
5355
5359
5373
5379
5383
5430
5439
5444
5454
5468
5491
5568
5580
5591
5610
5663
5673
5675
5679
5682
5688
5693
5699
5705
5709
5716
5722
5728
5732
5739
5747
5751
5762
5767
5773
5780
5793
5800
5823
5827
5832
5838
5842

View file

@ -0,0 +1,54 @@
and the American philosopher and linguist noam chomsky is incisive in assessing the
responses to the new coronavirus pandemic in the united states and the developing world
interview agence france-presse floors that is concerned with the world
can pandemic the main factor for concern a political chaos ensued
by world leaders new readers other than bunny leadership is chaotic
the white house is in the hands of an interested megalomaniac partner nothing but
of your own electoral expectations power doesn't care about country a
fact after another is total chaos during guarantee the country and to the world
one without the formalities of rockers the 91-year-old writer believes that the
neoliberal system the maximum has been replaced by a health system
universal is something that would be crucial in the pandemic
united states are bottom of the barrel the government just didn't want to hear the
American intelligence bombed the White House between January and February saying
to an approaching pandemic series we need to do something together just
analyzed the ranking on TV and the stock market that he considers important
for his election in the group emerged civil in stock information deciding whether it is due to
serious crisis like this gym is not our biggest problem let's recover
at hard expense but not the recovery of the polar thaw from melting the increase in
sea level and other deleterious effects of global warming today is
and today the previous syllable interest on the other hand also seems to believe that
digital technologies like the internet of things can become allies for the
future the scholarship reveals systems of
control are developing is not inevitable as is global warming
it's not inevitable it will happen unless people have it we can
seeing trends on the way the powerful forces behind are visible is not
secrets can we let that happen a words sounds that believes another
sure waiting for the united states here the country is on its way to the precipice and
0
6
11
16
22
32
36
40
48
55
58
65
69
73
78
82
104
109
113
118
129
134
139
143
148
153
162

View file

@ -0,0 +1,84 @@
AMY GOODMAN: We turn now to Noam Chomsky, one of the world's best-known dissidents.
He's institute professor emeritus at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he taught for
more than 50 years.
Juan Gonzalez and I spoke to him live on Democracy Now! on Tuesday's program.
After the broadcast, we continued the conversation.
I asked him to talk about the situation in Syria, as well as the broader Middle East.
NOAM CHOMSKY: Syria is a horrible catastrophe.
The Assad regime is a moral disgrace.
They're carrying out horrendous acts, the Russians with them.
AMY GOODMAN: Why the Russians with them?
NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, pretty simple reason: Syria is their one ally in the whole region.
Not a close ally, but they do have--their one Mediterranean base is in Syria.
It's the one country that's more or less cooperated with them.
And they don't want to lose their one ally.
It's very ugly, but that's what's happening.
Meanwhile, there have been--it's kind of like the North Korean case we were discussing.
There have been possible opportunities to terminate the horrors.
In 2012, there was an initiative from the Russians, which was not pursued, so we don't
know how serious it was, but it was a proposal to--for a negotiated settlement, in which
Assad would be phased out, not immediately.
You know, you can't tell them, "We're going to murder you.
Please negotiate."
That's not going to work.
But some system in which, in the course of negotiations, he would be removed, and some
kind of settlement would be made.
The West would not accept it, not just the United States.
France, England, the United States simply refused to even consider it.
At the time, they believed they could overthrow Assad, so they didn't want to do this, so
the war went on.
Could it have worked?
You never know for sure.
But it could have been pursued.
Meanwhile, Qatar and Saudi Arabia are supporting jihadi groups, which are not all that different
from ISIS.
So you have a horror story on all sides.
The Syrian people are being decimated.
AMY GOODMAN: And the U.S. now sending 400 more troops to Syria.
But if the U.S. has a better relationship with Russia, could that change everything?
NOAM CHOMSKY: It could lead to some kind of accommodation in which a negotiated diplomatic
settlement would be implemented, which would by no means be lovely, but it would at least
cut down the level of violence, which is critical, because the country is simply being destroyed.
It's descending to suicide.
5
8
13
14
18
20
25
30
34
39
40
47
52
58
60
65
71
77
88
96
99
102
104
105
111
112
116
120
127
128
130
131
134
142
144
147
149
153
157
167
175
181

View file

@ -0,0 +1,146 @@
The following content is provided under a Creative
Commons license.
Your support will help MIT OpenCourseWare
continue to offer high-quality educational resources for free.
To make a donation, or to view additional materials
from hundreds of MIT courses, visit MIT OpenCourseWare
at ocw.mit.edu.
MICHEL DEGRAFF: I don't want to make anyone jealous who
came before, but I think we can say pretty safely
that we saved one of the best for last, right?
I won't say the best.
OK?
All right.
So as you can see, throughout the course
we looked at these issues about how language, race, ethnicity,
gender, how they can be used to create various hierarchies.
And as you can see now after the semester,
these are tools, really.
They're not inherently part of who we are,
but they are tools that various pools of power
use to keep control, to create hierarchies.
And I think last week, you guys you had a very good discussion
with Dr. Aleman about how sometimes these hierarchies can
be internalized.
And there was a very good discussion,
as I can tell, from the video that she took for me about how
you, yourself, we need to do some work inside of us
to go beyond these threats that these terror attacks impose
on us.
So we went very micro.
So we went very macro, then went micro.
And today, with my friend and colleague, Noam Chomsky,
we're going to go my macro again.
But I guess you've read the papers.
I read the papers.
And I must say, Noam, I was very disturbed by what I read.
But the fact is that those are the data.
So this is MIT.
We are very much involved in trying to understand knowledge.
And many of you throughout the semester
made a case that we have all this knowledge here at MIT.
But often, this knowledge does not translate into action
into the real world.
And in a way, I think with Noam's entire life,
we have an example of how that can happen.
How we can take very abstract, technical knowledge
and make it available to the world
and try to make it better.
And the theme of this course throughout
was how to build bridges, how to make change and build bridges.
So we hope that with Noam today, we'll
get a clear sense of how that can happen.
And perhaps, how we might, with some luck,
save the world, right?
NOAM CHOMSKY: I think the best way to proceed is--
in a court seminar is for you to say what you're interested in.
I'll see if I have some way of reacting to it.
Lots of things I could talk about.
I mean, one thing we could talk about related
is right in the headlines.
So there are things which is an opening for things we can do.
That's the plan that was just made public yesterday
to deport Haitians back to Haiti from Boston.
That's a very live issue.
A lot of lives depend on it.
We can do something about it right here if we want.
It turns out-- I didn't know this--
that the Haitian Ambassador, Michel just
told me, who is pleading with the government
not to carry out this onerous and destructive act,
is actually a former MIT student, who
wrote about these topics in his thesis.
So that's one of many things that could be discussed.
1
3
5
7
11
14
18
22
24
28
32
34
34
37
38
45
49
54
55
58
61
64
67
71
72
74
79
82
85
86
88
90
95
97
100
101
106
109
111
114
117
120
123
125
128
131
133
135
136
138
142
145
147
150
152
156
161
164
167
170
173
179
183
193
195
197
200
202
206
209
214
218
222

View file

@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
are you but no more since
they are on fire aznar stick and trade
as I said at the time if there is no problem in having a base
North American in perfect Ecuador we can give permission to install in
that base as long as they give us permission to install a military base
Ecuadorian in Miami if there is no problem they will accept
one
i
but a society
2
8
52
56
62
66
70
77
80

View file

@ -0,0 +1,334 @@
"Noam Chomsky Is a Soft Revolution" by Foy Vance.
This is Democracy Now!
I'm Amy Goodman, as we return to our conversation with the world-renowned dissident, linguist
and professor Noam Chomsky.
Let's turn to the situation in Gaza.
Israel's Internal Security Minister Gilad Erdan said Thursday Israel could launch another
wide-scale military operation against the Gaza Strip.
This comes after Israel's violent crackdown on peaceful protests in Gaza from March to
May, when Israeli forces killed over 136 Palestinians, injured over 14,000 Palestinians.
I want to turn to the Canadian doctor, the Palestinian-Canadian doctor Tarek Loubani,
who was shot by Israeli forces in both legs while he was helping treat Palestinians injured
by Israeli forces during the nonviolent Great March of Return.
It was May 14th, a Monday.
I asked Dr. Loubani--this is right after he was shot--if he felt he was targeted.
I don't know the answer to that.
I don't know what orders they received or what was in their heads, so I can't tell
you if we were deliberately targeted.
What I can tell you is the things that I do know.
In the six weeks of the March, there were no paramedic casualties.
And in one day, 19 paramedics--18 wounded plus one killed--and myself were all injured,
so--or were all shot with live ammunition.
We were all--Musa was actually in a rescue at the time, but everybody else I've talked
to was like me.
We were away during a lull, without smoke, without any chaos at all, and we were targeted--and
we were, rather, hit by live ammunition, most of us in the lower limbs.
So, it's very, very hard to believe that the Israelis who shot me and the Israelis
who shot my other colleagues--just from our medical crew, four of us were shot, including
Musa Abuhassanin, who passed away--It's very hard to believe that they didn't know
who we were, they didn't know what we were doing, and that they were aiming at anything
else.
So, later that same day, May 14th, the man that Tarek was just talking about, Dr. Loubani
was talking about, paramedic Musa Abuhassanin, was shot and killed by Israeli forces.
He was shot in the chest.
Dr. Loubani tweeted a photo captioned, "A haunting photo, Friday, May 11.
Left: Mohammed Migdad, shot in the right ankle.
Hassan Abusaada.
Tarek Loubani, shot in left leg and right knee.
Moumin Silmi.
Youssef Almamlouk.
Musa Abuhassanin, shot in the thorax and killed.
Volunteer unknown.
Photographer: shot and wounded."
And he showed this photograph that he had, that he thought he was just going to have
for a scrapbook, and then realized these were some of the last days of their lives.
What's going on in Gaza right now, from your perspective, Noam?
We can add to that list the young Palestinian woman, a medic, who was murdered by a sniper,
far from the so-called border, when she was tending to a wounded patient.
Yes, it's hideously ugly.
But there's a background, as always.
The crucial background is that Israeli--this Israeli stranglehold on Gaza, which has reduced
the life to bare survival, has reached the point where the United Nations, other analysts
predict that by the year 2020, Gaza will literally be uninhabitable.
That's two million people, half of them children, being caged in a prison, carefully
controlled, savage restrictions on food, on anything that comes to them, to the extent
that the fishermen are kept close to shore so they can't fish, the sewage plants have
been destroyed, the power plants have been attacked.
The official program--official--was to keep Gaza on what was called a diet, barely enough
to survive.
Doesn't look good if they all starve to death.
Notice that this is occupied territory, as recognized by--even by the United States,
everyone but Israel.
So, here's a population kept in a prison, in an occupied territory, fed a diet to keep
them at bare survival, constantly used as a punching bag for what's called--what
calls itself the most moral army in the world, now reaching a point where within a couple
years it will be uninhabitable, yes, and in addition to that you have sadistic acts like
highly trained snipers killing a young Palestinian woman medic when she's tending a patient,
and what the doctor just described.
What do we do with it?
We actually react to that.
The United States has reacted.
It has reacted by very sharply cutting its funding to the one organization, UNRWA, U.N.
organization, that keeps the population barely alive.
That's our response, along with, of course, overwhelming support for Israel, providing
with the arms, diplomatic support and so on.
One of the most extraordinary scandals, if that's the right word, in the modern world.
Can we do something about it?
Sure, of course we can.
Gaza should be a thriving Mediterranean paradise.
It has a wonderful location, has agricultural resources, could be marvelous beaches, fishing,
sea resources, even has natural gas offshore, which it's not being allowed to use.
So there's plenty that can be done.
But we've--the U.S. has preferred, under repeated administrations, but much worse now,
to, as usual, support the murderers.
Noam, Israel is threatening another strike on Gaza like what they called Operation Protective
Edge in 2014 when they killed well over 2,000 people--about, oh, around a quarter of that
number children.
Yes, they are threatening.
If you look over the record--there's no time to talk about it now--there's a marvelous
book that just came out, incidentally.
Norman Finkelstein's book Gaza, which is about Gaza's martyrdom, is a definitive
study of this.
But what's happened since 2005 is pretty straightforward.
I mean, the previous history is ugly enough.
But in 2005, Ariel Sharon, other Israeli hawks, recognized that it didn't make any sense
to keep a couple of thousand Jewish settlers illegally settling in Gaza, using up most
of its resources and devoting a large part of the Israeli army to protecting them.
That was totally senseless.
So they decided to move them from their illegal, subsidized settlements in Gaza to illegal,
subsidized settlements in areas that Israel wanted to keep, in the West Bank, in the Golan
Heights.
It was framed as a traumatic event, but that was a play for world opinion.
It was basically a joke.
They could have done it quite easily.
And they pulled out, and that was called a withdrawal.
But they remained under total Israeli occupation, just that the army wasn't inside Gaza; it
was controlling it from the outside.
There was an agreement reached in November 2005 between the Palestinians and Israel on
a ceasefire, no violence, opening Gaza's seaport, rebuilding the airport that Israel
had destroyed, opening the border so that there could be free flow between Israel and
Egypt and so on.
That agreement lasted a couple of weeks, in--that was November.
In January, the Palestinians committed a major crime: They ran a free election, recognized
to be free and fair, only one in the Arab world.
But it came out the wrong way.
The wrong people won: Hamas.
Israel, at once, escalated violence, tightened the siege, increased the repression against
Gaza, imposed the diet.
The U.S. reacted by standard operating procedure: started to organize a military coup.
Hamas preempted the military coup, which was an even greater crime.
Violence, the U.S.-Israeli violence, increased.
The savagery of the siege increased, and so on.
Then it goes on like that.
Repeatedly, there's an episode of what Israel calls mowing the lawn.
Smash them up.
They're defenseless, of course.
Then there's an agreement reached, which Hamas accepts and lives up to.
Israel violates it constantly.
Finally, an Israeli escalation of the violation leads to some Hamas response, which Israel
uses as a pretext for the next episode of mowing the lawn.
I've reviewed this.
Norman Finkelstein reviews it in his book.
Others have.
That's been the history since 2005.
So, yes, there might be another one.
But now we're reaching a point where it's almost terminal.
Repeat, it's expected that the Gaza Strip, having been devastated so savagely over the
years, will literally become uninhabitable.
Now, there are ways to deal with this.
It's not a--doesn't take a brilliant scientist to figure it out.
It's quite obvious.
And Noam, the solution that you say that is straightforward and simple?
Very straightforward.
Live up to the terms of the November 2005 agreement.
Allow Gaza to reconstruct.
Open the entry points to Israel and Egypt.
Rebuild the seaport that was smashed.
Rebuild the airport that Israel destroyed.
Allow them to reconstruct the power plants.
Let them become a flourishing Mediterranean site.
And, of course, permit--remember that the famous Oslo Agreements required, explicitly,
that the Gaza Strip and the West Bank be a unified territory and that its territorial
integrity must be maintained.
Israel and the United States reacted at once by separating them.
OK?
That's not a law of nature, either.
Palestinian national rights can be achieved, if the U.S., Israel are willing to accept
that.
Noam Chomsky, the world-renowned political dissident, author and linguist, now a laureate
professor in the Department of Linguistics at the University of Arizona, Tucson.
Chomsky taught for 50 years at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Visit Democracynow.org to watch our first full hour with Noam Chomsky, discussing immigration,
U.S. foreign policy in Latin America and more.
In the coming week, you'll hear Noam Chomsky on North Korea, Yemen, Iran and more.
And that does it for our broadcast.
I'm Amy Goodman.
Our website, Democracynow.org.
Thanks for joining us.
0
1
2
5
7
10
16
20
26
34
39
45
49
51
57
59
66
68
71
76
86
90
94
96
102
107
114
119
123
130
131
137
142
144
149
152
154
157
158
159
163
165
168
173
178
182
191
197
200
203
215
226
234
244
257
264
268
279
280
283
289
290
299
304
311
318
325
328
330
331
334
343
346
352
355
363
364
366
372
386
394
398
404
408
415
422
423
425
431
434
445
446
451
455
464
472
480
482
491
497
498
503
505
506
510
517
519
528
541
548
549
555
563
567
570
573
583
586
595
601
605
609
611
619
620
622
632
634
641
648
650
652
653
656
659
662
672
674
678
684
685
689
691
696
701
708
712
714
718
723
732
743
746
750
751
756
762
763
768
773
778
783
786
792
794
795
796

View file

@ -0,0 +1,570 @@
you just need an idea to change the world
and
our project is called ideas world-changing ideas do not come to everyone's mind far
not everyone here we just flew a statue
freedom seems to me that in order for you to be visited by a great idea you need to have
a very free mind not burdened with political and religious prohibitions and
even moral ideas create and destroy the idea does not always change the world to
the best they can ruin can enrich but in order to change the world
all you need is ideas and it's true, in my opinion, this is how our journey began
in America they say today the most intellectually developed country is the most
ingenious economy on the planet with this you can argue of course but you can
still count on Boolean laureates and the number of patented inventions and
change your mind to argue anyway, our task is completely different
show a world without borders and science without borders and the triumph of human thought
which borders are also useless and why did we start from America
well, why not
the speed of thought is said to be equal to the speed of light and of course we have no possibility
to reliably depict the flight of human thought
but if you think about it, why shouldn't he be so so beautiful so
exciting so uneven and thrilling
our heroes are people who change the world to the best of their strength and capabilities not a child
Michael Gazzaniga first divided the hemispheres of the human brain and the
most not only eased the suffering of many seriously ill people, but also discovered
amazing properties of the brain the so-called phenomenon of 2 minds in one
body jin sharp ideologue of modern revolutions
controversial character but he seems to like it even more controversial john
perkins repentant economic killer
at first mercilessly shackled the world with loans from the American government
and now he preaches love and altruism from a small but very comfortable
islands and finally Noam Chomsky linguist and public figure
our Socrates as the Americans call him to get to know them with all of us
circled the perimeter of the usa new york boston all this is los angeles
big cities and people changing the world
abraham noam chomsky american linguist political scientist public figure
Linguistics professor at MIT author
classification of formal languages called the Chomsky hierarchy is known
their radical left political views and criticism of foreign policy
us government was born in 1928 in philadelphia since 1945 studied philosophy
and linguistics at the University of Pennsylvania for 61 years has been teaching at
Massachusetts Institute of Technology in his doctoral dissertation hamske
began to develop linguistic ideas which he then revealed in more detail
in 1957 in the book Syntactic Structures
his works on generative grammars contributed significantly to the decline
behaviorism and promoted the development of cognitive sciences
but Chomsky agrees with you, modern linguistics cannot yet offer
the world of explanation of the phenomenon of appearance on earth
different languages and therefore passes through the centuries without losing meaning and relevance
legends about the tower of Babel, the punishment for pride became for people
mixing of languages people ceased to understand each other and
dispersed across the land without leaving others Babylonian ambitions Babylonian tradition
almost every nation in Burma and Mexico has a tower
among the Tlingit tribe in Alaska and in ancient Greece, scientists are especially surprised
the fact that this is the legend of the tower to the sky appears among isolated peoples
from a friend and no longer intersecting in historical and cultural planes and
everyone has their own idea of how the Babylonian
the tower, in our opinion, it could well come out and such as this building
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Teaches Noam Chomsky here
the most famous linguist of our time, he made a real revolution in
linguistics including when he said that language is an innate mechanism of communication
and explained why exactly a person is able to master this talent to speak
albeit in different languages, but in the end it is no longer a complaint to a linguist
okay virone tower
behind the skin
a gun
hello, thank you for agreeing to this interview and taking the time for us
today I am pleased to be strongly suppose that we have this property
speaking properties to use language has been given since
from the very beginning, but why did we so relatively recently learned this
we cannot say exactly when we
received this gift well, definitely during evolution
a person over the past hundred thousand years, in fact, this determines our race
it was during this period that human homo sapiens mastered speech and we can
trace the emergence of languages, it seems to me that this property appeared in
for a very short time compared to the entire period of evolution with
since this human ability appeared, it has been used constantly for
it is a short time in this instant in terms of evolution
there was a development of man of the industrial revolution, so on but
no significant changes in brain function occurred
human cognitive abilities have changed little in this sense we are identical
Aboriginal tribes and how if the ability to language
this is an innate mechanism, but let's say if we consider this knowledge as a kind of key
what kind of door does he open with regard to scientists
they need to determine which properties of the language are innate which
acquired the next question is what are the variations as far as possible changes in
language system, you can artificially create linguistic systems that
nevertheless will not become a language because they will not meet the requirements
human language laws of my development
however, we cannot study the properties of language on other kinds of creatures except
human since animals have no language but even with humans and such experiments
it is very difficult to carry out it is necessary to use some indirect methods
learning the language system does not exactly lead to very interest
the result of how scientists can use this information further
resulted in we want to know how it developed
language systems are what fundamentally distinguishes us not only from other living
creatures but also from other primates we all
human beings come from a small group of people who lived in africa and we
we can trace our origins from there are archaeological
evidence confirming that the person appeared approximately 100 150 thousand
years ago, there are also archaeological facts related to the development of the language
therefore, it is safe to say that over the past 50 thousand years, an explicit
evolution did not happen so this is the window in which this amazing
property of a person properties of language it is rather narrow in this new
Chomsky was called a revolutionary of linguistics, the idea of changing the world turned out to be
simple and ingenious why does a child start talking in the first two years
life in the native language because Chomsky answers that there are 7 and language containing
all possible principles of all languages of the world are an innate mechanism of mastering
language which will choose the required algorithm
depending on which language the child should speak this mechanism
works until about 12 years old, by the way, he explains her childish ease in learning
foreign languages that are becoming difficult to access in
later age, Chomsky's main argument is
parents do not tell the child which language constructions are impossible, however
the child very quickly understands what is what
and I'm sure Chomsky has some pre-set information for the kid for this
that you can't figure out what and in what sequence you speak science
we can say with confidence that a person has very serious
innate properties we know about it thanks to observations
reborn babies are surrounded by a complex environment love he hears sounds
the child sees objects instantly reflexively
selects language-related information from this environment and is pretty good
I understand what is happening absorbing this information it passes
through several stages at the age of six months 10 months two years and so on
and gradually he acquires what we have with you the language before our eyes
something magical happens thanks to which a person can learn a language
but scientists want to know how a newborn baby of one day about labor
determines in which language howl amongst he lives this is a non-trivial task at the very
in fact, we now know that a person acquires some abilities even before
birth being in the womb research
show that the child can distinguish the speech of the mother whose voice he never
heard another woman speak means something is happening before birth
the child somehow tunes in to a particular system on this topic was carried out
many studies have studied languages of different categories and it turned out that before
gaining speech and language no matter what language surrounds the child so that
the adopted child begins to speak the language of the parents as easily as
biological this suggests that the mechanism of acquisition and cognition is the same
for all languages even if the child was born in the Amazon forest in brazil
then he has the universal ability to speak any language
if he gets into a certain environment, then he can learn, let's say Russian and
then studies at the university in Moscow
generative universal grammar conceived by boorish for half a century determined
the development of linguistics, the task of scientists of the next generations is to confirm or
refute the new chomsky then and neil and believe to travel missionary and
targets in South America discovered the Piraha people speaking their
Piraha language, which does not fit into the theory of universal
grammar but so far this is only an exception confirming the rule
how language is evolving today to what is humanity moving
there is a lot of talk about language evolution however languages do not evolve language is
programmed properties are a pretty tough system this ability
creates a certain area of our brain and this ability has not changed since
the moment of its origin for the reasons that I have already spoken about but the languages themselves
changing constantly when the Normans conquered Britain it changed
English my grandchildren do not speak as I spoke at their age but slang
teenagers generally change the language in one generation
however, all these are only superficial changes within a given structure
we want to understand what kind of structure it is, what is this rigid form that is not
allows the language to change dramatically if you ask
the question of how a negative sentence is constructed in English or
some other language, then as a rule there is an element
meaning negation in English is the word not which is in the middle
sentences can be invented pseudo language in which this element
not appears in third place in sentences this is a very simple rule with
the point of view of mathematics, however, there is no such language and people could not
to learn it
language has two aspects, sound and meaning, but how the combination of sounds is associated with
understanding of these meanings why it is believed that the name given to the child from birth
determines his fate and character and can this be shifted to the scale of whole
peoples speak differently how language develops national character
can tell about my experience my parents gave me a name but this is a Hebrew word
which has never been used as a name for me to say, but it
means pleasure pleasure in the bible there is
expression 10 however the name itself but not when I
grew up with this strange name people most often called me Norman just wrong
heard when I introduced myself, I said okay, I'll live as a Norman sometimes at
I have problems at the airport but in fact
the name does not play a big role, but there is another hypothesis that is being discussed already
a couple of hundred years how does the language you speak affect the perception of the world
there are many attempts at how you interpret the social environment
demonstrate such a connection but they are not very convincing rather there is
evidence that language has little effect on the perception of the world may be small
differences but they are not dominant but
it's amazing that you think so and that the emotional is rich emotionally
colored language does not affect our thoughts in any way does not affect our character and
our fate, I now propose to recall the work of George Orwell 1984
remember there was a new language invented newspeak and it was scary don't forget
that at the snouts he thought mostly aban
and what could happen to her in the future, and Newspeak was an illustration of that
what could have happened there well this is not a new language this is new
using language when fame starts to mean the opposite of their meaning
the very concept of Newspeak is precisely related to the concept of double thinking double
standards when there are two opposite concepts in the brain, that's for
to reconcile them and a new one was created, it exists in any
society and we have newspeak and we will take the term aggression from you
international law, it has a certain meaning, however
in the English-speaking world, this word is used only when aggression is directed
against us when we carry out the aggression ourselves
we call it trying or something, it's not just us
this is a universal thing you can swagger Hitler's invasion of Poland
it was not aggression but defense and defense against the wild terror of the Poles.
the Nazis practically destroyed northern China
40 years ago I saw interesting documents and there is completely noble
rhetoric to save poor Chinese from bandits
give them a Japanese paradise and Hitler captured Czechoslovakia from the purest
incentives to end ethnic cleansing and establish German civilization
the same thing when America pokes its nose into other countries and when Russia invades
to other countries always the same any of us telling another's crime
exaggerates a person he adds his attitude shows how much it is
awful this is newspeak double thinking double standards they are everywhere and in
culture and in the system of power, you said about the inventions of language, I remembered
an attempt by people to invent the language of international communication, Esperanto, and this
the language did not develop and did not become popular in your opinion why is it
a kind of parasite language those who speak it subconsciously
use knowledge of their own language to speak from
the first why this language did not take root for this are social and cultural
reasons it could be used as an international language there were attempts to
done but failed because the language of international communication
the truly international language has become the English language of the most powerful
states view scientific international
symposia from austria to thailand mainly in english 1
in the morning listened to the BBC broadcast of the conference in singapore delegate
from china speaks english this is the power of british feathers american
empire if so you can dream up
assume that humanity will sooner or later come to the need to speak
in one language was view mens nike will they speak the same language
I hope not, it would be a very boring language and so it disappears very quickly
usually refer to Aboriginal languages, but in reality languages are rapidly disappearing and
in the center of europe, say in italy, there are many people who cannot
talk to their grandmothers because they speak a different language and what
today it is called Italian in fact it is a collection of different languages
whose speakers often do not understand each other and disappear in Germany
a few years ago I had a doctoral student who studied
German grammar after graduation he got a job in Germany to teach
German student German they speak a dialect
they need to learn correct German in general, now many Germans speak
in English and with another country in the United States themselves there are areas where in
colleges teach standard English because the language in which
students say this is a kind of English
comes a very rapid decline of languages, many disappear under the pressure of powerful
powers imposing their language according to unesco experts in the world exist
about 6,700 languages but half of them will soon disappear on average every 15
days at least one language ceases to be used moreover specialists
believe that 96 percent of languages are spoken by only 4 percent of the population
planets and 150 teeth of Russia have died in the last century 2 but now it is next in line
dozens are bad news for a dying language before and for scientists
linguists in this course of life itself
but there is a reverse process, the revival of languages in Europe, for example, in Spain this
Basque country and Catalonia or Welsh in the UK is sometimes associated
with the need for national self and identification
sometimes it is a means of resisting pressure and sometimes these languages are used
for music of songs and other similar things, it all started recently and revival
languages is much slower than their decline and disappearance is obvious
the number of languages has decreased in the last adieus me the most recent
question our world is constantly changing and in words declarations of international laws
it seems to be getting better but is there a change for the better in
in fact and in your opinion, what idea in the near future could change this
world for the better and phil, I think that if you look at a long stretch of history
we will see steps forward for example we have abolished slavery and even until recently
time women and this is half of the population
considered property under British law, for example, a woman was simply
considered the property of a father or husband it was very recently
but this changed minority rights to a certain extent began to be respected
a lot of things have happened there is opposition to violence these are all steps forward but on the other
side of the human race is now threatened
destruction of the environment of its existence, the first is a catastrophic change
the climate is very serious and very gloomy
perspective and not so distant future it seems to me that we are marching towards
this cliff is pretty fast and the second is a war, I think it's just a miracle
that during the last 60 years we have avoided a nuclear war that could
destroy the whole world much can be done to overcome this
threat however not much is done here are two
vectors in which the development of civilization is going on; change on the one hand
positive and, on the other hand, destructive and it depends on us which of these directions
to win believe it does not depend on God from people
we made sure that noam chomsky despite the biblical name
not at all religious this wonderful admitted absolutely
scientifically by the majority of an intellectual and an enthusiastic attitude towards their
subject but he is Finnish they say that neither he nor
other linguists, together with neuroscientists, cannot say how our brain has changed and
what made different groups of people associate with certain concepts
different sounds is unclear why almost all languages are based on
these are the rules, by the way, and Chomsky and other scientists in the study of these
universal rules go backwards looking for diversity
variants of verbal constructions and some universal restrictions then
there is as it is impossible to say in any language the topic is not yet fully disclosed
therefore the Bible remains the best explanation for the uninitiated
let's mix their language there so that one does not understand the speech of the other
39
57
68
75
77
82
87
92
98
104
110
114
119
123
129
133
140
145
148
153
160
167
170
175
179
182
188
190
194
198
202
207
212
219
225
229
233
237
245
250
254
258
263
267
274
279
281
286
291
295
300
304
308
312
317
321
325
330
333
338
343
347
352
358
363
367
372
375
379
383
388
393
398
403
410
415
419
424
427
432
436
443
449
455
461
466
472
474
479
484
488
492
496
500
504
509
514
518
523
528
533
538
545
549
553
559
564
566
571
575
579
584
588
591
596
603
608
614
620
624
629
633
639
646
651
656
662
667
671
676
682
689
694
700
705
711
716
722
727
732
737
741
746
750
754
762
768
775
780
787
793
798
804
808
814
820
824
829
833
838
842
847
851
857
862
867
871
878
885
891
896
903
908
913
916
923
930
936
941
946
950
956
962
969
979
982
987
992
998
1004
1009
1014
1019
1024
1029
1033
1038
1043
1050
1052
1057
1060
1065
1070
1076
1082
1087
1093
1099
1104
1111
1115
1119
1126
1132
1137
1142
1146
1151
1155
1160
1162
1166
1172
1177
1183
1188
1194
1198
1205
1209
1214
1218
1224
1229
1233
1237
1242
1247
1254
1258
1263
1269
1275
1282
1289
1295
1298
1304
1312
1317
1322
1329
1333
1339
1344
1350
1353
1359
1364
1369
1374
1377
1382
1384
1390
1396
1400
1404
1408
1413
1418
1424
1428
1433
1436
1439
1444
1448
1453
1458
1462
1466
1471
1479

View file

@ -0,0 +1,822 @@
I know that
yeah
margins basket size
the first
day time baby
together
together
together Oh God
the burden is
PRN thanks are
PRN thanks are
PRN thanks are oh stop you better
I think we altered it
I think we altered it
I think we altered it Oh cousin
president funny yesterday
president funny yesterday
president funny yesterday our days are too
our days are too
our days are too oh love you bet it is
we also don't you know
as I talked at the end of January we are
as I talked at the end of January we are
as I talked at the end of January we are in the midst of the disaster that could
in the midst of the disaster that could
in the midst of the disaster that could turn into a huge catastrophe the US Air
turn into a huge catastrophe the US Air
turn into a huge catastrophe the US Air Force is pounding large parts of Iraq
Force is pounding large parts of Iraq
Force is pounding large parts of Iraq and wait the dust killing them of no one
and wait the dust killing them of no one
and wait the dust killing them of no one knows how many people American troops
knows how many people American troops
knows how many people American troops are about to march into what could be a
are about to march into what could be a
are about to march into what could be a meat grinder there are two countries
meat grinder there are two countries
meat grinder there are two countries fighting this war the United States and
fighting this war the United States and
fighting this war the United States and England despite extreme US pressures and
England despite extreme US pressures and
England despite extreme US pressures and threats few others have been willing to
threats few others have been willing to
threats few others have been willing to give more than token support except for
give more than token support except for
give more than token support except for the finally dictatorships the rule of
the finally dictatorships the rule of
the finally dictatorships the rule of Gulf oil producers in the region
Gulf oil producers in the region
Gulf oil producers in the region opposition to the u.s. British war is so
opposition to the u.s. British war is so
opposition to the u.s. British war is so extreme that it's turning into mass
extreme that it's turning into mass
extreme that it's turning into mass popular support for the hated tyrant
popular support for the hated tyrant
popular support for the hated tyrant Saddam Hussein why are the United States
Saddam Hussein why are the United States
Saddam Hussein why are the United States and England virtually alone in fighting
and England virtually alone in fighting
and England virtually alone in fighting a war that almost no one else wants it's
a war that almost no one else wants it's
a war that almost no one else wants it's something that we ought to try to
something that we ought to try to
something that we ought to try to understand let's go back to last July
understand let's go back to last July
understand let's go back to last July when the Iraqi dictator was George
when the Iraqi dictator was George
when the Iraqi dictator was George Bush's amiable friend and favored
Bush's amiable friend and favored
Bush's amiable friend and favored trading partner true he was a murderous
trading partner true he was a murderous
trading partner true he was a murderous gangster we'd set up maybe the worst
gangster we'd set up maybe the worst
gangster we'd set up maybe the worst tyranny in the world but you could make
tyranny in the world but you could make
tyranny in the world but you could make plenty of money trading with him and it
plenty of money trading with him and it
plenty of money trading with him and it looked as if he was our thug so
looked as if he was our thug so
looked as if he was our thug so therefore he was quite okay on august
therefore he was quite okay on august
therefore he was quite okay on august 2nd everything changed the State
2nd everything changed the State
2nd everything changed the State Department had let Saddam Hussein know
Department had let Saddam Hussein know
Department had let Saddam Hussein know that it had no serious objection that he
that it had no serious objection that he
that it had no serious objection that he settled some border disputes with quate
settled some border disputes with quate
settled some border disputes with quate by force but he took over the whole
by force but he took over the whole
by force but he took over the whole country that's not acceptable
country that's not acceptable
country that's not acceptable this region is US turf and no one and
this region is US turf and no one and
this region is US turf and no one and that means no one is allowed to strike
that means no one is allowed to strike
that means no one is allowed to strike an independent course the Iraqi dictator
an independent course the Iraqi dictator
an independent course the Iraqi dictator therefore changed overnight from a
therefore changed overnight from a
therefore changed overnight from a moderate whose behavior was improving to
moderate whose behavior was improving to
moderate whose behavior was improving to a new Hitler who had to be stopped
a new Hitler who had to be stopped
a new Hitler who had to be stopped before he conquered the world he had
before he conquered the world he had
before he conquered the world he had stepped on the wrong toes ours
stepped on the wrong toes ours
stepped on the wrong toes ours there were two very different reactions
there were two very different reactions
there were two very different reactions to erect aggression the first was at the
to erect aggression the first was at the
to erect aggression the first was at the United Nations where the Security
United Nations where the Security
United Nations where the Security Council immediately imposed sanctions
Council immediately imposed sanctions
Council immediately imposed sanctions and that means sanctions and diplomacy
and that means sanctions and diplomacy
and that means sanctions and diplomacy that means negotiations to arrange
that means negotiations to arrange
that means negotiations to arrange withdrawal as the sanctions take effect
withdrawal as the sanctions take effect
withdrawal as the sanctions take effect that's actually the usual US response to
that's actually the usual US response to
that's actually the usual US response to a UN response to aggression usually that
a UN response to aggression usually that
a UN response to aggression usually that response is blocked by the great powers
response is blocked by the great powers
response is blocked by the great powers the United States in fact is far in the
the United States in fact is far in the
the United States in fact is far in the lead with Britain right behind it
lead with Britain right behind it
lead with Britain right behind it usually they support her carry out
usually they support her carry out
usually they support her carry out aggression themselves but the to warrior
aggression themselves but the to warrior
aggression themselves but the to warrior states happen to be opposed to this act
states happen to be opposed to this act
states happen to be opposed to this act of aggression instead of supporting it
of aggression instead of supporting it
of aggression instead of supporting it carrying it out so they allowed the UN
carrying it out so they allowed the UN
carrying it out so they allowed the UN sanctions to be imposed but the US and
sanctions to be imposed but the US and
sanctions to be imposed but the US and Britain at once moved to undercut the
Britain at once moved to undercut the
Britain at once moved to undercut the peaceful means prescribed by
peaceful means prescribed by
peaceful means prescribed by international law sanctions were
international law sanctions were
international law sanctions were undercut by dispatch of a huge
undercut by dispatch of a huge
undercut by dispatch of a huge Expeditionary Force to the desert
Expeditionary Force to the desert
Expeditionary Force to the desert instead of a small deterrent force which
instead of a small deterrent force which
instead of a small deterrent force which could be kept in place while the
could be kept in place while the
could be kept in place while the sanctions took effect as they were
sanctions took effect as they were
sanctions took effect as they were almost sure to do in this case and the
almost sure to do in this case and the
almost sure to do in this case and the US and Britain made it crystal clear
US and Britain made it crystal clear
US and Britain made it crystal clear that they would not permit any form of
that they would not permit any form of
that they would not permit any form of diplomacy now that's important to
diplomacy now that's important to
diplomacy now that's important to understand the official story is that
understand the official story is that
understand the official story is that George Bush went the last mile for peace
George Bush went the last mile for peace
George Bush went the last mile for peace turning the force only after
turning the force only after
turning the force only after extraordinary diplomatic efforts were
extraordinary diplomatic efforts were
extraordinary diplomatic efforts were exhausted those are the words of the
exhausted those are the words of the
exhausted those are the words of the President and no one expects the
President and no one expects the
President and no one expects the government to tell the truth but that's
government to tell the truth but that's
government to tell the truth but that's a bit too much from August the US
a bit too much from August the US
a bit too much from August the US position has been explicit unwavering
position has been explicit unwavering
position has been explicit unwavering and unambiguous there will be no
and unambiguous there will be no
and unambiguous there will be no negotiations Washington has been happy
negotiations Washington has been happy
negotiations Washington has been happy to deliver an ultimatum saying
to deliver an ultimatum saying
to deliver an ultimatum saying capitulate or die that's not diplomacy
capitulate or die that's not diplomacy
capitulate or die that's not diplomacy official reasoning on this was spelled
official reasoning on this was spelled
official reasoning on this was spelled out by New York Times diplomatic
out by New York Times diplomatic
out by New York Times diplomatic correspondent Thomas Friedman last
correspondent Thomas Friedman last
correspondent Thomas Friedman last August he said that the administration
August he said that the administration
August he said that the administration feared that a diplomatic track might in
feared that a diplomatic track might in
feared that a diplomatic track might in his words defuse the crisis at the cost
his words defuse the crisis at the cost
his words defuse the crisis at the cost of a few token gains for Iraq
of a few token gains for Iraq
of a few token gains for Iraq perhaps a quaity island or minor border
perhaps a quaity island or minor border
perhaps a quaity island or minor border adjustments or issues recognized to be
adjustments or issues recognized to be
adjustments or issues recognized to be negotiable anything short of
negotiable anything short of
negotiable anything short of capitulation to US force is unacceptable
capitulation to US force is unacceptable
capitulation to US force is unacceptable whatever the consequences at just that
whatever the consequences at just that
whatever the consequences at just that time the US had received an Iraqi offer
time the US had received an Iraqi offer
time the US had received an Iraqi offer for a settlement in very much the terms
for a settlement in very much the terms
for a settlement in very much the terms the treatment outlined a government
the treatment outlined a government
the treatment outlined a government Mideast specialist described the offer
Mideast specialist described the offer
Mideast specialist described the offer as serious and negotiable it was
as serious and negotiable it was
as serious and negotiable it was instantly dismissed as were subsequent
instantly dismissed as were subsequent
instantly dismissed as were subsequent proposals from Iraq and others the last
proposals from Iraq and others the last
proposals from Iraq and others the last known example was disclosed by US
known example was disclosed by US
known example was disclosed by US officials on January second it was an
officials on January second it was an
officials on January second it was an Iraqi offer to withdraw completely in
Iraqi offer to withdraw completely in
Iraqi offer to withdraw completely in return for agreement on the Palestinian
return for agreement on the Palestinian
return for agreement on the Palestinian problem and the banning of weapons of
problem and the banning of weapons of
problem and the banning of weapons of mass destruction
mass destruction
mass destruction US officials described that offer as
US officials described that offer as
US officials described that offer as interesting because it dropped any
interesting because it dropped any
interesting because it dropped any border claims a State Department Mideast
border claims a State Department Mideast
border claims a State Department Mideast expert described it as a serious
expert described it as a serious
expert described it as a serious pre-negotiation position it seemed that
pre-negotiation position it seemed that
pre-negotiation position it seemed that it might be enough just to express
it might be enough just to express
it might be enough just to express willingness to deal with these two
willingness to deal with these two
willingness to deal with these two outstanding issues George Bush's
outstanding issues George Bush's
outstanding issues George Bush's response was a letter to Saddam Hussein
response was a letter to Saddam Hussein
response was a letter to Saddam Hussein saying that there would be no
saying that there would be no
saying that there would be no negotiations capitulate or dot now the
negotiations capitulate or dot now the
negotiations capitulate or dot now the official reason for this is that the
official reason for this is that the
official reason for this is that the United States can't reward aggressors by
United States can't reward aggressors by
United States can't reward aggressors by allowing what's called linkage to the
allowing what's called linkage to the
allowing what's called linkage to the arab-israel conflict and the elimination
arab-israel conflict and the elimination
arab-israel conflict and the elimination of weapons of mass destruction as Iraq
of weapons of mass destruction as Iraq
of weapons of mass destruction as Iraq had in fact bone requested but we know
had in fact bone requested but we know
had in fact bone requested but we know for certain that the official reason is
for certain that the official reason is
for certain that the official reason is a fraud the u.s. commonly rewards
a fraud the u.s. commonly rewards
a fraud the u.s. commonly rewards aggressors and pursues a laborat
aggressors and pursues a laborat
aggressors and pursues a laborat even in the case of far worse crimes
even in the case of far worse crimes
even in the case of far worse crimes that this one furthermore the US had
that this one furthermore the US had
that this one furthermore the US had rejected a diplomatic settlement of
rejected a diplomatic settlement of
rejected a diplomatic settlement of these two outstanding issues including
these two outstanding issues including
these two outstanding issues including Iraqi offers long before the invasion of
Iraqi offers long before the invasion of
Iraqi offers long before the invasion of Kuwait the US has rejected diplomacy
Kuwait the US has rejected diplomacy
Kuwait the US has rejected diplomacy because it opposes a settlement of the
because it opposes a settlement of the
because it opposes a settlement of the arab-israel conflict that recognizes
arab-israel conflict that recognizes
arab-israel conflict that recognizes Palestinian rights and it wants Israel
Palestinian rights and it wants Israel
Palestinian rights and it wants Israel to retain its hundreds of nuclear
to retain its hundreds of nuclear
to retain its hundreds of nuclear weapons since the u.s. is virtually
weapons since the u.s. is virtually
weapons since the u.s. is virtually alone in the world in this stand apart
alone in the world in this stand apart
alone in the world in this stand apart from Israel it rejects diplomacy and
from Israel it rejects diplomacy and
from Israel it rejects diplomacy and therefore rejects linkage that's the
therefore rejects linkage that's the
therefore rejects linkage that's the plain and simple truth of the matter
plain and simple truth of the matter
plain and simple truth of the matter why have the US and England insisted on
why have the US and England insisted on
why have the US and England insisted on rejecting a diplomatic settlement which
rejecting a diplomatic settlement which
rejecting a diplomatic settlement which might well have ended the crisis without
might well have ended the crisis without
might well have ended the crisis without war to answer this question we have to
war to answer this question we have to
war to answer this question we have to ask just how these two countries are
ask just how these two countries are
ask just how these two countries are different from others and the answers
different from others and the answers
different from others and the answers are pretty clear the US and Britain are
are pretty clear the US and Britain are
are pretty clear the US and Britain are the two countries that impose the
the two countries that impose the
the two countries that impose the imperial settlement on the region and
imperial settlement on the region and
imperial settlement on the region and they naturally arranged it in their own
they naturally arranged it in their own
they naturally arranged it in their own interest the settlement they imposed
interest the settlement they imposed
interest the settlement they imposed guaranteed that the United States and
guaranteed that the United States and
guaranteed that the United States and its British Ally would control the
its British Ally would control the
its British Ally would control the richest energy reserves in the world and
richest energy reserves in the world and
richest energy reserves in the world and crucially with benefit from the enormous
crucially with benefit from the enormous
crucially with benefit from the enormous profits that they yield these profits
profits that they yield these profits
profits that they yield these profits have given a very substantial support to
have given a very substantial support to
have given a very substantial support to US and British corporations financial
US and British corporations financial
US and British corporations financial institutions and their economies
institutions and their economies
institutions and their economies generally the essential points captured
generally the essential points captured
generally the essential points captured by a joke playing around Wall Street
by a joke playing around Wall Street
by a joke playing around Wall Street question why to the United States and
question why to the United States and
question why to the United States and quate need each other answer equate as a
quate need each other answer equate as a
quate need each other answer equate as a banking system without a country and the
banking system without a country and the
banking system without a country and the United States is a country without a
United States is a country without a
United States is a country without a banking system like a lot of jokes it's
banking system like a lot of jokes it's
banking system like a lot of jokes it's not a joke there's a second major
not a joke there's a second major
not a joke there's a second major respect in which the US and Britain are
respect in which the US and Britain are
respect in which the US and Britain are different from their allies they have
different from their allies they have
different from their allies they have troubled economies but they have a near
troubled economies but they have a near
troubled economies but they have a near monopoly of force with the Russians
monopoly of force with the Russians
monopoly of force with the Russians having withdrawn from the world there is
having withdrawn from the world there is
having withdrawn from the world there is no longer any deterrent to their use of
no longer any deterrent to their use of
no longer any deterrent to their use of force it hardly comes as a surprise that
force it hardly comes as a surprise that
force it hardly comes as a surprise that the two warrior states want to establish
the two warrior states want to establish
the two warrior states want to establish the principle that the new world order
the principle that the new world order
the principle that the new world order is to be ruled by force in which they
is to be ruled by force in which they
is to be ruled by force in which they reign supreme that's not a pretty
reign supreme that's not a pretty
reign supreme that's not a pretty picture and it's going to become much
picture and it's going to become much
picture and it's going to become much uglier if the citizens of the two
uglier if the citizens of the two
uglier if the citizens of the two radical military states allow this to
radical military states allow this to
radical military states allow this to happen
you
27
74
74
165
165
178
178
181
181
189
189
191
191
215
216
220
220
223
223
226
226
229
229
254
254
258
258
260
260
264
264
289
289
292
292
294
294
298
298
300
300
303
303
306
306
308
308
310
310
313
313
316
316
319
319
321
321
324
324
327
327
329
329
331
331
334
334
337
337
339
339
342
342
343
343
346
346
349
349
351
351
354
354
356
356
358
358
360
360
362
362
365
365
367
367
369
369
372
372
374
374
376
376
379
379
382
382
384
384
387
387
390
390
392
392
394
394
396
396
399
399
401
401
404
404
406
406
408
408
411
411
413
413
415
415
418
418
422
422
424
424
426
426
428
428
431
431
433
433
435
435
437
437
440
440
443
443
445
445
446
446
449
449
451
451
453
453
455
455
457
457
459
459
462
462
463
463
466
466
468
468
471
471
473
473
476
476
478
478
480
480
482
482
484
484
487
487
490
490
492
492
495
495
497
497
500
500
503
503
505
505
507
507
510
510
512
512
515
515
518
518
520
520
524
524
526
526
529
529
532
532
535
535
537
537
540
540
541
541
544
544
546
546
549
549
552
552
554
554
556
556
559
559
561
561
562
562
564
564
566
566
569
569
571
571
574
574
576
576
577
577
580
580
582
582
584
584
587
587
589
589
591
591
593
593
595
595
598
598
601
601
603
603
606
606
608
608
610
610
614
614
616
616
618
618
621
621
624
624
626
626
628
628
631
631
633
633
636
636
638
638
640
640
643
643
645
645
648
648
650
650
652
652
654
654
656
656
658
658
661
661
662
662
664
664
666
666
668
668
670
670
673
673
675
675
678
678
680
680
682
682
685
685
687
687
690
690
692
692
695
695
698
698
700
700
702
702
704
704
707
707
709
709
711
711
714
714
716
716
719
719
721
721
723
723
727
727
729
729
732
732
734
734
736
736
738
738
741
741
744
744

View file

@ -0,0 +1,820 @@
applaud compadre
good good night again
in these meetings in a half-crazed plinth this one that does not lower the heat or
speed is a pleasure to have you with us
as a reference to libertarian critical thinking
Thank you very much for being in Mexico again
has he receives images from the public jose ramon if he receives images from the public
okay
I think the first thing we could say is that
that the profound changes that have occurred in Mexico are somehow
reestablishes the connection with the us and I don't mean the formal connections with the
trump usa i mean real country to country connections
ever jokingly said what
I said some places in the US had to be bombarded with your books and
rita hayworth movies when she takes off her glove
the pan the globe and the famous field [Music]
rita hayworth on keyboard
our message must not be reaching
if we wanted to ask you about everything
How do you see the perspective of Mexico-United States relations from
down right now
[Music]
[Music]
what Chomsky says is that this question refers to him makes him remember some
occasion in which he taught at the University of Arizona a course in
radical political philosophy and then they began to have contact with the
University of Hermosillo which is very close to the University of Arizona
[Music]
[Music]
[Music]
[Music]
and then [Music]
there are many ways to connect there are the real ways while i was giving
This course in Arizona Chomsky found a way to invite students from the
University of Hermosillo so that they could visit them on that side of the border and
at the same time that this visit was reciprocal of seeing students visiting
also the university of hermosillo and some some connection mechanisms
between peoples are real are materials like this like this example but that
there are also many other symbolic ways through which
North American peoples of the American and the Mexican can
may have contact that even this same event that we are carrying out in
this moment and through which, thanks to which we are being able to
knowing chomsky's library because he is from his home is a way too
through which the peoples are getting closer since we are people
real
if not
the necessary relationship between two peoples that are separated by a meter of
border
would necessarily pose a connection from below in terms of the problems
common we have because suddenly we think
like Latin Americans who suffer from the presence of the United States
from Latin American
but at the same time and the injustices suffered by the American people
This is a historic moment although it is not very clear who can help
who
[Music]
[Music]
says that one of the examples in which the problematic
that you live day by day or you live day by day the peoples saw the night of
yesterday well with the battles so strong with the violence so strong that it was lived
in Culiacan between the drug cartels and the Mexican state itself
battles same violent events that would not happen were it not for the
the United States there is a huge consumption of drugs that remain illegal and that if not
the illegality or that amount of consumption existed from outside because drug traffickers do not
they would have the power they have
[Music]
[Music]
[Music]
45 years ago
[Music] 4 or 5 years ago there was a meeting one
summit of all of all america of all not only north america but also
in Central and South America and there were aptas and I don't remember Jones that it was in
Cartagena Colombia and there were two things in which you can never reach a
The first agreement was the admission of Cuba once again to the economy of
Latin America so that it could also trade and the US did not vote in favor and
Canada vote in the same direction to support the United States and the other
situation in which they could not reach a new account agreement with
the same procedure due to the refusal of the United States and the endorsement and with the endorsement of
Canada was the decriminalization of drugs and this has to be understood
the decriminalization of drug use no that does not mean in a way
immediate legalization of drugs but at least the decriminalization of
drug use, the US did not want to and this has been a suffering
effects have continued to be felt by the two peoples
the usa which has a huge amount of consumption and therefore also a
huge number of people who are considered criminals for consuming
drugs and on the other hand Mexico, which being a producer and exporter to the
America is falling apart due to the violence generated by the
criminalization of drugs
In Mexico it is very common to say poor Mexico so far from God and so close to
The USA phase that is attributed to many characters including Porfirio Diaz
I would like to reverse the phrase
I would like to reverse the phrase that is to say poor of the us so close to
Mexico and so far from the best of its history
I don't tell you this because because I couldn't think I couldn't think of me
same in 200 references of culture
American who have formed me
from from the best novels of chandler hammett
raymond chandler and dashiell hammett up hardware books' fast up
your first arguments against the vietnam war
and I can spend hours saying plays movies songs yes that would be
of me without blowing in the wind and no
where to where I want to take you to the idea that the only real bridge to
from which we can create a new relationship with the us is culture
also control
[Music]
[Music]
[Music]
[Music]
Well, if indeed he can notice it at the University of Tucson in Arizona
which is in new classes at least half of the student population are
Mexicans not only in the university but throughout the entire southern strip
of the border between the us and mexico because there is a huge amount of population
Mexican Mexican music has also greatly influenced music
North America in those same regions and but beyond that beyond this
mutual influence that both peoples have culturally speaking from the
creation of our Chomsky popular culture also observes the enormous
concern that the two peoples have in reference to the conflicts that
exist because of the militarization of the border militarization that began to
occur in a more intense way with the administration of bill clinton but that
started from the time of the signature here I have known as the tlc I do not know
began to militarize the border and that has reached its maximum expression with
this government of trump chomsky considers that a fate should be established
in agreement similar to that of the countries of the European Union in that
Well, they also have their free trade agreement, finally that is what
the european union is where there is not only transit of goods and capital
but there is also free transit of people and that is the point at which
We would have to reach the United States and Mexico where the borders
still exist geographically and politically but that people already
could move freely between those two countries without so much
protocol no
have been a permanent political analyst for the last 50 years or 40 years
good news donald trump stay or go
[Laughs]
[Music]
[Music] three hands
[Music]
Oh no
yes luck of the organization
[Music] and well we are considers that it is known that
There are several various statistical models thanks to which one can with a
more or a greater or lesser closeness to predict what will be the result of
elections and one of those models has to do with investigating what is the
perception that the people have about the state of the economy this does not want
say the real state that the economies keep but the perception they have
people regarding their country's economy and that these studies indicate that
the American people consider the economy to be good enough
and if that perception is maintained, there is a high probability that Trump will win
elections unless something unexpected happened
within which could be some that people begin to take more
importance to certain policies and certain decisions that trump makes
with respect to other topics within which probably the most
terrifying and the most troublesome from Chomsky's perspective whether
your statements and your attitude towards climate change climate change
that trump denies and in fact not only trump but the entire republican party and that and
that if concrete actions are not taken, Chomsky considers that the
humanity only a few years before the
true atrocities of this climate change
wow
efe
[Music]
[Music and
[Music]
[Music]
good [Music]
two
Author
[Music]
and not only that, but even though most of the countries in the world are already
doing something to change their extractive policies and change their policies
Regarding the exploitation of the environment, it seems that the United States is the
the only country in the world where this has not changed and is not being carried out and
continue to extract using natural resources in a way
indiscriminate this is going to affect, in general terms, the whole world of
a lethal way in a lethal way changing the natural relationships of
unimaginable ways
This would directly affect Mexico, particularly it could be noted in the
gulf of mexico where if oil is exploited as it has been proposed that
exploit people and animals the ecosystem could die poisoned by
time that in case the poles will actually end up melting for
global warming there would be many areas that will end up being unavoidable
the same gulf would overflow and that can already be seen in some other latitudes
the world effects of climate change chomsky shares that in india
this past summer temperatures exceeded 50 degrees were reached
where people then had to protect themselves from and sleep in the open
because it was absolutely impossible to stay inside the houses during
night by the amount of heat they absorbed and she at and at the same time in
Japan we could see this in images on the news and on the internet
just a few weeks ago there was a cyclone
because of a force also unusual despite being an industrial country and being
a technologically developed country are not exempt from suffering the force of
nature and well that
2 today
then
dunn and him
no
[Music]
confrontation the gift of the technical order
[Music]
and
i
and music]
and there is more
[Music]
[Music]
Well then, four more years of trump in environmental terms
could be the difference between still having chances to survive as
kind or of probably succumbing this hard the facts and that is why it is only
the first of the two great problems that Chomsky observes in case of
Trump to continue in power and the next problem is the reopening of the
huge risk posed by a nuclear war worldwide
Chomsky shares that Trump has just recently annulled a treaty that
had been signed by Gorbachev and Reagan since the 1980s for the
non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and that it breaks just annulled that agreement and
not only that but another one that prohibited countries from developing technology
nuclear nuclear weapons that could be fired executed from space and
then with these two missing treaties it seems that he is
is inviting Russia to enter a new nuclear arms race that
could endanger all of humanity particularly these
next four years maybe i could ask a question
after
He states that he is still in the first four years of the government
American presidents tend to be less belligerent to unleash on
the following a tougher policy and thus reelection space
that happened and records the last American presidencies
Do you think we would expect a movie in case of Trump re-election
even more belligerent more regressive politics
no
as [Music]
[Music] white
and work
[Music]
[Music]
future rest
after
and music]
[Music]
and nothing
on mondays where
Well, in front of Trump, what we have is a single president of the state of the
The US has never had a previous president who said that he is the chosen one
the sous en one while stretching the arms with the palms facing the
sky and himself looking up at the sky and that there had never been a
secretary of state who would be the equivalent of our secretary of
government that says our president was sent by god to protect the
people of israel from the iranis then we are in one we are in one dimension
completely different awareness of a supposed historical role that he has
as president in the us at the same time even though trump has said that
has withdrawn troops from the Middle East as announced when withdrawing troops from
Syrian and Afghan troops but on the other side is sending new
Troops have just sent two thousand elements 2.000 troops to Saudi Arabia with the
intention that the war that country is carrying
carried out against Yemen and that is leaving that country destroyed, I mean Yemen and
returning to europe these this treaty that trump abolished between gorbachev and
Reagan had to do with the proliferation of short-term missiles.
achieve this means constantly the anato or the organization of the
treaty of the north atlantic and the countries of europe were constantly
threatening each other with short-range ballistic missiles however
once reagan and trump sorry reagan and that cork signing this
treaty withdrew the missiles that were threatening each other there are
since the abolition of this treaty by trump has put everything
along the border between western europe and russia new missiles
threatening it
a war could break out at any moment
thinking what to take care of
yes
[Music]
1st
future
[Music] the dead
[Music] he
[Music]
wow
or
[Music]
[Music]
[Music]
yes
two
[Music] when I woke up
[Music]
yes
[Music]
[Music]
Well, and to complete the question I asked him, he says well, you propose that the
better trump will not have anything to worry about because in his second
candidacy as it would be the last and then it would no longer have a third term
to the presidency but today what would happen if I decided not to release the presidency
legally in the US if you could apply a third time you do not have legally no
they have limits they do not do it by tradition but they could run forever if
so they decided like george washington did it only twice then
respect that tradition but what if trump decided no no
leave the presidency and then it will turn out that although he decides to stay
de facto with the support of a whole series of militias that exist because besides the
American people is a people that is heavily armed many of the
which are considered to be identified with ideology of white supremacy and that
they have a real fear it is not a scam it is not an unfounded fear but there is
statistics that contemplate that in the coming years
what today is still the white majority will end is
became a white minority and under no circumstances consider
that this is desirable because it would imply what they call it
to the disappearance of Anglo-Saxon Christian culture while they are
also strongly and radically Christian and therefore are
seeing them threatened by cultures by barbaric non-Christian civilizations
that endanger their own survival and that many of these
groups are so heavily armed that they even exceed the reaction force
what the local police have, not the US army, the army
American would have the ability to subdue them
but but already when you are in front of such a particular scenario where
It could be that the peoples who support these discourses of supremacy
white and who support trump, who is their because their leader took to the streets to
defend their permanence and the military would have to respond to
submit to those groups because we are talking about a highly
chaotic for the us and what and what not if not highly probable
if there is a possibility that it will happen
restoration
after an absolutely discouraging outlook like the one you just
trace in Mexico at the moment we are living in a climate of relative
euphoria
you were about to throw an ice cube on our backs
let's say we can still tell us tell us how we can help you not relax
thrombus the mexicans
[Music]
[Music]
the rise of the same
[Music]
best script in both cases
[Music]
[Music]
the manager of smart for the world [Music]
at
well there is not being honest there is not much that the Mexican people can do
But if there is much that the American people can do and that of
fact is already being done particularly by generations of
young people who are organizing to try that through repudiation
towards the liberal model that has been implemented in the US during the
last 40 years and the results of which have been appalling
is and is proliferating the idea for the first time of something that is quite
new to the American mindset that would be the establishment of
social democratic policies and not only that but movements that are
taking to the streets through speeches particularly at this time of
environmental claims where they have forced the same companies and have
forced the us congress to have to put it on its legislative agenda
to discuss the new legislation that must lead to
carry out the legislative reforms that they have to carry out precisely
to avoid all these issues of ecological devastation in parallel with
environmental movements also exist particularly along the
border between arizona and mexico young people who are organizing to go and
helping migrants to people who are trying to flee from a
reality of poverty of suffering where survival conditions
are extremely difficult towards the US and they have to cross the desert and then
young people are organizing to help them cross the desert at the time
that giving them food and on many occasions also shelter
yes
I asked him who thinks he could and who thinks he could be a
option to defeat trump in the next election and in particular to
by bernie sanders demille
[Music]
and
[Music]
[Music]
and
one
Thank you
[Music]
in the existing thick
from our side
God has brought us to our
[Music] Can't tell yet who will be
candidate by the Democrats cannot be known yet towards
where is noam chomsky going to attend the next vote
particularly the candidate that would be of his predilection would be bernie sanders
but at the same time bernie is constantly getting attacks from
media that caricature him that ridicule him that
they misrepresent all his statements to make him look like an unviable person
and that perhaps the only person he considers could be a candidate
democrat would be elizabeth warren, which is that within what is possible is
better than donald trump because basically anyone else would be
better than donald trump consider chomsky and then why can't you tell
still properly what is going to happen, however what can
to know is that there is some hope because throughout the United States there are
movements of people who are raising awareness the same tucson their
city the city he lives in is arguing over whether he should
consider whether it owes itself a sanctuary city which
would mean that all those people who are being persecuted
by the border patrol and that they had managed to escape could arrive
to Tucson and there they could not be arrested and then they would receive refuge
throughout the length and breadth of the city so that I can no longer not live with fear
of being persecuted and yet you still cannot know what is going to happen
next year there is however still some hope and would like to
chomsky close with the following reflection something that the
people of Mexico to show the North American people how convenient
is to have a social democratic government progress in such a way that we
let us set an example for them that our relationships
better sociopolitical do in such a way that then the Americans
they will turn what they do to the south and say look what can be done look
what can be done without having a social democratic government and finally
well we are on the edge of what will determine the fate of the
humanity for normal good in the next 20 years he says this has been
said many times but it had never been true but this time it is true
what is decided now is what will lead to what will lead to
short humanity
no
Thank you very much it has been a pleasure to have you with us again in the socket of the
Mexico City
thank you very much to all
they also have a chelsea suddenly it's very good gives him the chances and
the dimension of what a book fair is the book as a vehicle for
transport ideas debates reflections to transport to this city and
this moment one of the smartest thinkers on the planet today
good night thank you very much marina has information
0
10
14
22
28
37
43
49
53
58
64
72
79
84
91
101
110
119
124
132
137
155
190
196
202
206
213
221
228
241
250
259
284
289
294
298
302
306
312
314
319
325
329
333
337
352
356
363
373
380
386
401
408
420
424
441
459
471
477
481
487
494
498
505
509
530
543
565
576
592
606
612
617
622
628
635
640
644
649
655
660
664
672
675
681
684
690
699
703
710
716
728
735
746
753
757
766
775
782
786
795
801
806
821
844
881
896
915
932
937
941
946
950
955
961
965
970
974
979
986
993
997
1004
1008
1011
1016
1020
1026
1029
1034
1039
1048
1061
1084
1099
1131
1143
1151
1158
1164
1170
1174
1180
1185
1190
1196
1201
1206
1211
1215
1219
1224
1228
1236
1243
1247
1252
1261
1267
1288
1317
1325
1340
1347
1352
1362
1372
1394
1400
1405
1409
1414
1418
1424
1431
1434
1438
1442
1447
1452
1456
1461
1467
1471
1477
1482
1486
1490
1494
1498
1505
1514
1518
1521
1528
1531
1555
1566
1574
1579
1587
1597
1609
1625
1629
1634
1639
1645
1651
1659
1664
1672
1677
1685
1691
1697
1703
1710
1714
1739
1749
1754
1759
1770
1783
1788
1796
1804
1814
1824
1833
1855
1869
1873
1879
1889
1908
1927
1937
1941
1947
1951
1955
1959
1966
1972
1980
1987
1992
1996
2002
2006
2012
2020
2027
2034
2042
2048
2052
2057
2062
2067
2071
2087
2091
2096
2101
2106
2108
2113
2117
2129
2135
2141
2147
2180
2188
2193
2203
2214
2221
2226
2235
2248
2254
2259
2263
2271
2275
2280
2284
2288
2294
2300
2304
2309
2316
2320
2323
2327
2331
2336
2344
2349
2354
2358
2363
2366
2371
2377
2382
2388
2391
2398
2406
2411
2416
2420
2424
2436
2442
2483
2493
2513
2521
2550
2560
2577
2586
2596
2618
2623
2626
2628
2635
2639
2644
2649
2652
2660
2666
2672
2676
2682
2684
2689
2694
2698
2704
2708
2712
2717
2722
2736
2741
2745
2773
2786
2789
2795
2801
2811
2814
2827
2850
2864
2871
2878
2887
2894
2899
2903
2908
2912
2917
2924
2930
2933
2939
2942
2946
2951
2955
2961
2965
2969
2973
2980
2986
2992
2997
3003
3010
3014
3020
3025
3030
3037
3041
3044
3049
3052
3059
3066
3083
3088
3095
3101
3106
3111

View file

@ -0,0 +1,488 @@
the following program is suitable for the whole family
sponsored by the embassy of the netherlands the program for the
democracy and human rights country colombia sponsored by the european union
and the organizations that comprise it present
good evening on today's show we have a very special guest
78-year-old American philosopher intellectual father of modern linguistics
intellectual writer I mean noam chomsky who was listed just a few
weeks by new york times as one of the most important living intellectuals
of humanity we place it in magic the university of massachusetts does
a few weeks with the journalists simon europa
simone the general impressions of this interview good and the impression is
shocking shocking is mighty's place in this university since 1944
god 65 people among students and teachers who won the nobel prize
from this hour of interviews with others well the conclusion is this image is from
the South American region and Latin America in general completely outside of
control of the unique states that are coming out of the US control of
hands and the other thing that hit me on the
Chomsky's attention to Colombia
you are not only enterpises but with many other writings
it seems to me that they are directing many many steps good moods thank you very much
precisely the width that lecture in written dissertations has devoted to
Colombia and because that is the question simply because Colombia is
crossed by two issues of international people at that time the issue
ecological and the issue of drugs is also worth bearing in mind that no
expansion of critics over the last years of foreign policy
American not only with or under the administration of George Bush since
the wartime in vietnam and there is one detail in particular with noam
chomsky on September 11 the same September 11 when the attack on
twin hook towers producing a tremendous trial against politics
American outside accusing her of being the only responsible and guilty of
the attacks of September 11, which was worth the enmity that
good part of intellectuals not only North American
but of the world some analytical critics have tried to locate the
kim shows on the left but there aren't many who define themselves as a man in
libertarian and a man clearly the artist that's our theme today in
contravia welcome and welcome
counter
ah
- He continues to put a bullet against which the only way to pacify the country is a
Gonzalez's complaint
well
with the events of the last decade in the system of domination the continent
has moved towards a degree of independence which washington is not going to
tolerate but you really can't do much about it
the election of lula in brazil was of great concern but a great relief to the
know that their policies are very similar to those of governments
However, this element of independence does not like the USA
Today I was working I want to work with a different Argentina and I'm going to
announce each step as corresponds to society
there can't be two old men signed why I don't
in Argentina Kirchner essentially told the International Monetary Fund
him to leave and they couldn't do anything about it
this fund is tied to the us treasury department this
it was a hard hit for washington which was expecting a kind of tightening
sometimes called a tightening of credit communities like those
gangster movies and that's the role of the international monetary fund in
gray end
this is what the executive director calls a tightening of
credit communities but kirchner did not play the same game and may
Argentina and even Brazil get out of control of the monetary fund
international
we have won now we are going to make the change of the country is just like that
most of the people
bolivia as mentioned chose a very popular peasant leader from the center left
But Ecuador will probably do the same quickly.
Same way
the indigenous people of the region who are quite a lot organized for the first time
as a unit and it is the beginning of the creation of an indigenous nation like
some call it from Bolivia this Ecuador to program proclaiming the
indigenous rights since their populations are mostly
indigenous and are not interested in resources stolen by the West or
they control them themselves or they won't even exploit this for example for the
peasants from ecuador it is not obvious that they let destroy their lands so that the
people out there in trucks the traffic or in large masses like in new
york 'may seem obvious to us but
not for them then the pressure to maintain their lives their communities and their
resources is of great fear for the west especially for the us and others
powers which are used to treating other countries as in their
own garden they take what they want crush people say some
words of praise about democracy but they really are like your chips for
move at will this is not happening and goes from venezuela to argentina and
It even goes further in Mexico the same thing can happen since they can also
elect a center-left government the only region that the us still have
control is central america for the brutal wars that have been for more or
minus a decade under the reagan administration in which they killed hundreds of
thousands of people and destroyed societies and consequently these
societies are crushed and controlled
the father of what is happening there in the middle east and in the town of
dac
Venezuela is starting to send oil to make investments and they have
been a great source of energy for the us since 1970
even though before the 70s north america was a great producer and exporter but
from that year things changed
In this hemisphere, Venezuela is the leader and has the
largest resources in the bolivia region also has many resources of
natural gas that has not been exploited by the us but is looking for it
exchange relationships exist and increase slowly the same as
trade relations with europe and also south america south america and
even south to south the latter being very new for example brazil south africa
and india form a blue alliance and these are regions and relationships that
they come out of the management and control of washington and although they believed and assumed that
they were in control of the world after the second world war
there will be no war there will be no war here there will be peace we will put the world
a weapon and that that kind action against that
we would live better economically socially culturally better than with
USA or with the international community
and there is pressure against the governments of the left by the us and they are going to
try to stop this trend
This can be seen with the expenditure they make towards Latin America, but there has been a
big change
during the cold war the so-called financial aid was higher than the
military aid this has changed military aid today and is on par with
the economy
if not
and military aid has increased tremendously in some parts but
oriented towards Colombia for example the air base in ecuador is also
column-oriented
and the number of military in Latin America has reached its peak and
is at levels compared to financial aid
but beyond there has also been a change in military training this
it has been a big problem due to the supervision and pressure of the congress and it has
been restricted by the conditions of the rights
humans
well
therefore the pentagon has taken the reins which enjoys no pressure
restriction or supervision you can train torture personnel and not
nothing less happens
the pentagon is reviewing aid goals formerly called defense
hemispheric kennedy the change for internal security
and that means that it is against terrorism
now it has also changed towards the world against drugs but with issues
social
radical groups and gangs are the targets now and under the power of the
pentagon this is not supervised
ah
ah
there is a drug problem in the us as in europe and other parts of the world
and it is known how to confront it according to government studies
but it does not give us the right for others to solve our problem where
we have the best solution are the programs
prevention and treatment and so this scourge must be confronted
hurts done works we have not seen it work for example in tobacco that
it is much more destructive than drugs
if we look at strong drug deaths versus tobacco deaths
the differences are monstrous
the marijuana that has millions of consumers does not throw almost deaths but
The problem with tobacco is that it is very serious in the United States.
effectively and you don't find out here
people smoking and those who do it at the university or other places are
foreigners you may smoke but we are leaving here
you find people smoking in the slums but the
education has worked it's effective and it's not cost
pride expansion in body the police action program is much more expensive
ineffective and operations abroad for example in Colombia are
expensive and least effective
This transfer represents an investment of more than 12 million
dollars in word and a nine month job
With the internal drug problem in Colombia, it has not been possible to be
controlled by the usa
against drugs is more related to the counterinsurgency war because
There are vast regions of Colombia beyond the control of the security forces.
and if you want to see how little it is related to the war of the
drugs its production is controlled by the paramilitaries and they do not go after them
but against the peasants they call it fumigation but it really is a war
chemistry
it's personal charity aids
and I've seen it and you're probably also made by mercenary forces
they destroy vast areas of crops everything in their power
biodiversity which is a very serious problem because it is an area very rich in
plant and animal life resources in the world there are serious health problems there are
peasant children getting sick and dying these people are taken out of
her land
Colombia is one of the places with the most population displacement towards areas
urban after afghanistan and sweating
there are some peasants who were displaced you left to convince
by the anguish of money they were convinced by the anguish of
money selling her land for a very serious price having her land
for a price they were convinced by
once these peasants are exiled the mining companies enter make their
work the oil companies do their excavations
freely and equally among the agro-industrial companies they cultivated it
to export
and this makes the rich get richer and the peasants if they survive by
yes alone
this happens with indigenous peoples, peasants and Afro-Colombians and they
for example in cauca they are well organized but they can do nothing
against the planes of the mercenary forces that enter fumigate devastate and
they go
under the pretext of the war on drugs
the fight against drug trafficking continued just as strong here we did not lower the
throttle to this and this is an example and with the help of the Americans
we will continue with all our efforts with the core of the problem is still Colombia
has received the largest military aid in the lower hemisphere since the 1990s
the clinton administration and it was called the drug war the
which for me is a scandal
murphy iphone environmental event if you look at the indexes most people in
colombia die from us tobacco production that people in us
for the consumption of cocaine produced by colony
it may be true in other countries but this does not entitle them to create a
chemical warfare against areas for example in kentucky north carolina for
eradicate plantations
and what end but since it is the west that the base the
that has the power is therefore not questioned it is claimed that it is done with the
approval of the Colombian government and
the whole concept is grotesque
two
clicks of interest
by fumigation, coca production is reduced but for the
peasants can survive growing coca in deeper areas of the jungle
there are very few funds earmarked for alternative crops peasants do not
they seek to grow coca for export but to survive and be able to feed
their families and to face this if it were something serious it would be to create funds
for eradication with alternatives such as alternative cultivation programs
and there are but very small for example the subsidy of the European community
towards tobacco prevention is much higher than all the subsidies intended
for alternative cropping programs and the effect of sweeping the land and
giving way to multinationals to exploit the areas tells us that the
war on drugs is cynical
i
and Colombia's history of violence takes many years and is
rooted in a country very rich and diverse in natural resources
but it has always been controlled by a very wealthy elite white minority who live
in luxuries
while the rest of the population lives in misery
this leads to the creation of conflicts, repressions and wars
reaffirmed there in the cradle of laws and in the temple of democracy that the
Willow's patriotic commitment to save safeguarding a free Colombia
worthy safe and in peace keep well
the conflict worsened in 1962 when they want and the military role changed
internal security
specifically in colombia kennedy sent a special forces mission
under the command of the general of harvard to train and advise the forces of
Colombian security to use paramilitary force against the forces
communists which in the context of counterinsurgency means using the
paramilitary force and terror against pastors who work with the
peasants and against leaders
and this is the legacy he has and left Colombia similar to that of other parts
like the sponsorship of the coup d'etat in brazil that happened after his
murder and that's where the conflict got worse south
and that's where the conflict got worse and where the paramilitary forces
developed into a significant force working together
with military force to such an extent that the human rights organization
has called the sixth division
and
5
22
28
33
38
42
48
54
59
64
67
72
79
88
95
100
104
108
111
116
121
127
131
135
139
145
150
154
159
163
169
174
177
182
186
191
248
263
278
284
293
297
302
306
318
323
327
348
352
359
366
371
374
379
382
387
392
397
401
406
411
425
432
443
449
453
461
466
471
475
479
484
496
501
505
508
513
518
523
527
531
537
542
547
552
557
561
575
582
589
593
598
603
609
613
617
628
632
636
642
647
656
665
672
678
683
689
700
706
711
715
720
725
749
757
766
771
777
785
792
799
803
806
832
842
848
853
858
864
868
879
883
892
897
911
923
943
948
951
955
958
964
969
986
991
998
1003
1006
1009
1013
1021
1026
1031
1037
1041
1055
1060
1071
1077
1090
1095
1106
1112
1118
1123
1135
1141
1148
1156
1162
1167
1172
1176
1181
1186
1192
1198
1204
1213
1218
1221
1226
1229
1242
1249
1255
1260
1265
1268
1292
1297
1301
1316
1322
1326
1335
1340
1345
1353
1358
1363
1369
1374
1384
1389
1394
1400
1405
1410
1419
1424
1429
1435
1443
1449
1454
1464
1468
1488
1500
1505
1516
1522
1526
1535
1556
1563
1568
1580
1586
1592
1597
1602
1607
1612
1616
1624
1630
1634
1643
1649
1653
1658
1685

View file

@ -0,0 +1,70 @@
[Music] and already this
noam chomsky and the origins project that brings together the brightest minds in the
planet address the importance of social participation and collaboration
around climate change with the presence of the philosopher linguist
and activist noam chomsky in the conversation called a great debate
of the project origins climate change environmental and social consequences
for mexico and the world begins the international colloquium the harassment of
wall-to-wall civilization that will address various axes such as the new orders
economic democracy and the role of the internet in it among others
tonight talk about the background that comes with climate change
capitalism has been imposed by force
and obviously this imposed system has cultural implications and
economic and structurally it does not have a soul, that is why it attempts to
against survival and human health that's why we have to go back
to analyze the traditional way of organizing ourselves in community and
relate to nature and how we understand work and this
question has taken for granted far beyond technological issues and
we will talk about that
climate change and the topic that you will see presented today in the
nights has implications that go beyond the physical have implications
social and economic in mexico youtube is also impacted by the change
climate and because of the neighbor that it has that is also has implications in
trade in trade and these implications affect countries and the
climate change is the biggest market failure in history and that's the
problem does not recognize walls or walls or borders and therefore its solution
needs the collective action the origins project is an initiative
created in 2009 at arizona state university that brings together prominent
experts to explore many of the most scientific and social problems
urgent of our time the harassments to the wall civilization to
Wall is organized by the Unam and the University of Guadalajara with the
purpose of issuing an open declaration of rejection of any type of
wall that you want to build both real and metaphorical that prevents dialogue and
solidarity more information at www punto los acoso
to civilization mx point for tv unam sweet arches
[Music]
1
5
9
12
17
21
26
30
35
40
46
52
56
61
65
69
74
78
86
90
95
102
106
114
119
125
130
134
138
143
147
152
157
163
170

View file

@ -0,0 +1,292 @@
0
1
4
7
10
13
16
18
20
23
26
29
32
35
38
42
45
47
50
52
55
58
61
63
65
67
69
71
73
76
78
82
85
88
91
93
293
295
299
302
303
307
310
313
316
320
323
326
329
332
335
338
341
343
347
350
351
355
358
361
364
366
370
371
375
378
381
384
386
389
392
393
397
400
403
405
407
562
564
567
570
573
576
578
581
583
585
589
592
595
598
600
602
605
608
611
614
617
620
622
624
627
630
631
634
636
638
640
643
646
649
650
653
656
659
662
664
665
668
671
675
678
681
684
686
688
720
724
728
731
734
737
738
741
744
747
748
751
754
760
762
764
768
769
772
775

View file

@ -0,0 +1,150 @@
AMY GOODMAN: Noam, I wanted to, before we get to your book, your latest book, ask you
about this latest development in the United States.
The director of the Central Intelligence Agency gave his first major address, and he focused
on WikiLeaks.
And it looks like now the U.S. is preparing an arrest warrant for Julian Assange, who's
been holed up in the Ecuadorean Embassy in London for almost five years now.
Pompeo calling WikiLeaks a "hostile non-state intelligence service," calling Julian Assange
himself a "demon," and said he's not protected by the First Amendment.
Your thoughts?
NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, I think it speaks for itself.
WikiLeaks has released lots of information that governments don't like.
It's overwhelmingly information that citizens should have.
It's information about what their governments are doing.
And perfectly natural that systems of power don't want to be exposed, so they'll do
what they can to prevent exposure.
I think it's a disgraceful act.
In fact, I think it's disgraceful even to keep Julian Assange holed up in the Ecuadorean
Embassy.
I did visit him there once, but you can guess yourself.
It's, in many ways, worse than imprisonment.
At least if you're in prison, you can see other prisoners, and you can get out and look
at the sunshine now and then.
He's in a small apartment, where he can't go out.
You know, he can go to the balcony, but that's about it, a small--basically, a couple of
rooms inside a small apartment.
It's not a big embassy.
The embassy is like a kind of an apartment in London, surrounded by police and so on.
There's been no credible basis for any of this.
And to go on to try to raise it to the level of criminal prosecutions, I think, is, again,
one of these efforts to look tough at home, and the kind of effort that a government would
carry out that is dedicated to trying to protect itself from exposure of facts that citizens
should have, but systems of power don't want them to have.
I think that's the crucial issue.
AMY GOODMAN: The suggestions are it has to do with his aiding and abetting perhaps Chelsea
Manning and also Edward Snowden, doing that with Edward Snowden, which he openly admits,
while he's trapped in the Ecuadorean Embassy.
NOAM CHOMSKY: If the charge is true, he should be honored for it.
Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden carried out heroic, courageous acts.
They fulfilled the responsibility of somebody who takes citizenship seriously--that is,
who believes that the people of a country ought to know something about what their government
is up to.
OK?
Like if their government is carrying out murderous, brutal attacks in Iraq, people should know
about it.
Takes us back to Martin Luther King's talk in 1967.
If the government is, and corporations, too, incidentally, are listening in to your telephone
conversations and what you're doing, you know, tapping this discussion and so on, we
should know about it.
Governments have no right to do things like that.
And people should know about it.
And if they think it's OK, fine, let them decide, not do it in secret.
And I think people wouldn't agree to it.
That's why it's kept secret.
Why else keep it secret?
You know?
And these are people who exposed it at great risk to themselves.
So those are heroic, courageous acts.
If WikiLeaks was abetting them, more power to them.
That's what they should be doing.
AMY GOODMAN: I mean, President Trump endorsed WikiLeaks, right?
He said, "I love WikiLeaks," during the campaign.
NOAM CHOMSKY: Yeah, when it was releasing things that he liked, yeah.
Any system of power will do that.
"You release information that I like, it's great.
But I don't want to be exposed."
AMY GOODMAN: That's MIT professor Noam Chomsky speaking on Monday at the First Parish Church
in Cambridge.
To see our full conversation, go to democracynow.org.
That does it for our show.
I'll be speaking at Middlebury College in Vermont today at noon, then on to the Vermont
College of Fine Arts in Montpelier at 7:00.
Tomorrow, Thursday, at noon, I'll be at Bennington College, tomorrow night at the
Unitarian church on Pearl Street in Burlington, Vermont.
Then, on Saturday night, after Democracy Now!'s 5-hour broadcast of the People's Climate March
in Washington, D.C., I'll be speaking at the Plymouth Congregational Church.
1
7
10
17
19
25
30
37
43
45
49
56
61
67
74
78
81
89
90
95
98
103
106
110
116
117
119
125
130
139
146
156
161
162
170
179
183
189
197
203
208
209
210
216
217
221
229
237
239
241
243
247
250
252
253
254
257
262
266
267
270
272
276
278
281
284
288
289
290
292
296
298
301
304
308

View file

@ -0,0 +1,90 @@
The support for Israeli expansionism, repression, the whole alliance that's developing, that
support has shifted in the United States from the more liberal sectors--roughly, the Democratic
Party--to the far right.
Not very long ago, support for Israel was based passionately in the liberal sectors
of the population.
It was a Democratic issue.
It isn't anymore.
In fact, if you look in the polls, people who identify themselves as Democrats by now
tend to support Palestinian rights more than Israel.
That's a dramatic change.
Support for Israel now is in the most reactionary parts of the population: evangelical Christians,
ultranationalists.
Basically, it's a far-right issue.
Among younger people, this is even more the case.
I mean, I can see it myself, just in my own personal experience.
Up until about maybe 10 or 15 years ago, if I was giving a talk at a university on Israel-Palestine,
even my own university, MIT, I had to have police protection, literally.
Police would try to prevent the meeting from being broken up.
They wouldn't let me walk to my car alone.
I had to be accompanied by police.
Meetings were broken up.
Nobody was objecting to any this.
It was happening all the time.
That's changed totally.
And it's a very significant change.
I think that sooner or later--I hope sooner--this may lead to a shift in U.S. policy.
There are some very simple moves that could be made in U.S. policy that would change the
situation in the Middle East dramatically.
So, for example, one simple proposal is that the United States government should live up
to U.S. law.
That doesn't sound too dramatic.
The United States has laws, like the so-called Leahy Law, Patrick Leahy Law, which requires
that no military aid can be given to any military organization that is involved in systematic
human rights abuses.
Well, the Israeli army is involved in massive human rights abuses.
If the U.S. were to live up to U.S. law, we would cut off aid to the IDF, the Israeli
army.
That step alone would have a major effect, not just the material aid, but the symbolic
meaning of it.
And it's quite possible that with the shift of public opinion, especially among younger
people, there might come a point when there will be a call for the United States to follow
its own laws.
OK?
Again, not a very dramatic appeal.
And it wouldn't even be breaking new ground.
0
10
20
23
33
34
36
37
50
56
60
67
68
73
75
81
91
97
102
104
107
109
111
113
115
118
126
134
136
144
145
148
157
166
168
174
182
183
190
191
197
203
204
205
208

View file

@ -0,0 +1,192 @@
This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report.
I'm Amy Goodman, with Juan Gonzalez.
And, yes, our guest for the hour is Noam Chomsky, the world-renowned political dissident, linguist
and author.
His latest book is Requiem for the American Dream: The 10 Principles of Concentration
of Wealth & Power.
Juan?
JUAN GONZALEZ: Noam Chomsky, I wanted to ask you--those on the left are accustomed
to looking at the American government basically as in the service of the capitalist class,
the politicians.
Occasionally, you had a Rockefeller or an actual member of the capitalist class who
went into government.
But now, with this Trump administration, it's an extraordinary number of extremely wealthy
people have actually moved directly into government.
And yet you're seeing this narrative that they are attracting support from the white
working class of the country.
Could you talk about this, the capitalists directly taking over the running of government?
NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, as you say, they've run it all the time.
The simple measures, like campaign funding alone, simple measure like that, is a very
close predictor, not only of electoral victory, but even of policies.
That's been true for a century.
And if you take a look at the analysis of public attitude--a major topic in academic
political science is comparing popular attitudes with public policy.
It's pretty straightforward.
Public policy, you can see.
Popular attitudes, we know a lot about from extensive polling.
And the results are pretty startling.
Turns out that about 70 percent of voters, which is maybe half the electorate--about
70 percent of voters are literally disenfranchised, the lower 70 percent on the income scale,
meaning that their own representatives pay no attention to their--to their attitudes
and preferences.
If you move up the income scale, you get a little more correlation, more--a little more
influence.
The very top, which is probably a fraction of 1 percent, if you could get the data, it's
where policy is set.
Now, the Trump administration is kind of a caricature of this.
It's always pretty much true.
But here they're--it's as if they're kind of purposely trying to flaunt the fact
that this country is run by Goldman Sachs and billionaires, and nobody else counts.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Wilbur Ross, Betsy DeVos.
NOAM CHOMSKY: Right, all of them.
I mean, it's almost like a shocking parody, as if they're trying to show, "Yeah, what
we all know is true is dramatically true, and we're going to show it to you."
The interesting--an interesting question, the one you raise, is: How are they maintaining
support among the people they're kicking in the face?
That's not uninteresting.
And if you look into it, there's a number of factors.
One--first of all, many of the Trump voters, white working-class voters, quite a few of
them voted for Obama in 2008.
You go back to the Obama campaign, the exciting words were "hope" and "change."
I don't usually agree with Sarah Palin, but when she asked, "Where's this hopey-changey
stuff?" she wasn't talking nonsense.
It quickly became clear there's no hope and there's no change.
And the working people were significantly disillusioned.
You could see it right in Massachusetts, where--when Kennedy died, you know, the "liberal lion."
There was going to be a vote for--to replace him, 2010.
Amazingly, a Republican won, in Democratic Massachusetts, Kennedy's seat.
And union voters didn't vote for the Democrats.
They were very upset by the fact that they had been cheated, they felt, rightly, by the
Obama campaign of promises.
And they turned to their bitter class enemy, who at least talks the words.
The Republicans have mastered the technique of talking words as if you're sort of an
ordinary guy, you know, kind of guy you'd meet in a bar, that sort of thing.
It goes back to Reagan and his jellybeans, and Bush, you know, mispronouncing words,
and so on and so forth.
It's a game that's played.
And it's a con game.
But in the absence of any opposition, it works.
And what happens when there is an opposition?
That's very striking.
The most astonishing fact about the last election, which is the Sanders achievements, that's
a break from a century of American political history.
As I said, you can pretty well predict electoral outcomes simply by campaign funding alone.
There's other factors that intensify it.
Here comes Sanders, somebody nobody ever heard of.
No support from the wealthy, no support from corporations.
The media ignored or disparaged him.
He even used a scare word, "socialist."
Came from nowhere.
He would have won the Democratic Party nomination if it hadn't been for the shenanigans of
the Obama-Clinton party managers who kept him out.
Might have been president.
From nothing.
That's an incredible break.
It shows what can happen when policies are proposed that do meet the general, just concerns
of much of the population.
AMY GOODMAN: Do you think he could still win if he ran again?
NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, there was a Fox News poll, couple of days ago--Fox News--asking who's
the--trying to ask who's your favorite political figure.
Sanders was way ahead, far ahead of anybody else, with no vocal, articulate support among
the concentrations of power--media, corporations, elsewhere.
In fact, if you look at policy preferences, you see something similar.
We already mentioned the health issue.
That's--and on issue after issue, much of the public that is actually voting for
their bitter class enemy, if you look at the policies, actually favor social democratic
policies, even environmental policies.
0
4
6
10
11
17
18
19
24
28
29
32
34
39
42
49
50
55
63
71
76
79
89
95
97
99
103
106
113
122
129
132
137
138
144
145
152
154
160
167
169
171
177
181
187
191
193
196
203
208
215
222
226
230
233
238
243
251
255
263
266
272
277
282
288
289
292
293
297
300
302
308
314
320
324
327
332
335
339
341
347
351
352
353
355
365
366
368
372
380
390
394
401
404
411
418

View file

@ -0,0 +1,100 @@
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report.
I'm Amy Goodman.
We return to MIT professor Noam Chomsky.
Democracy Now!'s Juan Gonzalez and I spoke to him on Tuesday.
JUAN GONZALEZ: I wanted to ask you about Latin America.
We had a period, for about 10 years, of enormous social progress in Latin America--all these
socially minded governments, reduction of income inequality, the only part of the world
where there are no nuclear weapons.
And yet, now we've seen, in the last few years, real steps backwards.
Quite a few of the popular governments, with the exception of Ecuador, recently have been
thrown out of office, and a deepening crisis in Venezuela.
Your sense of what has happened, in that, after so much promise, all of a sudden it
seems that the region is going backward?
NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, there were--there were real achievements.
But the left governments failed to use the opportunity available to them to try to create
sustainable, viable economies.
Almost every one--Venezuela, Brazil, others, Argentina--relied on the rise in commodity
prices, which is a temporary phenomenon.
Commodity prices did rise, mainly because of the growth of China.
So there was a rise in the oil price, of soy, and so on and so forth.
And instead of trying to develop a sustainable economy with manufacturing, agriculture and
so on--like Venezuela is potentially a rich agricultural country, but they didn't develop
it--they simply relied on the commodity--raw materials commodities they could export.
That's a very harmful--it's not only not a successful, it's a harmful development
model, because when you export grain to China, let's say, they export manufacturing goods
to you, and that undermines your manufacturing industries.
And that's pretty much what's been happening.
On top of that, there was just enormous corruption.
It's just--it's painful to see the Workers' Party in Brazil, which did carry out significant
measures, just--they just couldn't keep their hands out of the till.
They joined the extremely corrupt elite, which is robbing all the time, and took part in
it, as well, and discredited themselves.
And there's a reaction.
I don't think the game is over by any means.
There were real successes achieved, and I think a lot of those will be sustained.
But there is a regression.
They'll have to pick up again with, one hopes, more honest forces that won't be--that
will, first of all, recognize the need to develop the economy in a way which has a solid
foundation, not just based on raw material exports, and, secondly, honest enough to carry
out decent programs without robbing the public at the same time.
AMY GOODMAN: What about Venezuela?
NOAM CHOMSKY: Venezuela is really a disaster situation.
The economy relies on oil as to a great--probably a greater extent than ever in the past, certainly
very high.
And the corruption, the robbery and so on, has been extreme, under the--especially after
Chavez's death.
So, it's a--I mean, if you look at it, it still has--if you look at, say, the U.N.
Human Development Index, Venezuela still ranks, say, above Brazil.
So it's the--there are hopes and possibilities for reconstruction and development.
But the promise of the earlier years has been significantly lost.
0
4
5
8
11
13
21
25
26
32
36
41
46
47
51
61
65
72
76
80
84
93
98
105
111
119
121
125
129
138
142
147
150
152
155
160
162
172
179
187
191
193
200
208
209
215
217
225
231
242

View file

@ -0,0 +1,112 @@
AMY GOODMAN: On Monday, we were in Cambridge, Massachusetts, where I sat down at the First
Parish Church in Cambridge with MIT professor, longtime dissident, world-renowned linguist,
Noam Chomsky.
NOAM CHOMSKY: Huge specter that we're kind of trying to survive under, and that's nuclear
war.
That's a whole other story.
Here, both the Obama administration and, increasingly, Trump are radically increasing that danger.
This--the threat of the new developments is captured very effectively in the best,
simple monitor of the state of the world, established at the beginning of the nuclear
age by the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists.
I'm sure you all know about this, but the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists regularly brings
together a group of scientists, political analysts, other very serious people, to try
to give some kind of estimate of what the situation of the world is.
The question is: How close are we to termination of the species?
And they have a clock, the Doomsday Clock.
When it hits midnight, we're finished.
End of the human species and much else.
And the question every year is: How far is the minute hand from midnight?
Well, at the beginning, in 1947, beginning of the nuclear age, it was placed at seven
minutes to midnight.
It's been moving up and back ever since.
The closest it's come to midnight was 1953.
1953, the United States and Russia both exploded hydrogen bombs, which are extremely serious
threat to survival.
Intercontinental ballistic missiles were all being developed.
This, in fact, was the first serious threat to the security of the United States.
There's an interesting story behind that, but I'll put it aside, unless there's
time to talk about it.
But then, it came to two minutes to midnight.
And it's been moving up and back since.
Two years ago--2014, I think it was--the analysts took into account for the first time
something that had been ignored: the fact that the nuclear age--the beginning of the
nuclear age coincided with the beginning of a new geological epoch, the so-called Anthropocene.
There's been some debate about the epoch in which human activity is drastically affecting
the general environment.
There's been debate about its inception.
But the World Geological Organization has recently determined that it's about the
same time as the beginning of the nuclear age.
So we're in these two eras in which the possibility of human survival is very much
at stake, and, with us, everything else, too, of course, all living--most living things,
which are already under very severe threat.
Well, a couple of years ago--I think it was 2014--the Bulletin began to take that into
account and moved the minute hand up to three minutes to midnight, where it remained last
year.
A couple of--about a week into Trump's term, the clock was moved again, to two-and-a-half
minutes to midnight.
That's the closest it's been since 1953.
And that means extermination of the species is very much an--very much an open question.
I don't want to say it's solely the impact of the Republican Party--obviously, that's
false--but they certainly are in the lead in openly advocating and working for destruction
of the human species.
I agree that's a very outrageous statement.
So I therefore simply suggest that you take a look at the facts and see if it has any
merit or if it just should be bitterly condemned.
That's up to you.
My view, the facts are pretty clear.
6
12
20
22
32
33
34
43
55
61
64
70
79
84
88
92
95
99
103
110
112
115
120
129
131
134
141
146
147
150
156
166
172
180
187
189
192
197
199
209
215
218
224
232
233
239
240
244
255
263
272
273
276
284
287
289

View file

@ -0,0 +1,282 @@
no more about what happened in israel and prime minister netanyahu how things
a rocker fast terms but right before the election
hereafter us here your an ex ilegal israeli dairy people who
occupied was bank read my trump officially recognized
release a friendly about the golan heights festival is useful I am
accounts leaked and netanyahu dies the chugging again
the feature provides windows you can do this is not a substantial and trams of powers
hetalia
figure are other sample of the extra torque there the judgment reacher them in her
the becoming one is a yahoo is somewhat more extreme becoming desperately residing
in the baby laughed and the head it managers and house penguin chicken after gift '
in the tanja moaning to leak hey we are getting overlay
workflow had more effectively won the largest fifty-fifty from course
with to move December 7 june violation of
never before has there been letters to sir lucan solutions de us nationally
better and letting change say i want u but i was quiet about race
really and exceptionally the golan heights and syria golan heights below
international occupied territories israel every major
institution arthur evergreens between security council international court of
justice league rinus israel this form and mexico long rides what the
security council un security council with the us athletes
training that color led balloon for ok trump your level i first
and other netanyahu gifts are strether demonstrated shirley problem set with
us by giving neon pink lesbos troops reads just before they live in
this tackler and chambery selects ages and ex
parts of the west regret is wit tesse you with us over 7 teaser
people flow measures were taken to interfere likely with the fine collection
lift you something about very first innovative formula jeans la
pepita you need station more words to clear skin certified exact leeuwarden
current consequences there in terms of two
pillars is benny especially often went that the engine is an on much so take the
taxation haute ecole unhide in fact I had to color it
even before the sturgeon had that chance at the gentlemen's court of
justice we jobs the pines where I do healings
he spoiled his i move town is jewels development or the dolan heinz
station or settlement euro price is the rim with the ski resorts
herman signs anything nou lifter finger and real after finger for simple
reason you so la nobilis s groping fact but surprised after the form
instead of just reinforcement it just pulls anjo this
proposal to and apps rise of the west hurts spider
Dorian for 15 euros lee wide after the sixty seven born carbo
stuff gorge bus 9 vocation censorship old and former labor beasts pores that qb
sport can lammertyn f file file idea of paulus in spurts recently she dropped the point
carina e development program in the west bank you have to muscle village the coal
very clear goals of creating will become a greater is red and which will take
over lover is a value in the west bank lies the palestinian
population concentrations flat in nablus and
access love isolated and arrested and regional or maybe parfum 50 ratio de lol
east one in getting dressed in the morning surrounded by checkpoints or one
seperate from the file some survive with pearly hem in while it yourself mine
shirt from developed and the city or are an instructor
my sisters who mean silly and attracted this muslim climb and tremblay other
color exactly russia by euro cent chili bisex
respect for the man so norwegian sustainable and selfies
maybe 5 times sizer for river woods is star clothe or caesar
licked by highly developed in future projects
you can look peter reader specific clothing and place a sober 6th team
or possibly put it in the west bank and you could travel form all the means
low of a brook highway calm it has been a torus snap
all moods the more easily your child get posted from the celsior never
went to all fish spin steadily the sheets of paper or rent with bags us
support us provides the the main gate booted and alex track
the military mail we already have to governments is anyway
like city force barb experience which means for
where all that online the french nathanja house was a statement
trumps at home the parking is at morgan exes
and oxalis is a trunk christer elfving the subject 2 centralization
elise de rudolf escher ben hitch that shadow which is nothing to you vector and
mentioned before and share of ice and lines
the red wing the reds bind field the spider archer called and
can or undercover fuse no formal de functioning well coming into the joop
and the mos reactionary always from marlies loi hbo
of the moss practioner still something else
sisi dictatorship cross the phone hipster am here
similar it is ride machete is part of the international work with a
lion system the international had to line a reactionary alternative
system but taking shape with the us leadership notch new
global system developing cell markers another the forests national
park and yes in the united states fair
describing where no way for example the democratic republic info ad grants
sorry arabia us for in yemen fueled by the united states
jackie hope very interesting development design feed bernie sanders
this should be a need and the reservation porn development at something
need some monkeys to scramble and jenny hess in hideous across
on this role i know the noemie sixtyseven is like a people killed there
violent population barry surviving so un des kaisers de
worst g watch r in disaster proper there is remonstrant
spin that way has the rent using he's already use us weapons
secondary Limburg floating us intelligence for us
intel rest immediately lions will be a closely with it's hour first
target to be a worry so for everything is my happening with no protest
it and games show the killing pool chilling
a journalist for the wax post led core say ok
I surfed you that's not a reason why i i am your field of charlie and the
spotlights on a child and and articulate the en bernie sanders camelot the couple
water and ignore the legislation which puts him
grumps and the you do us part for the more magic hug thermal glasses context
whether the weather in fact and effect like a query perry office
entertain trump hump of time the role of the warande
cheap loss of lessons public seriously protest
after the break sand and gels carpet patchwork pain attention to the support for israel
an expansion is a wordpress and the hollow
Lions the beam on a Leidsepoort violently in the United States from the
more the source sectors parsley the democrats
porie twitter for right not very long ago and
support for his girl who is party passionately and that league role
sectors of the population and we should bucket carry fisher
there is one thing more effective counter in the wrist and people the bulge for
themselves liberal democrats channel
tents support paul's become smothered national
that they are by market it support for israel in the most
reactionary parcel population evangelical crimson or there nationalist
busy reading for riders on the younger people so life is possible less than 5
agent at myself to smile personal spare ribs on a troll belt maybe then of
16 years ago, Fos Chains moved there university
israel teller is my university mit
had heavily spaghetti release we had for try prevent
view of bing burqa after the wind let me wait my carola had be
accompanied by police an opinion kind of broccoli soup getting
them so saab and I have always been almost deadly and the time has come
significant change at accenture leather hope there is it let me shift
and us policy sm very simple news.be and us
policy to change the situation in the middle east could easily be this far
just simple proposal is to see it always buy a shirt live on the
guys lol that 1017 kumar singh always home like the single blade putter
dress of which requires no military they can be given to the military
organization there is a system and system un rights
apologize her boys
paul the mass number ichoosr first us were to live up to us wages
how we care of the idea in cheryl aimee last apple thunderstorm and from microset
the nachos too symbolic with youri lions
opinion and it is quite easter bolder to clear shift or public opinion
special a man younger people there might come up for one dobiacco over in
one always fall with such a loose ok scanmar about computer science and i know
nie van be working new grande longchamp kiwi ghosts tl salt charters
dna us change is long time boston was a professor who is next to his study
technology for over fifty years at the end of the event to celebrate it is
my you dare he speak with a very happy birthday canoe bacon and the
gausscurve specialized gauge wiper john hamilton
my studio dennis marlisa example ended up being amazed and of
summer zhang
0
6
12
17
22
32
39
45
50
55
63
70
77
83
90
97
107
113
121
127
135
139
146
153
162
167
176
183
190
201
205
213
221
228
232
238
245
252
262
268
274
282
290
298
306
314
321
325
334
340
348
353
358
363
368
375
381
390
395
402
409
416
423
428
433
438
443
448
457
461
469
476
482
490
498
508
515
520
527
531
540
545
551
560
569
575
581
587
596
601
607
614
619
625
633
639
644
653
659
665
669
678
683
690
695
700
707
712
719
725
728
737
745
751
759
764
769
774
780
785
792
799
806
813
819
829
838
842
845
854
862
865
871
876
885
892
896
902
907
912
917

View file

@ -0,0 +1,182 @@
AMY GOODMAN: President Trump met with Sisi on Monday, meeting with King Abdullah of Jordan
on Wednesday at the White House, saying they're not raising the issue of human rights anymore.
Your thoughts on this, and then also, of course, Israel-Palestine?
NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, raising the issue of human rights is--it means something, but not very
much, because--take, say, Saudi Arabia, one of the worst human rights violators in the
world.
It's our darling.
You know, they pour weapons in.
Obama sold them more weapons than, I think, any predecessor.
Sisi is particularly disgraceful.
His dictatorship has driven Egypt into some of its worst days.
The United States kind of supported him, but not openly and vigorously the way Trump is
doing.
Trump is--it's a little bit like what you said about the Cabinet.
It's kind of like a parody of what goes on all the time.
Usual thing is to support brutal dictators, but not with enthusiasm, and with some tapping
on the wrist, saying, "Look, what you're doing is not very nice," and so on.
Here, it's saying, "You're great.
We love you.
You know, go ahead and torture and murder people."
That's--it's a terrible blow to the people of Egypt.
But Jordan is sort of a mixed story.
But these steps are very regressive.
With regard to Israel-Palestine, actually, Trump has pulled back from his original position.
But his original position that--he and his administration--was that there's nothing
wrong with the settlements.
They're not an obstacle to peace.
If you look at the way the settlements have been treated over the years--of course, they're
totally illegal.
They're destroying any hope for Palestinian rights.
There's a systematic Israeli program, very systematic.
It's been going on since 1967.
It's to try to quietly take over every part of the West Bank that is of any value to them,
while excluding the areas of Palestinian population concentration.
So they're not going to take over Nablus or Tulkarm, but take over everything that's
of significance and value, leave dozens, maybe even hundreds, of isolated enclaves and Palestinian
population concentrations, which can kind of rot on the vine.
Maybe the people will leave.
Whatever happens, we don't care.
That's been going on consistently.
Now, if you go back to about 1980, the U.S. joined the world not only in calling them
illegal, but in demanding that they be dismantled.
Go back to the U.N. Security Council resolutions, I think 465, approximately.
So, you have to dismantle the illegal settlements.
That has been weakened over the years.
So, under Reagan, they stop-- AMY GOODMAN: Now you have David Friedman,
the U.S. ambassador to Israel, who's been approved--right?--who raised money for the
settlements.
And you have Jared Kushner in charge of the policy.
NOAM CHOMSKY: Yeah, it's been step by step.
Reagan weakened it.
Clinton weakened it.
Obama cut it back to not help--obstacles to peace.
Trump, it's not helpful to peace.
Meanwhile, we fund--Jared--the Kushner Foundation and, of course, this new ambassador are strong
supporters of the ultra-right far right, way to the right of Netanyahu.
The Beit El, the community that they're pouring their money into, is run by an Orthodox
rabbi whose position is that the army shouldn't follow orders, has to follow the rabbi's
orders.
This is way at the right end of the Israeli spectrum.
Originally, they said they were going to move the embassy to Jerusalem.
They're kind of backing off on that.
At first, their position was there's nothing wrong with settlements.
Now there's a mild "they're not helpful to peace."
But, meanwhile, the U.S. continues to pour money and support into fulfilling this project
of constructing a Greater Israel.
I should say that the general discussions about this, I think, are extremely misleading.
What's said on all sides, actually--Israel, Palestinians, international commentary--is
that there are two options: either a two-state settlement, in accord with the long-standing
international consensus, or else one state, which would be an apartheid state, in which
Palestinians wouldn't have rights, and you could have an anti-apartheid struggle, and
Israel would face what's called the demographic problem--too many non-Jews in a Jewish state.
But those are not the two options.
There's a third option, the one that is actually being implemented--namely, construction
of a Greater Israel, which will not have a demographic problem, because they're excluding
the areas of dense Palestinian population, and they're removing Palestinians slowly
from the areas they expect to take over.
So you'll get a--what's called Jerusalem as maybe five times as big as it ever has
been, goes all the way into the West Bank.
There are corridors going to the east, which break up the remaining territory, one to Ma'ale
Adumim, a town which was built mostly during the Clinton years, which pretty much bifurcates
the West Bank.
There's others to the north.
The so-called Area C, where Israel has total control, about 60 percent of the West Bank,
is slowly being incorporated into Israel with big infrastructure programs and so on.
And this program is just taking place right before our eyes.
The United States is providing diplomatic, economic and military support for it.
It will leave the Palestinians with essentially nothing.
There will be a Greater Israel, which will have--which will not face the dread demographic
problem.
AMY GOODMAN: Professor Noam Chomsky. We'll be back with him in 30 seconds.
0
5
11
15
21
27
28
29
32
37
41
47
54
55
59
65
73
77
78
79
81
87
91
95
101
108
110
112
117
118
121
125
128
138
143
148
158
163
165
166
168
176
181
187
190
193
198
201
202
204
205
206
207
211
215
221
227
235
241
242
246
249
252
256
260
268
270
277
284
290
296
302
308
310
318
324
332
335
340
342
351
359
360
362
368
375
380
385
388
395
395

View file

@ -0,0 +1,154 @@
AMY GOODMAN: Our guest for the hour, Noam Chomsky, world-renowned political dissident,
linguist, author, institute professor emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
His latest book is Requiem for the American Dream: The 10 Principles of Concentration
of Wealth & Power.
Juan?
JUAN GONZALEZ: Noam Chomsky, I'd like to ask you about something that's been in the
news a lot lately.
Obviously, all the cable channels, that's all they talk about these days, is the whole
situation of Russia's supposed intervention in American elections.
For a country that's intervened in so many governments and so many elections around the
world, that's kind of a strange topic.
But I know you've referred to this as a joke.
Could you give us your view on what's happening and why there's so much emphasis on this
particular issue?
NOAM CHOMSKY: It's a pretty remarkable fact that--first of all, it is a joke.
Half the world is cracking up in laughter.
The United States doesn't just interfere in elections.
It overthrows governments it doesn't like, institutes military dictatorships.
Simply in the case of Russia alone--it's the least of it--the U.S. government, under
Clinton, intervened quite blatantly and openly, then tried to conceal it, to get their man
Yeltsin in, in all sorts of ways.
So, this, as I say, it's considered--it's turning the United States, again, into a laughingstock
in the world.
So why are the Democrats focusing on this?
In fact, why are they focusing so much attention on the one element of Trump's programs which
is fairly reasonable, the one ray of light in this gloom: trying to reduce tensions with
Russia?
That's--the tensions on the Russian border are extremely serious.
They could escalate to a major terminal war.
Efforts to try to reduce them should be welcomed.
Just a couple of days ago, the former U.S. ambassador to Russia, Jack Matlock, came out
and said he just can't believe that so much attention is being paid to apparent efforts
by the incoming administration to establish connections with Russia.
He said, "Sure, that's just what they ought to be doing."
So, meanwhile, this one topic is the primary locus of concern and critique, while, meanwhile,
the policies are proceeding step by step, which are extremely destructive and harmful.
So, you know, yeah, maybe the Russians tried to interfere in the election.
That's not a major issue.
Maybe the people in the Trump campaign were talking to the Russians.
Well, OK, not a major point, certainly less than is being done constantly.
And it is a kind of a paradox, I think, that the one issue that seems to inflame the Democratic
opposition is the one thing that has some justification and reasonable aspects to it.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, of course, because the Democrats feel that that's the reason, somehow,
that they lost the election.
Interesting that James Comey this week said he is investigating Trump campaign collusion
with Russia, when it was Comey himself who could have--might well have been partly responsible
for Hillary Clinton's defeat, when he said that he was investigating her, while, we now
have learned, at the same time he was investigating Donald Trump, but never actually said that.
NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, you can understand why the Democratic Party managers want to try
to find some blame for the fact--for the way they utterly mishandled the election and
blew a perfect opportunity to win, handed it over to the opposition.
But that's hardly a justification for allowing the Trump policies to slide by quietly, many
of them not only harmful to the population, but extremely destructive, like the climate
change policies, and meanwhile focus on one thing that could become a step forward, if
it was adjusted to move towards serious efforts to reduce growing and dangerous tensions right
on the Russian border, where they could blow up.
NATO maneuvers are taking place hundreds of yards from the Russian border.
The Russian jet planes are buzzing American planes.
This--something could get out of hand very easily.
Both sides, meanwhile, are building up their military forces, adding--the U.S. is--one
thing that the Russians are very much concerned about is the so-called anti-ballistic missile
installation that the U.S. is establishing near the Russian border, allegedly to protect
Europe from nonexistent Iranian missiles.
Nobody seriously believes that.
This is understood to be a first strike threat.
These are serious issues.
People like William Perry, who has a distinguished career and is a nuclear strategist and is
no alarmist at all, is saying that we're back to the--this is one of the worst moments
of the Cold War, if not worse.
That's really serious.
And efforts to try to calm that down would be very welcome.
And we should bear in mind it's the Russian border.
It's not the Mexican border.
There's no Warsaw Pact maneuvers going on in Mexico.
And that's a border that the Russians are quite reasonably sensitive about.
They've practically been destroyed several times the last century right through that
region.
5
9
13
18
19
20
24
25
29
34
38
39
42
47
48
54
56
62
69
75
80
87
92
93
95
104
113
114
119
123
127
133
140
145
148
157
167
172
175
181
188
195
205
211
213
220
228
233
239
246
253
258
267
274
281
291
295
300
304
307
318
325
332
336
339
343
344
352
357
359
361
366
368
371
375
381
385

View file

@ -0,0 +1,290 @@
>> In Western policy making circles
and among political commentators the Iranian threat is considered
to pose the greatest danger to world order and hence,
must be the primary focus of US foreign policy;
Europe's trailing along politely as usual.
This year is called the Year of Iran, because of the danger
of that enormous threat,
which does raise a question: what exactly is the Iranian threat?
If you read the public commentary you don't get much
of an answer, but there actually is an authoritative answer,
which is ignored.
The authoritative answer is provided by the regular
reports to Congress by the Pentagon
and US intelligence agencies that come every year,
reports on the global security and of course,
they include a section on Iran;
the most recent was almost a year ago.
The reports make it very clear
that whatever the Iranian threat is, it's not military.
So I'll quote, "Iran's military spending is relatively low
compared to the rest of the region."
In fact, it's less than a quarter of that of Saudi Arabia
and minuscule as compared with the US, of course.
Iran's military doctrine is strictly defensive,
designed to slow an invasion
and to force a diplomatic solution to hostilities.
Iran has only limited capacity
to project force beyond its borders.
They, of course, bring up the nuclear option and say that
"Iran's nuclear program and its willingness
to keep open the possibility
of developing nuclear weapons is a central part
of its deterrent strategy."
Well, the brutal clerical regime
in Iran is undoubtedly a major threat
to its own people - hardly outranks US allies
in that regard - but the threat lies elsewhere and it's ominous.
The one element of the threat is Iran's potential deterrent
capacity; notice that that's an illegitimate exercise
of sovereignty because it might interfere with US freedom
of action in the region.
And it's, of course, glaringly obvious why Iran would seek a
deterrent capacity; just take a look at the disposition
of forces in the region, including nuclear forces.
Seven years ago one of Israel's leading military historians,
Martin van Creveld, wrote that,
"The world has witnessed how the United States attacked Iraq
for, as it turned out, no reason at all."
Had the Iranians not tried
to build nuclear weapons they would be crazy, particularly
when they're under constant threat by--
constant threat of attack by the United States,
of course in violation of the UN Charter but,
remember that that doesn't apply to the United States.
Whether they are, in fact,
developing a nuclear capability we don't really know but,
perhaps so.
Well, the Iranian threat as described in the documents
and the reports goes beyond deterrents.
Iran is also seeking to expand its influence
in neighbouring countries and thus
to destabilise the region, as it's called.
Notice that when the US invade and
occupies Iran's neighbours, that's stabilisation.
When Iran tries to expand its influence,
say commercial relations, with its neighbours,
that's destabilisation.
That is actually routine usage in foreign policy commentary
so for-- sometimes it becomes almost comical.
Here's prominent foreign policy analyst, James Chase,
former Editor of Foreign Affairs,
rather on the liberal side incidentally.
He was properly using the term stability in its technical sense
when he explained that in order to achieve stability in Chile,
it was necessary to destabilise the country [Laughter] namely
by overthrowing the elected
government installing a vicious dictatorship.
Sounds contradictory, but it isn't
if you understand the technical meaning of the terms.
Well, other concerns about Iran I have no time to go into.
They're interesting to explore but,
I think they simply show,
underscore what the guiding doctrines are and
their continuing status in imperial culture.
That's very much in accord with the doctrines that were laid
down by FDR's planners during the Second World War.
The United States cannot tolerate any exercise
of sovereignty that interferes with its global designs.
And the United States and Europe are of course engaged
in punishing Iran for its threat to stability and trying
to get it to become a more civilised country, but
it's useful to recall how isolated the US
and Europe are.
The non-aligned countries, which is most of the world, they have
for years been vigorously supporting Iran's right
to enrich uranium.
Within the region, as I mentioned,
the irrelevant public even strongly favours Iranian
nuclear weapons.
The major regional power, Turkey,
voted against the latest US sanctions motion
in the Security Council, along with Brazil,
which is the most admired country
of the South, as polls show.
Turkey's disobedience led to sharp censure at that point, but
not for the first time.
Turkey was bitterly condemned in 2003
when the government committed a major crime:
it followed the will of 95%
of the population and refused to take part
in the US-British invasion of Iraq
and that demonstrated its very weak grasp of democracy,
which [Laughter] led to its sanctions and sharp censure.
It's the same today; after the 2010 Security Council misdeed,
Turkey was warned by Obama's top diplomat on European affairs,
Philip Gordon, that it must demonstrate its
commitment to partnership with the West:
follow orders in other words.
A scholar with the Council on Foreign Relations asked,
"How do we keep the Turks in their lane?"
They're departing; something wrong;
'in their lane' means following orders
like good democrats, our style democrats.
Brazil's Lula was admonished in a New York Times headline.
He was warned that his effort with Turkey
to provide a solution
to the uranium enrichment issue outside the framework
of US power is a spot on the Brazilian leader's legacy.
In brief, do what we say, that's your function.
There's kind of an interesting side light to all of this,
which has been effectively suppressed.
The Iran-Turkey-Brazil deal had been approved in advance
by President Obama, presumably on the assumption
that it would fail and that would provide an ideological
weapon against Iran.
That was revealed by the British Foreign Office,
which released the letter of support for it
after Brazil was censured.
When the effort succeeded, approval quickly turned
to censure and Washington ran
through a Security Council resolution, which was so weak
that China readily signed and is now chastised for living
up to the letter of the resolution,
but not following Washington's unilateral directives,
which go far beyond it.
3
5
11
15
20
23
27
29
33
36
40
41
44
48
52
56
58
61
63
66
73
75
79
83
90
92
96
99
102
106
110
111
115
118
121
125
129
134
139
142
147
149
153
156
161
166
168
173
176
178
182
186
190
193
196
198
201
202
206
209
213
216
221
225
231
235
238
240
245
248
254
255
258
263
267
272
274
278
280
284
287
290
292
297
300
302
308
312
317
320
324
328
331
332
337
341
343
347
351
353
356
360
363
365
369
374
376
380
383
385
388
391
396
400
407
411
414
417
420
424
427
432
434
438
445
449
451
454
459
464
466
468
475
479
483
485
488
490
494
500
503
507
513
516
519

View file

@ -0,0 +1,74 @@
Before the rise of the Nazis, wouldn't you say meddling of Western powers, or U.S. powers,
had something to do with that because maybe workers parties wanted to rise up and
It's not a secret.
Again, we have plenty of internal records.
I mean, what's now called "appeasement," you know, bad thing, appease the Germans, that
was regarded as a sensible policy.
In 1937, the State Department described Hitler as a "moderate" who's standing between the
extremes of right and left and if he doesn't succeed, the left, the labor and disillusioned
middle classes might get together and maybe even move towards the Russians or something,
but in an event, have a worker-based leftist government which the U.S. won't tolerate.
Britain even worse, they didn't want it.
They had tight business interests with Germany, U.S. did too, but Britain much more so.
So they were much happier to work with Hitler.
In fact, you know, as late as 1938, they probably could have stopped the war.
could have stopped the war.
Germany wasn't ready for war then.
But they wouldn't do it.
A 1937 Report of the State Department's European Division described the rise of Fascism as
the natural reaction of "the rich and middle classes, in self-defense" when the "dissatisfied
masses, with the example of the Russian revolution before them, swing to the Left."\h
Fascism therefore "must succeed or the masses, this time reinforced by the disillusioned
middle classes, will again turn to the Left."\h
The Report also noted that "if Fascism cannot succeed by persuasion [in Germany], it must
succeed by force."\h
It concluded that "economic appeasement should prove the surest route to world peace," a
conclusion based on the belief that Fascism as a system was compatible with U.S. interests.
One of the books on this topic is: Thank God They're on Our Side.
And it shows you history that I don't think is being taught in school.
How greed has caused an enormous amount of misery throughout history.
And that the quest for stability is really continuing the status quo of greed with a
disregard for democratic rights of the people.
Look at what they're willing to do to keep down the people.
The so called quest for stability -- on who's terms?
That's the key.
Quoting from this book, page 86: This concern
was
Chomsky Hitler History Lesson
4
10
15
16
19
24
27
35
44
48
56
58
63
66
72
74
76
77
83
89
94
99
102
108
110
115
120
124
128
132
137
140
143
146
147
200
209

View file

@ -0,0 +1,832 @@
("Chomsky Suite" by Tod Machover)
(pages rustling)
("Chomsky Suite" by Tod Machover)
- [David] Welcome to Kronos, Noam.
I bet you never thought you'd be sitting
in the middle of a string quartet.
(laughter)
Maybe, would you wanna start off by
playing that violin over there?
- This one?
- Yeah, that one, yeah.
You need the bow too.
- Oh, all right. - Yeah, that's right.
And I rosined it all specially for you,
so it's all set to go.
(audience laughs)
- Well, you remember the introductory remarks
were that there was a certain moments
when you shouldn't get up and walk out.
(audience laughs)
When one of the musicians is holding a violin.
But this is an exception.
This is your chance to walk out.
(laughter)
I won't inflict this on you.
- [David] Scratch away!
- Scratch away?
- [David] Press harder! (violin screeches)
There it is!
- Oh, whattaya know!
- [David] Put it close to the mic so they can hear it.
- Uh-uh! (Noam laughs)
(audience laughs)
(violin screeching)
I'll tell you, I
I once did learn how to play an instrument,
I've no musical talent, it skipped me in my family, but
I once did learn
how to play an instrument, a guitar.
There was a band,
a pickup band made up of MIT and Harvard
mostly graduate students, some faculty.
My wife was on and she played the accordion.
Ken Hale, our department, was the fiddler, a great fiddler.
And there was a ringer, a student from the conservatory,
who sort of ran it.
And for one concert they needed a guitar
and they didn't have anybody to play it,
so she thought she would teach me how to play the guitar.
And she managed to teach me how to play one string.
But to move my fingers so that it would look
as though I was playing the guitar.
And we sort of carried it off.
So maybe I could learn this.
Actually my son brought something like this home, once.
A little bigger, but not much, from third grade.
The music teacher had shown the kids violin,
he was utterly entranced with it,
so he convinced the teacher to let him take it home,
and he went on to,
to get to the point here,
he was thinking of becoming a professional violinist.
But an event occurred which I described to Daniel once,
which made him decide to become a gifted amateur instead,
which he is.
But I never progressed beyond the first string. (chuckles)
- So, Noam, what's in your record collection?
- Pardon?
- What's in your record collection?
- Well, one record is the basis for what you just heard,
the first Bach suite.
It's uh, must've listened to it a couple hundred times
in the last few years and many times before.
It has a rather special personal meaning,
if you don't mind some personal anecdotes.
My wife and I were married as children, basically,
had, we were working students,
never had any time for anything.
Never got more than a short distance from home.
But early in the 1950s we did manage to
take off a couple of weeks over the summer, first time.
And we decided to go to Europe,
which was a trek for two kids
who had really never been away from home.
And the goal was to go to Prague,
where Casals was then running the,
Pablo Casals was running the Prague Festival.
And the absolute peak achievement what drew
some of the best professional musicians in the world
to this little town in the Pyrenees
was his playing of the Bach suites.
Casals had essentially resurrected them from oblivion
and I think probably became the first cellist
to perform them seriously.
The atmosphere was indescribable.
I mean, it, Prague is a lovely little town in the Pyrenees
it's right below Mont Canigou, which is the,
kind of the symbol of Catalan nationalism.
Casals was a committed Catalan nationalist.
Actually,
by all rights,
my bones should be up on Mont Canigou right now.
I decided to try to climb it in a fit of abandon and
lost the trail halfway up and I started wandering around
and by the sheerest accident
ran into
the shed of a Catalan woodsman who lived alone up there and
after he cursed at me in Catalan for about half an hour
he showed me a trail back.
Oddly it never occurred to me to be nervous.
I later understood why.
Turns out the male brain
doesn't mature until about 25.
(audience laughs)
Before that you think you're indestructible,
nothing can happen.
There's probably an evolutionary reason for that.
But there had to be somebody in hunter-gatherer tribes
who was willing to go out
and fight that saber-toothed tiger.
(audience laughs)
Anyhow it didn't occur to me.
I came down,
we had done some quite remarkable things on that trip.
We went through Paris,
where we were able to catch a concert
by the incredible Russian violinist David Oistrakh,
who was on one of his rare visits to the West.
In Rome we saw a magnificent
outdoor performance of Aida
at the Roman ruins, Terme di Caracalla,
unforgettable.
Managed to get to the Lascaux caves,
they were then still open, now sealed.
And could see why Picasso, when he went there,
exclaimed that 30,000 years ago,
they had already discovered the secrets of modern art.
And many other things,
but the peak was what we were aiming for,
the Prague concert.
We finally got to it the indescribable aura,
quite apart from the personal aspect,
about as close to, when he did play one of the suites,
the first suite, and it's about as close to
a moment of sublimity as I can imagine.
Actually it had a further personal meaning to me.
Casals was a dedicated republican, antifascist.
He claims, he recorded the suites, six of them,
for the first time, actually maybe the first time
they were ever recorded,
right at the end of the Spanish Civil War, 1939.
Just at the time when Barcelona was under attack
and it soon fell, that meant Franco's fascism
took over Spain.
He of course had to flee,
he would've been killed immediately.
Fascist slogan was "Death to intelligence"
and he was a marked man
as a republican activist.
Went across the border and managed to survive
the Second World War.
He refused offers by the Nazis, who admired his music.
He was already a very famous cellist,
and they wanted him to come to Berlin, he refused.
He refused to play in occupied France.
After the war, Casals refused to play in any country
that recognized Franco.
And he wouldn't play in Russia, anti-Bolshevik.
Wouldn't play in the former fascist countries.
But he was, had, you know, just flooded with
lucrative offers to come and perform after the war
but he refused.
He finally agreed to play in Prague and he,
I think in the late '40s, began the Prague concerts
and we were lucky to be able to catch one of them,
one of the early ones.
All of this also had a special personal meaning for me.
As a child I was,
in the 1930s, I was closely following
the dreadful rise of fascism in Europe.
The first article I wrote, or at least remember writing,
was right at the time of the fall of Barcelona.
It was about how,
I don't want to inflict that on you, either,
but it was about the fall of Austria,
Czechoslovakia, then Barcelona.
The kind of last hope for some barrier
to the spread of this hideous specter
of fascim all over Europe.
And I knew something about Casals's, by the time we went,
about his record and the performance, heard it many times.
And being in Prague and listening to this heroic figure
and magnificent musician, carrying forward,
as he did every time, kind of a new performance
of the suites, to which he devoted
much of his artistic life, was,
along with everything else, quite a remarkable
and unforgettable experience.
So, hearing this,
these elaborations and developments of it is
personally very meaningful for me.
If there's a lesson in all this, which maybe there is,
for young people among you,
when you have opportunities like that don't let them pass.
They can enrich your lives enormously and
the memories remain
and in later years
become more vivid and even more significant.
So, it's wise to exploit the chance.
(applause)
("Chomsky Suite" by Tod Machover)
- Thank you for that, that was beautiful, Noam.
I've been thinking about this for months,
trying to know what
to ask.
I think you know what I, what I'm trying to ask,
because of all the people I've ever met
I think you might be the best listener that I know of.
And the ability to really listen,
and get beyond the actual words,
and to really read and also get beyond the actual words
and know what's really meant,
is something you've spent your whole life doing, I think.
And what I wanna leave with this evening,
is some sense of how,
through a musical experience,
we can demand of the environment we live in,
the leaders that we have, the culture we have,
that our society be more just.
Our,
that it just be more open to the future
and to what really needs to be done.
I've always thought music is the one language
that really doesn't need translating very much.
Even though, when we play with a musician
form Afghanistan, or someone from China
or someone from many different parts of the world,
frequently we need translators to make a
nonverbal musical experience.
But I'm just wondering if you have any thoughts about this.
(Noam clears his throat)
- There are some real puzzles about the nature of music
and its ubiquity.
As far as I know, every human society that's been found
has some form of music and I think some form of dance.
It may not be in the tonal idiom of classical music,
maybe something else, but something.
And it's a good question, "Why?"
Since it's universal, it
very likely originates somewhere in East Africa.
Before our ancestors, maybe 50,000 years ago,
probably quite a small group of them,
left Africa, quickly spread around the world.
So it's gotta be something deep in our nature
that's embedded there, for some reason.
And there's a good question, "Why?"
What is it about music that makes it part of
the nature of humans?
It's, species-specific, I mean, songbirds have song,
but it's quite a different phenomenon.
Music is not
instrumental in the sense of
trying to achieve some end, like mating,
or something like that.
It's been, there is one other, a couple,
there are a few other similar biological phenomena.
One of them, of course, is language.
Language is universal, it's every human,
all humans have it.
All humans have the same capacity.
We know that if you take an infant
from some Amazonian tribe that,
the tribe hasn't had human contact for maybe 20,000 years
and you bring that child to Boston,
raise it here from infancy, it'll
be indistinguishable from my grandchildren.
Maybe it'll be studying quantum physics at MIT.
And conversely, which means,
there are individual differences
but there's no known group differences.
Which means that first of all it means
that language hasn't evolved,
language capacity has not evolved
for at least 50,000 years.
And in fact it doesn't seem to go back very far before that.
Same is probably true of the musical capacity,
but it's harder to study,
I don't think it has been studied.
In the case of language, you can at least imagine some
selectional reason why it should've propagated.
It may not be the right reason,
these are mostly fairy tales,
but at least you can imagine something.
Can I say music, it's hard to see what it is.
That kind of puzzle has bothered evolutionary biologists
ever since Darwin and Wallace co-discovered
the theory of natural selection.
Wallace, in his writings about it,
was very puzzled about the fact that humans all
have arithmetical capacity.
Again, no selectional reason possible,
because it's only been used very recently in human history
and by a very small group of people.
But it's again, universal.
So an Amazonian child has the same capacity as,
say, my grandchildren.
Even if it's not developed
in the culture in which the kid lives.
And he wondered why, since it has, again,
no selectional value.
He thought that there must be some other force
in evolution beyond natural selection.
Darwin strongly disagreed with him but had no explanation.
Very likely, in the case of arithmetic,
it's sort of an offshoot of language.
That you can, if you understand,
once enough had come to be understood
about the structure of language,
you could see how a minor, actually simplification of it,
could give you the basis for arithmetic.
But nothing like that is known in the case of music.
Except maybe at a very primitive level there's
probably just cause we don't understand enough, either,
about language or music.
So it is known by now that there are, pretty well-known,
that there are special neural tissues unique to humans
which, in newborn infants and probably intrauterine,
pick out of the environment certain rhythmic structures.
Roughly at the level of a syllable,
so probably specific to humans.
It's probably the core of picking out,
an amazing achievement of an infant,
to pick out of the whole, complex environment,
the data that's language-related.
How children do that, nobody understands.
No other organism can do it.
And picking out a certain rhythmic structure
may be part of the core of it.
Later come other rhythmic characteristics.
By about six months old a child
has pretty much the understanding,
knows the intonational structure of the language
that it's been exposed to.
Maybe that has something to do with the
part of the development of music.
That leaves open a very deep question,
what about structural properties of music?
It's not just rhythm, of course.
Well, where do they come from?
It's tempting to think that
somehow they grew out of the language capacity.
Which something is sort of suggested by Leonard Bernstein's
famous Norton lectures 40 years ago.
And there's been work on it since,
but it still remains quite a mystery.
But that's just from the point of view of biology.
What about from the point of view of our lives?
Well, you know, I mean listening to
a skilled,
sometimes remarkable musical performance
or seeing a work of art or
does do something to us
or should do something to us personally.
It should instruct us that,
however good we are at what we do,
and most of us work hard doing things we're expert at,
doing well, but it should tell us there's something more.
You should really be, have an idea, you should be aiming
at something much higher.
At maybe something you can't achieve
or even begin to achieve.
Look, I'm never gonna be Pablo Casals, obviously.
Or even play this.
But the fact that he could continue to do it,
and that I could appreciate it,
particularly in those remarkable circumstances
but even just listening to the record and so on,
you know, for many other things,
does, should inspire us to at least try
to aim for something higher than what we can do regularly,
expertly and appropriately.
So try to find some touch of sublimity in your own work.
Or for that matter your own life.
Because even a life can, the humblest life
can be quite beautiful.
Actually that reminds me of something that
I mentioned that my son was an aspiring violinist.
My wife and I took him to a master class
when he was about 12 years old,
run by Yehudi Menuhin over at the conservatory.
And I remember there was one young woman violinist
who played a piece with just absolute perfection.
You know it was technically
the most magnificent thing you can imagine.
And at the end of the piece
Menuhin looked at her and said,
"Magnificently done,
"but you didn't stop to smell the flowers."
And that was a very meaningful comment.
And it's for all of us.
We have to somehow stop to smell the flowers.
There's more to life than doing what you can do
with technical perfection.
And listening to a marvelous work of music
brilliantly performed, teaches us that
the flowers are there, it's for us to try,
somehow, to smell them.
Try to excel, try to go beyond what we know we're capable of
and at least aim for something higher in life.
Whether it's in your activities,
try to make it a better world.
In your work try to achieve some goal
that can barely be formulated or whatever it may be.
(pages rustling)
("Chomsky Suite" by Tod Machover)
(applause)
15
160
164
165
168
170
173
173
177
179
180
182
184
186
188
189
192
196
199
201
205
208
209
212
215
218
220
223
224
225
226
229
231
233
236
237
240
244
245
249
252
256
259
263
267
273
275
279
281
285
289
292
294
296
299
303
307
311
314
317
322
323
325
330
333
335
356
360
361
364
370
374
377
381
385
390
397
398
401
405
409
413
417
419
423
426
430
434
440
443
445
450
455
459
462
467
471
477
480
484
486
487
492
497
502
506
508
513
517
520
523
526
527
531
532
534
536
538
542
544
546
547
549
551
556
557
561
565
570
573
576
579
581
583
585
591
594
597
598
600
602
606
609
613
616
622
627
633
637
639
641
647
651
655
658
659
662
666
668
670
673
675
682
684
686
690
695
697
699
703
707
710
711
715
719
722
725
730
732
738
742
747
751
753
755
758
761
764
767
771
775
780
786
790
793
796
800
803
806
809
812
833
837
840
845
850
852
853
859
867
885
1037
1043
1046
1051
1052
1056
1059
1065
1069
1073
1077
1079
1084
1088
1092
1099
1102
1106
1109
1114
1118
1121
1126
1129
1132
1135
1138
1144
1146
1151
1154
1160
1163
1168
1172
1177
1180
1182
1184
1190
1195
1198
1203
1206
1210
1212
1216
1218
1221
1225
1228
1230
1233
1237
1240
1244
1246
1251
1253
1255
1259
1262
1268
1271
1275
1277
1281
1284
1286
1288
1292
1294
1295
1297
1302
1305
1307
1310
1315
1318
1320
1322
1325
1328
1332
1337
1341
1345
1349
1353
1355
1360
1362
1365
1369
1371
1372
1375
1377
1379
1382
1385
1389
1392
1394
1397
1399
1400
1405
1407
1412
1415
1417
1419
1424
1428
1433
1439
1441
1444
1447
1449
1453
1456
1458
1460
1463
1465
1469
1472
1474
1478
1481
1484
1486
1489
1491
1493
1495
1497
1501
1505
1509
1511
1514
1518
1520
1526
1527
1531
1536
1537
1540
1544
1546
1551
1555
1559
1560
1563
1564
1568
1570
1574
1576
1580
1583
1585
1589
1594
1597
1602
1603
1606
1608
1612
1617
1621
1622
1627
1631
1636
1637
1641
1644
1648
1649
1653
1656
1658
1661
1664
1667
1672
1676
1679
1680
1685
1689
1691
1693
1696
1707
1718
1779

View file

@ -0,0 +1,970 @@
and synthetic
all over the Isle of Man
you have the co star that's wrong
it's a little
a little one to call their tape art
well you
so
the plaque
fasquelle to
after that time
if a little by little a little
just valcke
and that was all
two more suits me
dakhla woman
a lot
accor
at
2
Oh
and maybe
e
and
e
that a little
after she passed everything
so the chair
so my campaign
How? 'Or' What
so
fire you
fault 1
and good
yes to
blah
on the way back
a lot
it's them a lot
they were two listen
we must listen 1 2
five of the six yards away 1
the other sides of listening the esma is bad being of the peoples
not much time
Bach
how's it going that you had a little
we were very strong
debate
1 but after
1
at
a baby
Yes
m
e
he
he has little
good idea
e
ah ah
we can only
hop
I e
e e
freedom
diallo
1
she wants that
there are others
he gives some hypotheses and
ap
so 1 you can't all
and many other ap
so you
and we
etc
m in short that's all
and this point
he wear protectors
and after
do it
friends
others
e like
there was something
in the cable
I
in fact the coffee
tomorrow
well that yeah
that you
e
usually it is
we can
e
no
the
a knock
m
football
a little
though
after the test
to listen to it
after page
that to me
make way for others oh
it's my weather side
and push a little
it was
e he
respect team b
and
ve
aubade
2
it's a fact
the heavy working life
but his destiny abo
don't do that
my
Yes
But
too much
no
no
people
and all 2
is reached
the rooster
of your art
oh what can be there
just like the hotel
than
that said
a little bit I left her
d
totally
apart from men
hop
the pack
2
you down
two friends
and my father
it's a lot per case
and abou
you and
Yes
us others
all
and
2
a lot
a photo
the podium yes
you
hop
a lot
ap
do it with
and
and
so
she hurts
no
you treat
but not only
2
a little
and that the own wife a lot
2 i
excellent
1 ap
at
a step
a little is a little
not our sides
oh to
baku 2
but it's not right 1
world
but no steps
much the call of buck pop
what to do
there i can us
m
m
my dad
so the
in the radius of documents so double
you and me
and because you
m
m e
at
hop
m
Yes
la paz i
Yes
above all two people
he occupied
it's not a bit
that's a lot of other cuts etc
Oh
but he does
to do this e
you
than
1
1
and you
the side is not nothing
and
costs therefore
apple
2
m
my life did not vote against
ap ap the body all yours
the domain not later since
Yes a bit
but you
Levallois
you do not have
how no
m
since
i can 2
he recalled and
and the aca
11 was done
at school the fact that at his head to
2
you 1
How? 'Or' What
How? 'Or' What
we at
the other I don't know
you
don't they have more
pretty much everywhere
the
to bohain
tomorrow you
2
or
ap
mc2
and even
ob he m
but hey how
m
Yes
never but
you are kind of this command
the bench is yours
police officers
but who the skin
at
I a lot
apple don't care
you
to see a little more
suits you
you yeah
note
exterminate
et al
it can you
m you said a lot
here
the holidays a little vain
m
but not that
yes disassembled
for example
they did it
of the head
beside
and
ap
that puts you the counter paul gaultier
ok I
you 1
suddenly
m m
m he says
you perfectly
in the neck
you again
2 points to listen to it
com
what 20
with apple there
well yes
a lot we can
m
with bah
and
e
the group
what is up
at the coffee shop
you
a lot
but maybe like earlier
and
well
we must
22 after the fact
you
okay
my sense but fuck
wish it
a lot
or not we can
on the other hand we have little
we go
m
support
not even improbable
but according to news twenty months
2nd step
daerden we're going to sink
the period after all
falip was taken aback by
we
and that's all
Yes
yes damn
or not yet touched in the stomach
lotto they rub shoulders
that you e
quite there
after two years hahaha
so we can't decouple men
engine
you
bogota
gala you
how little montfaucon ago
Yes
Absolutely everything
toyota the pope
2 photo
the club of the thing there
and hop little by little
it's exactly
scott
from beijing
yes but not that
e
m
he was also able to enjoy so do
influenza is the appropriate form m
the not gloups
we can't either
Pope
we can
tennis
d
the world
more abou treatment
except that you absolutely
we can ah ah
hop
or not
poolers like us
how i did atp ranking 2
others e
m oh
we don't fight
ah ah lobo
no return that
at dawn e
Moreover
the
cut
one more
he is a bit
obama
the other
after the th
and as we can
gangs by the way
Wait
asset
top
a good taste of the bread that
to m yes
the shot
ababa
ap ap
I
But
good luck famous
the tropics and poor little one
and
my thing m
hong kong a bit like
so above all
the
go without taboo while more than one embankment
after the podium
very early
and as we have seen such an agreement
sanou it's not because two
and that you like yours
ep
ap
1 departure
I'm a little scared
yeah map
2
tomorrow
the
not you
and that
the capital m
here is d
for everyone
unbeatable
and after a lot
you
not you
and 11
but OK
Listen
wowing their own scent
2 on both sides clubs
the pvv the
goal com the field
and not no
we can no longer count the tickets
you are
left but ottawa
me
parent the
hop m
we are spoken to in baghdad when less like
m the people
he has to appear no need we can
we are that is to say
yes funds
the people want
others expensive
the
products
your pc
you we want it to have more blizzard
a lot
daddy sow we bet we
castle
photo we can not watch
I
a hen 2 a lot
so the police
and all filmed
Moreover
bobo
its costs
to what
no
so
weekly hockey
1
at football m
m
since
OK and
no for them
please 2
a lot
quota 9 but
and at the start you
not you e
hop
after toulouse like no other
do what you find
therefore to
this is the case of the world
I can
all fronts what I want
a penny 1
19
27
30
33
40
46
50
54
59
66
71
78
83
93
98
100
106
108
114
117
119
124
162
165
177
189
194
198
207
232
241
245
253
258
265
269
272
279
282
289
297
301
313
318
321
325
330
335
360
364
371
376
380
386
393
401
406
410
416
420
425
429
431
436
441
445
451
455
460
471
473
478
490
515
518
524
529
533
547
550
563
567
573
583
591
606
609
618
628
637
642
650
662
666
675
698
701
713
727
732
736
744
751
756
764
770
781
785
801
805
811
814
818
821
826
830
838
844
859
865
868
881
908
918
934
955
966
972
979
993
1013
1020
1027
1035
1039
1052
1064
1083
1089
1100
1111
1116
1138
1145
1152
1159
1163
1168
1170
1179
1189
1196
1205
1211
1215
1229
1232
1236
1248
1251
1258
1261
1268
1272
1281
1288
1291
1297
1302
1305
1314
1318
1325
1332
1334
1342
1350
1361
1369
1373
1386
1390
1395
1401
1407
1411
1417
1420
1424
1430
1435
1443
1460
1462
1469
1474
1482
1486
1492
1495
1502
1513
1520
1523
1529
1534
1538
1541
1545
1560
1564
1575
1580
1599
1602
1607
1616
1619
1622
1626
1629
1642
1646
1649
1652
1657
1661
1668
1673
1677
1686
1694
1699
1710
1713
1718
1722
1736
1740
1745
1747
1763
1766
1772
1775
1779
1784
1791
1795
1800
1805
1807
1813
1817
1826
1830
1852
1856
1863
1871
1875
1881
1891
1894
1897
1902
1909
1914
1920
1926
1934
1940
1947
1969
1971
1977
1985
1988
1991
1996
2004
2008
2013
2019
2024
2029
2033
2038
2041
2045
2048
2051
2063
2070
2075
2080
2091
2098
2102
2109
2114
2121
2150
2155
2161
2168
2174
2183
2187
2201
2204
2208
2214
2224
2227
2231
2240
2249
2254
2259
2263
2267
2272
2279
2288
2298
2303
2310
2314
2321
2327
2329
2337
2344
2347
2353
2357
2363
2367
2372
2385
2389
2394
2398
2401
2411
2423
2428
2432
2438
2441
2445
2452
2457
2459
2467
2472
2475
2479
2484
2491
2497
2499
2512
2515
2521
2524
2527
2532
2541
2547
2555
2559
2563
2567
2570
2574
2582
2585
2588
2591
2596
2601
2609
2615
2624
2631
2638
2644
2657
2667
2671
2684
2692
2697
2704
2707
2714
2720
2733
2739
2746
2752
2761
2769
2774
2779
2791
2797
2803
2807
2811
2819
2823
2831
2836
2839
2843
2847
2850
2858
2860
2863
2871
2876
2879
2883
2886
2891
2895
2900
2908
2913
2916
2921
2930
2933
2940
2945
2948
2958
2963
2965
2972
2978
2988
2995
3000
3005
3009
3013
3021
3025
3030
3035
3047
3052
3058
3064
3070
3076
3083
3090
3093
3098
3114
3121
3124
3143
3147
3152
3160
3166
3172
3181
3184
3190
3193
3197
3202
3205
3209
3218
3260
3265

View file

@ -0,0 +1,48 @@
...'cause you can't comprehend
that we should apply to ourselves the standard you apply to others.
That is incomprehensible.
If you take a poll among US intellectuals, support for bombing in Afghanistan is just overwhelming.
But how many of them think that you should bomb Washington,
because of the US war against Nicaragua, let's say, or Cuba or Turkey or anyone else?
Now if anyone were to suggest this they'd be considered insane. But why?
I mean, if one is right, why is the other wrong?
When you try to get someone to talk about this question, they just - well, try...
They can't comprehend what your question is.
Because you can't comprehend that we should apply to ourselves the standards you apply to others.
That is incomprehensible.
Now, you know, there couldn't be a moral principle more elementary.
I mean, all you have to do is read George Bush's favourite philosopher.
There is a definition, famous definition, in the Gospels of the hypocrite.
The hypocrite is the person who refuses to apply to himself the standards he applies to others.
By that standard the entire commentary and discussion of the war,
the so-called 'war on terror,' is pure hypocrisy, virtually without exception.
Can anybody understand that? No. They can't understand it.
But that's not so unusual.
I bet you anything that if you go back to Japan in the 1930's or 40's,
and you did a poll of intellectuals on the war, you'd probably get the same reactions.
I mean, I know it's true in Germany, France, and everywhere else.
It's just standard. It's ugly, but it's standard.
2
3
7
11
17
21
27
32
35
40
43
48
50
56
60
64
71
77
84
89
93
98
103
108

View file

@ -0,0 +1,330 @@
AMY GOODMAN: At this point, as President Trump nears his 100th day, North Korea and Iran
have been a major focus.
Are you concerned that with the president at the lowest popularity rating, I think,
in any president's history at this point, that he will focus abroad, as he has in the
last few weeks, dropping the MOAB, the "Mother of All Bombs," in Afghanistan, bombing the
Syrian government, and yet focusing specifically on North Korea and Iran--in North Korea,
McMaster, General McMaster, the national security adviser, saying tensions with North Korea
are coming to a head.
Do you think there is a possibility that the U.S. would attack North Korea?
NOAM CHOMSKY: I mean, this administration is extremely unpredictable.
Trump probably has no idea what he's going to do five minutes from now, so you can't--literally--so
you can't really make predictions with much confidence.
But I doubt it very much.
The reason is very simple: An attack on North Korea would unleash--no matter what attack
it is, even a nuclear attack, would unleash massive artillery bombardment of Seoul, which
is the biggest city in South Korea, right near the border, which would wipe it out,
including plenty of American troops.
That doesn't--I mean, I'm no technical expert, but as far as I can--as I read and
can see, there's no defense against that.
Furthermore, North Korea could retaliate against American bases in the region, where there's
plenty of American soldiers and so on, also in Japan.
They'd be devastated.
North Korea would be finished.
You know, so would much of the region.
But if attacked, presumably, they would respond, very likely.
In fact, the responses might be automatic.
McMaster, at least, and Mattis understand this.
How much influence they have, we don't know.
So I think an attack is unlikely.
But the real question is: Is there a way of dealing with the problem?
There are a lot of proposals: sanctions; a big new missile defense system, which is a
major threat to China, it'll increase tensions there; military threats of various kinds;
sending an aircraft carrier, the Vinson, to North Korea, except by accident--it happened
to be going in the opposite direction, but we'll forget that.
But these are--those are the proposals, that kind of proposals, as to how to solve.
Actually, there's one proposal that's ignored.
I mean, you see a mention of it now and then.
It's a pretty simple proposal.
Remember, the goal is to get North Korea to freeze its weapons systems, weapons and missile
systems.
So one proposal is to accept their offer to do that.
Sounds simple.
They've made a proposal.
China and North Korea proposed to freeze the North Korean missile and nuclear weapons systems.
And the U.S. instantly rejected it.
And you can't blame that on Trump.
Obama did the same thing a couple of years ago.
Same offer was presented.
I think it was 2015.
The Obama administration instantly rejected it.
And the reason is that it calls for a quid pro quo.
It says, in return, the United States should put an end to threatening military maneuvers
on North Korea's borders, which happen to include, under Trump, sending of nuclear-capable
B-52s flying right near the border.
Now, maybe Americans don't remember very well, but North Koreans have a memory of not
too long ago, when North Korea was absolutely flattened, literally, by American bombing.
There was--there was literally no targets left.
And I really urge people who haven't done it to read the official American military
histories, the Air Quarterly Review, the military histories describing this.
They describe it very vividly and accurately.
They say, "There just weren't any targets left.
So what could we do?"
Well, we decided to attack the dams, the huge dams.
That's a major war crime.
People were hanged for it at Nuremberg.
But put that aside.
And then comes an ecstatic, gleeful description of the bombing of the dams and the huge flow
of water, which was wiping out valleys and destroying the rice crop, on which Asians
depend for survival--lots of racist comment, but all with exaltation and glee.
You really have to read it to appreciate it.
The North Koreans don't have to bother reading it.
They lived it.
So when nuclear-capable B-52s are flying on their border, along with other threatening
military maneuvers, they're kind of upset about it.
Strange people.
And they continue to develop what they see as a potential deterrent that might protect
the regime from--and the country, in fact--from destruction.
This has nothing at all to do with what you think about the government.
So maybe it's the worst government in human history.
OK.
But these are still the facts that exist.
So, why is the United States unwilling to accept an agreement which would end the immediate
threats of destruction against North Korea and, in return, freeze the weapons and missile
systems?
Well, I leave that to you.
And remember, that's bipartisan in this case.
Could negotiations go--the usual argument is "Well, you can't trust them," and so
on and so forth.
But there is a history.
And I--there's no time to run through the history.
It's quite interesting.
Begins in 1993, when Clinton--under Clinton, the North Koreans made a deal with Israel
to terminate North Korean missile shipments to the Middle East, which is a great, serious
threat to Israel and the world, and, in return, Israel would recognize North Korea.
Now, the Clinton administration wouldn't accept that.
They pressured Israel, which has to do what they're told, to withdraw from it.
And North Korea responded by sending--by firing their first intermediate-range missiles.
I won't go on with the rest.
It's a very interesting story.
There was actually an agreement in 2005 that North Korea would completely dismantle its
nuclear weapons and missile systems, end them, finish, dismantle them, in return for a nonaggression
pact from the United States, an end to threats, provision by the West--that means by the
United States--of a light-water reactor, which can't produce nuclear weapons but
could produce--be used for peaceful purposes, research, medical, other purposes.
That was basically the agreement, 2005.
Didn't last very long.
The Bush administration instantly undermined it.
It dismantled the consortium that was supposed to provide the reactor.
And it immediately imposed--pressured--and when the U.S. pressures, it means it happens--banks
to block North Korean financial transactions, including perfectly legitimate trade.
So the crazy North Koreans started producing missiles and nuclear weapons again.
And that's been the kind of record all the way through.
So, yeah, maybe the most horrible regime in human history, but the fact of the matter
is the regime does want to survive, and it even wants to carry out economic development--there's
pretty general agreement about this--which it cannot do in any significant way when it's
pouring resources, very scarce resources, into weapons and missile production.
So they have considerable incentive, including survival, to perhaps continue this process
of reacting in a kind of tit-for-tat fashion to U.S. actions.
When the U.S. lowers tensions, they do.
When we raise tensions, they go on with these plans.
How about that as a possibility?
I mean, it is--if you look at the press, it's occasionally mentioned.
In fact, there was not a bad article in The Washington Post about it recently by a U.S.
professor who teaches in South Korea.
So, occasionally, it's this strange possibility of letting the North Koreans do exactly what
we want them to do.
Sometimes this is mentioned, but it's pretty much dismissed.
We can't do that sort of thing.
There are similar questions to raise about Iran.
So, Iran is, you know, the--again, the adults in the room, like Mattis and so on, say it's
the greatest threat to peace, you know, the greatest sponsor of terrorism, on and on.
How is it a sponsor of terrorism?
Well, could go through that.
So, for example, in Yemen, it's claimed that they are providing some aid to rebel
tribesmen, Houthi tribesmen, in Yemen.
OK, maybe they are.
What is the United States doing in Yemen?
It's providing a huge flood of arms to its Saudi Arabian ally, who are destroying the
country, who have created a huge humanitarian crisis, huge numbers of people killed, massive
starvation.
They're threatening now to bomb a port, which is the only source of aid for surviving
people.
But Iran is the major source of terrorism.
And if you look around the world, there's many questions like this.
I don't want to go on too long.
But, very strikingly--and this--there's one lesson that you discover when you carefully
look at the historical record.
What I just described about North Korea is pretty typical.
Over and over again, there are possibilities of diplomacy and negotiation, which might
not succeed--you can't be sure if you don't try them--but which look pretty promising,
which are abandoned, dismissed, literally without comment, in favor of increased force
and violence.
In fact, that's also the background for the 1953 moment, when the clock moved to two
minutes to midnight and the U.S. faced the first serious threat to its security, that,
in fact--you know, since probably the War of 1812--could have been avoided.
There's pretty good evidence that it could have been avoided.
But it was--the possibility was literally not even considered.
And case after case is like this.
It's worth looking at the historical record from that perspective, to ask whether that
general comment has some validity.
I think, if you do, you'll find that it has considerable merit.
AMY GOODMAN: We'll be back with Professor Noam Chomsky in a minute to talk about the
war in Syria and the Trump administration's threats to prosecute WikiLeaks founder Julian
Assange.
Stay with us.
0
11
13
20
29
36
43
49
51
56
62
69
72
74
81
89
94
97
105
108
115
119
120
121
125
128
131
135
139
142
148
155
164
171
174
181
183
186
188
194
195
200
202
204
214
216
218
222
223
225
228
232
240
249
253
260
268
272
279
285
287
290
292
296
298
300
302
309
316
323
326
329
331
338
343
344
351
358
361
364
365
369
378
385
386
388
392
397
398
400
403
404
414
421
426
430
436
442
444
446
455
463
472
481
486
490
492
496
502
511
518
522
526
531
540
546
553
560
567
570
573
575
579
585
587
595
597
600
603
605
613
619
621
623
630
634
636
638
645
653
654
661
662
664
667
670
677
681
686
693
700
707
708
716
723
731
734
738
740
747
750
754
759
764
765

View file

@ -0,0 +1,348 @@
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report.
I'm Amy Goodman in Burlington, Vermont, where we're continuing our community tour
throughout the country.
But we go back now to my conversation with linguist and dissident Noam Chomsky, speaking
on Monday in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
AMY GOODMAN: I last interviewed you on April 4th, just a few weeks ago, on Democracy Now!.
It was the 50th anniversary of Dr. King giving his "Beyond Vietnam" speech, why he opposed
the war in Vietnam, where he called the U.S. "the greatest purveyor of violence in the
world."
And I wanted to turn from North Korea and Iran to Syria.
It was the day of the gas attack in Syria, so we didn't get to talk about it very much.
And I'm wondering your thoughts on what you think happened, and then the ensuing U.S.
bombing that President Trump would later talk about, saying he was having chocolate cake
with the Chinese president--very, very good chocolate cake--when they launched the Tomahawk
missiles into Iraq, he said.
And he was corrected by the interviewer--right?--who said it was actually Syria.
NOAM CHOMSKY: Bunch of "ragheads"; it's all about the same.
But, well, there are some things we know for sure.
There was a serious chemical weapons attack.
Nobody doubts that.
It's plausible that it was the Syrian government, which does raise some questions.
It's not so obvious why the Assad regime would have carried out a chemical warfare
attack at a moment when it's pretty much winning the war, and the worst danger it faces
is that a counterforce will enter to undermine its progress.
So it does raise some questions.
It also--even though maybe you can think up some reason why the Assad regime, which
is a murderous, brutal regime, might have done it, there's even another question as
to why the Russians would have allowed it.
Now, remember, this is a--the air base is a joint Russian-Syrian base.
Russia has plenty of clout in Syria.
And for them, it's a total disaster.
They have global concerns, not just local concerns in Syria.
So there are some concerns.
And there are further concerns.
There has been--the White House did put out a careful--you know, a justification, an
intelligence report, to explain and account for, showing why they had absolute confidence
that it was a Syrian government attack.
This was analyzed closely by a very serious and credible analyst, Theodore Postol, professor
at MIT, who has a long record of highly successful, credible analysis.
He's a highly regarded strategic analyst and intelligence analyst.
And he gave a pretty devastating critique of the White House report.
You might--you can pick it up online and take a look at it.
So there certainly are some questions.
That there's--that Syria is capable of a monstrous act like that, the Syrian government,
that much is not in doubt.
But one question that arises is: Before doing something, could you find out what happened?
OK?
I mean, let's have an inquiry, take a look and see what in fact actually happened.
There are plenty of cases where things--where it looked as though things happened, but they
didn't.
And remember that reporting from Syria is extremely difficult.
If reporters go into the rebel-held areas and don't do what they're told, you know,
get your head cut off.
Patrick Cockburn and others have written about this.
You just can't seriously report from those areas.
There are obvious questions when you're reporting from the government side.
So the reporters are--there are very good reporters doing a serious, courageous job,
but there's not much you can do.
So we just don't know a lot.
Well, those are the circumstances in which the 59 Tomahawk missiles were launched.
That's pretty easy.
It's easy to sit in Washington and push a button and say, "Go kill somebody."
That's considered courage, you know, macho, showing how strong we are.
What did they actually do?
Well, apparently, the Tomahawk missiles were targeting a part of the airfield that doesn't
seem to be used.
And, in fact, the next day, planes were taking off.
And, in fact, the village that was attacked by the chemical weapons has been even more
heavily attacked by straight bombing from the Assad government after the 59 Tomahawk
missiles.
So whatever they were intended to do doesn't seem to have anything to do with Syria.
I suspect that what they were intended to do was pretty much what you described, to
shore up Trump's image as--I think it was Nikki Haley at the U.N., said, "There's
a new sheriff in town."
So now we've got Wyatt Earp, you know, pulling out his gun and getting rid of the bad guys.
No more of this soft stuff.
So, it was probably an attempt to shore up that image.
Pretty much like the bomb in Afghanistan.
Nobody knows what it was for, what it had to do with.
Probably destroyed a large part of Afghanistan.
Shortly after that, there was a mass--an incredibly brutal and successful Taliban attack,
which killed a couple hundred recruits, most of them unarmed.
The young draftees didn't know what they were doing.
It was so bad, the defense minister resigned.
Doesn't seem to have any effect on--it was supposedly aimed at ISIS.
Maybe it was.
Maybe it wasn't.
They don't seem to be affected by it.
So these look like--there doesn't seem to be any strategic analysis behind any of
these actions, as far as anyone can tell.
They seem like kind of about at the level of the twitters that keep coming out: something
that kind of occurs to me, so why not do it?
It's cheap.
It may kill a lot of people, makes me look good and, you know, makes it seem as if I'm
defending the country, and so on.
It's hard to see it as anything but that.
That these things help the people of Syria and Iraq is very hard to imagine.
AMY GOODMAN: What do you think has to be done to solve the crisis, the humanitarian catastrophe,
in Syria?
NOAM CHOMSKY: In Syria, it's a terrible catastrophe.
And, you know, unfortunately, there isn't a lot that can be done about it.
There are some things that can be done.
I mean, the idea that you can send in the Marines and bomb and so on, that has a small
problem.
If you do, you probably set off a nuclear war, and not only is Syria destroyed, the
rest of Syria, but the rest of the world, too.
So there's a little difficulty in that scenario, whatever one thinks about the justification
for it.
So what can be done?
Well, one thing that can be done, which is really easy, very easy, is to take care of
the people fleeing from this disaster.
I mean, there are huge numbers of people fleeing from the disaster.
What do we do about them?
Make sure they don't come here, you know, kind of like people fleeing from--you know,
my relatives, in fact, fleeing, trying to flee from Eastern Europe under the--before
when the Nazis were coming along.
"We don't want 'em.
Not here."
You know.
So the Syrians don't come--maybe a tiny trickle, but very few come here.
Europe's not that much better--in fact, pretty horrible, too.
So one thing you could do is just take care of the people who are fleeing the disaster.
Another thing you can do is provide humanitarian aid for those in the region.
Now, there are countries who are absorbing refugees, remember, like take Lebanon.
It's not a rich country like us.
Poor country.
About 40 percent of the population are refugees, many of them fleeing from the Israeli wars
as far back as '48, many--huge number of Syrians.
Jordan, another poor country, has absorbed a huge number of refugees.
Turkey has a couple of million.
Iran has accepted refugees.
So there are very--there are poor countries that are accommodating refugees, but not the
rich countries.
The rich countries, it's not our business, certainly not us.
It's even a more serious problem with regard--for us, moral problem, with regard to Central
America, but let's keep to Syria.
So another thing you could do is provide badly needed aid and assistance for those who have
succeeded in fleeing the disaster, or who remain in parts of Syria where survival is
possible, but are living under horrible conditions.
Now, that's all cheap and easy, a tiny fraction of increasing the military budget to cause
more destruction.
Now, the other thing that can be done and is being done is to try to support local efforts
throughout Syria at local ceasefires, just to lower the level of violence.
That's happening in different places.
Yeah, maybe the people don't like each other, but people sometimes like to survive.
And there are accommodations worked out, and they could be helped.
A broader possibility is to try to pursue the negotiations that will lead to some kind
of diplomatic settlement.
Now, there have been efforts, but they're mixed.
And there probably--can't be certain, but there seem to be possibilities that were dismissed.
So, for example, in 2012, there were reports from former Finnish minister Ahtisaari--has
a very credible record of involvement in international peacekeeping--who claimed that the--that
a republic--that a Russian diplomat had proposed a settlement in which Assad would be eased
out in the course of the negotiations, and some settlement would be reached in which
the Assad regime would be ended.
That was apparently dismissed without comment.
The U.S. and Britain and France just assumed at that point that they could overthrow the
Assad regime.
They didn't want to have anything to do with it.
That's the report.
The report appeared in England--as far as I know, it was never even reported here--by
good reporters.
Is it true?
Who knows?
Got to look into it to find out whether it's true.
You have to inquire.
You have to pursue the options, if they exist.
And they weren't.
But there are things that could be done, not what we would like to see.
You know, it would be nice to see: "Here's a solution that will make everybody happy
and end the destruction."
But those just don't seem on the possible agenda, because--for all kinds of reasons,
including the threat of a very serious war if Russia and the United States don't act
in a high level of concert in pursuing whatever they may be doing.
0
3
7
8
14
16
23
29
36
37
40
46
52
58
65
68
72
76
79
87
88
95
101
109
116
119
126
131
133
138
141
144
149
150
152
159
167
170
177
185
192
196
199
203
209
211
218
219
226
232
233
238
246
248
250
254
258
263
265
267
273
274
280
287
289
296
297
301
307
314
315
321
327
334
336
342
344
348
352
356
359
366
372
375
377
381
382
383
386
392
394
400
402
403
409
411
414
420
426
427
431
438
439
446
447
452
455
462
463
464
471
473
477
481
487
494
496
497
498
499
504
508
513
518
524
527
529
536
541
546
549
552
558
560
564
571
572
580
586
589
596
598
605
611
614
619
622
630
631
637
644
655
662
672
679
683
686
693
694
695
697
702
703
705
706
708
709
712
713
718
724
725
735
746

View file

@ -0,0 +1,208 @@
AMY GOODMAN: As President Trump prepares to mark 100 days in office, we spend the hour
with the world-renowned linguist and political dissident Noam Chomsky.
I spoke to him on Monday night at the First Parish Church in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
We talked about climate change, nuclear weapons, North Korea, Iran, the war in Syria and the
Trump administration's threat to prosecute WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.
I began by asking Noam Chomsky about his comments that the Republican Party is the most dangerous
organization in the world.
AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to ask you about this comment that you made that the Republican
Party, you said, is the most dangerous organization in world history.
Can you explain?
NOAM CHOMSKY: I also said that it's an extremely outrageous statement.
But the question is whether it's true.
I mean, has there ever been an organization in human history that is dedicated, with such
commitment, to the destruction of organized human life on Earth?
Not that I'm aware of.
Is the Republican organization--I hesitate to call it a party--committed to that?
Overwhelmingly.
There isn't even any question about it.
Take a look at the last primary campaign--plenty of publicity, very little comment on the most
significant fact.
Every single candidate either denied that what is happening is happening--namely, serious
move towards environmental catastrophe--or there were a couple of moderates, so-called--Jeb
Bush, who said, "Maybe it's happening.
We really don't know.
But it doesn't matter, because fracking is working fine, so we can get more fossil
fuels."
Then there was the guy who was called the adult in the room, John Kasich, the one person
who said, "Yes, it's true.
Global warming's going on.
But it doesn't matter."
He's the governor of Ohio.
"In Ohio, we're going to go on using coal for energy, and we're not going to apologize
for it."
So that's 100 percent commitment to racing towards disaster.
Then take a look at what's happened since.
The--November 8th was the election.
There was, as most of you know, I'm sure, a very important conference underway in Morocco,
Marrakesh, Morocco.
Almost roughly 200 countries at the United Nations-sponsored conference, which was--the
goal of which was to put some specific commitments into the verbal agreements that were reached
at Paris in December 2015, the preceding international conference on global warming.
The Paris conference did intend to reach a verifiable treaty, but they couldn't, because
of the most dangerous organization in human history.
The Republican Congress would not accept any commitments, so therefore the world was left
with verbal promises, but no commitments.
Well, last November 8th, they were going to try to carry that forward.
On November 8th, in fact, there was a report by the World Meteorological Organization,
a very dire analysis of the state of the environment and the likely prospects, also pointed out
that we're coming perilously close to the tipping point, where--which was the goal
of the--the goal of the Paris negotiations was to keep things below that--coming very
close to it, and other ominous predictions.
At that point, the conference pretty much stopped, because the news came in about the
election.
And it turns out that the most powerful country in human history, the richest, most powerful,
most influential, the leader of the free world, has just decided not only not to support the
efforts, but actively to undermine them.
So there's the whole world on one side, literally, at least trying to do something
or other, not enough maybe, although some places are going pretty far, like Denmark,
couple of others; and on the other side, in splendid isolation, is the country led by
the most dangerous organization in human history, which is saying, "We're not part of this.
In fact, we're going to try to undermine it."
We're going to maximize the use of fossil fuels--could carry us past the tipping point.
We're not going to provide funding for--as committed in Paris, to developing countries
that are trying to do something about the climate problems.
We're going to dismantle regulations that retard the impact, the devastating impact,
of production of carbon dioxide and, in fact, other dangerous gases--methane, others.
OK.
So the conference kind of pretty much came to a halt.
The question--it continued, but the question was: Can we salvage something from this wreckage?
And pretty amazingly, the countries of the world were looking for salvation to a different
country: China.
Here we have a world looking for salvation to China, of all places, when the United States
is the wrecking machine that's threatening destruction, in--with all three branches
of government in the hands of the most dangerous organization in human history.
And I don't have to go through what's happened since, but the--in general, the
Cabinet appointments are designed to--assigned to people whose commitment and beliefs are
that it's necessary to destroy everything in their department that could be of any use
to human beings and wouldn't just increase profits and power.
And they're doing it very systematically, one after another.
EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, has been very sharply cut.
Actually, the main department that's concerned with environmental issues is the Department
of Energy, which also had very sharp cuts, particularly in the environment-related programs.
In fact, there's even a ban on posting and publishing information and material about
this.
And this is not just at the national level.
The Republican Party, whatever you want to call it, has been doing this at every level.
So, in North Carolina, a couple of years ago, where the Legislature, mostly thanks to gerrymandering,
is in the hands of the Republicans, there was a study.
They called for a study on the effect of sea level rise--on what sea level rise might
be on the North Carolina coast.
And there was a serious scientific study, which predicted, in not--I forget how many
years--not a long time, about roughly a meter rise in sea level, which could be devastating
to eastern North Carolina.
And the Legislature did react, namely, by passing legislation to ban any actions or
even discussion that might have to do with climate change.
Actually, the best comment of this--I wish I could quote it verbatim--was by Stephen
Colbert, who said, "If you have a serious problem, the way to deal with it is to legislate
that it doesn't exist.
Problem solved."
AMY GOODMAN: MIT professor Noam Chomsky, author of the new book, Requiem for the American
Dream.
We'll be back with Chomsky in a minute to talk about the threat of nuclear war, North
Korea, Iran and more.
Stay with us.
5
11
15
22
28
33
41
43
48
54
55
59
62
70
78
79
87
88
92
100
103
112
118
122
123
128
129
136
137
139
141
142
148
149
156
159
164
172
174
181
193
202
210
213
219
223
228
234
242
250
255
259
266
267
276
283
287
292
298
305
311
313
319
326
332
341
349
351
356
362
368
370
377
385
389
397
406
411
415
420
426
434
440
447
448
451
457
466
471
479
481
488
495
498
505
510
516
523
524
525
533
534
538
541

View file

@ -0,0 +1,114 @@
Sung- Wake uo...not time for sleeping...
Abel: Do you think the reawakening social justice concerns
in the Catholic Church speaks to a paradigm shift
something like we saw- particularly in Latin America with the Catholic Church
there,
a focus on liberation? Noam: There's a good test of this.
In 1962 with
Vatican II- Pope John the 23rd
introduced a very substantial paradigm shift.
He tried to restore the Gospels to the church.
They'd been essentially eliminated, except in form.
since the 4th century, when the Roman Empire
took over Christianity, as soon official religion,
This is a major change and it was picked up in Latin America, as you say,
became most (often) called liberation theology. Priests and nuns
lay people went out talk to peasants
set up groups in with a group of peasants would read the Gospels, think about their
radical pacifist message. There is a reason we're Christians were persecuted
for three centuries- gospels is a radical...
It is basically radical pacifism
with its preferential option for the poor. They tried to restore and
what happened? Well, the US went to war
fought a bitter, brutal violent war against the Church.
If we had Free Press. that's the way they present it.
It started out with hope, you know,
a long listed religious martyrs.
There's another photograph,a painting over there which depicts them.
The overthrew governments, the institutional of
Neo- Nazi style dictatorships; a major war against the church
which ended, sort of, in 1989
with the assassination of six leading
Jesuit intellectuals by a- what we should call them a terrorist group.
A US-backed, US trained, US Armed battalion
in El Salvador which it is come from
renewed training at the Kennedy School counterinsurgency warfare
acting on official orders of the Salvadorian command,
very close to the US Embassy. I don't have to attribute this to the US government,
it accepts this. The School of the Americas which
trains latin-american officers, killers basically,
one of it's talking points is that the US Army helped defeat Liberation Theology.
Okay that's what happened when the church
tried to return to the gospels. It's not happening now
and the reason is that so far nothing much is happening.
What's happening is...you know, I like the fact that the tone has shifted.
there's more... better words about social justice but
we have to see if it crosses the point
where it leads to, say organizing people to
insist on their rights and to
pursue the path love preferential option for the poor,
take a gospel seriously, if it gets to that point,
then I think we'd see the same reaction.
twitter @so1idaritymedia
good
3
4
8
12
15
20
20
24
28
31
34
37
42
45
49
54
59
62
67
72
75
79
83
87
92
96
99
102
105
110
114
119
123
129
132
136
140
145
149
153
156
162
165
169
173
178
182
186
190
193
197
201
206
213
220
229
237

View file

@ -0,0 +1,992 @@
after transmission teacher actions
live on youtube good afternoon everyone today
we continue with the cycle the other policy this cycle is part of the
international seminar of the ongoing online training program promoted
by the international research center other voices in education
from venezuela the cooperative of educators educators and researchers
popular historical researchers from Argentina and the research center
Eduardo del Rio Rius without regret from Mexico this international seminar of
online training takes place all week on Mondays with the cycle on
trade union historical memory on Tuesdays with the cycle on the other days politics
Wednesday with the other education tomorrow we will have the presence of the French
Pedro director of the ices and unesco is paid on Thursdays with the cycle that
We call other insurgent voices this Thursday will be discussed on the youth
today and on Fridays the international contact group coordinated by
leaders and union leaders of Latin America '
the faculty of humanities of the university of panama has decided that
this seminar the other politics and each of its encounters are part of
the contents of the course on public policies and social participation of the
Master of Social Sciences with an emphasis on educational policy
contemporaries that develop the faculty of humanities of the
university of panama that is to say this lecture by doctor chams that forms
part of the training of students and students of this master's degree
vice-rector for extension of the university of panama has decided
certify each of these seminars those who participate in 70% of the
courses every Tuesday for this you must interact in the youtube chat
of other voices in education and in each of the facebook
organizations that carry out these seminars this seminar and the
organizations that we promote the international center other voices in
education the historical popular educators cooperative and the simple being
try to encourage critical thinking and develop political alternatives
educational and union organizations in the face of neoliberalism when we are going to send a
strong hug also the difficult moment that Mexico is living today with a
very important earthquake especially in the south zone for the comrades
brothers and sisters especially from oaxaca we send here from this barefoot that
we carry out strong support, enormous support for this situation so
complex that are living at the low complexity of the parador pandemic and
joins fellow comrades is this horrible situation so go a
warm hug from the entire alliance for mexico
well today we have the honor enormous honor the presence of chongqing
intellectual, linguist, philosopher, political scientist, and activist from the
1,928 since 1945 he studied linguistic and mathematical philosophy at the
University of Pennsylvania received his doctorate in 1955 after leading
conducted most of his research at the University of
Harvard in 1998 received an honorary doctorate in linguistics from the
rovira and virgili university and received this same distinction in numerous
universities around the world the work and life done and we can
divide into two large planes not obviously separated but are
related because it is always positioned against the structures of
power and oppressor of the dominant groups either in the theoretical plane
philosophical as well as political one has to do with the field of linguistics and
the other with his political commitment and activism against US policies
in 957 with only 29 years they are who revolutionized the field of linguistics
history with his theses on logical structures of theories
linguistics would not be published until 1,975 his linguistic and psychological theory
derived from central assumptions of structuralism as well as of psychology
behaviorism with typical forgiveness noam chomsky became interested in politics very
early age stimulated by the free readings and guides of the
Spanish anarchists exiled in New York
defines himself as a supporter of the anarchist tradition especially of
the labor orientation current of anarchism anarcho-syndicalism and is
member of the famous revolutionary union of americans ted and
ww although he is a great critic of capitalism especially with politics
outside the U.S. was in 1967 when he began his inclusion in activism
politician totally opposing the participation of the United States in the war of
vietnam from this he produced his essay book entitled the responsibility of
intellectuals for which he obtained great recognition is associated with the law
new left and was therefore arrested several times for his activism
against the war although he has published numerous books and articles against
neoliberalism and neoliberal globalization imposed by the US as another
great work of the North American intervention Joyce who has asked
USA and Canada lift economic sanctions imposed
to cuba and venezuela so we are beyond proud
to this great intellectual and thinker of reference throughout the world in our
dear noam chomsky and ezekiel
other
in question
question
and that it is important to note that the focus of everything is currently on the
the issue of the pandemic and therefore the crucial question that people ask is
how the pandemic is going to change everything from this great event
three cool questions is rock and roll
expression of condemnation that is like that of both projectiles of 23 teachers
sainz test in which 26 predictions was the next to an robots wars and things
[Music] first the question would be for
what is a pandemic after all is important the crucial thing now is to find
the reason for its origin since it was predicted in 2003
after the sars case that was so serious then scientists are
predicting a similar event due to global warming
factors that led discharge
but it is not, we are not
God
the one world water is water black white list
two
There are basically three factors that have led us to this situation in the
2003 it was understood that it was very possible that this happened and there was a
knowledge to deal with it however currently knowledge
is not enough and someone has to be willing to act in relation to
This, then, what do we mean by big pharmaceuticals that are governed by
a logic of capital that if something is not profitable or cannot be voted on
profit because it simply cannot be developed or should not exist
it is
that problem
if the drug companies the pharmaceutical companies
they are being excluded due to this logic of capital
The obvious alternative is the government that counts for the resources and thus has the
means to develop this this cost effective solution
which is not rigid by capital, however, there exists because this thought the
neoliberal that taking alpes to the presentation of the former president
President Reagan in which he simply said that the government is the
problem that you can not leave things in the hands of the government so we have
this limitation also by the government
game
or [Music]
physically
the worst of the control replay
United States
for ever ready
henceforth because I feel that private companies are excluded
due to the logic of capital and government is excluded by the logic
liberalism then as how governments can react to
this reality the cases are known china reacted by producing its own
drugs in search of the solution in their vaccine was that the eastern countries of
Asia Oceania also the response of other countries varied however because
another slower way is valid in the case of in the western hemisphere usa and
emblematic brazil in their reaction to the case
of the pandemic
and me
at 12
stream sonar ex ignore by law
by sea [Music]
Mr
i
in the case of countries in the hemisphere where things can be done with them
call from outside or outside the reaction are those countries in which things
are out of control and these two are countries that are led by fans
extremists where they are willing to open the economy
In search of profit and power we can mention for example the case of the stock market
In Brazil, since the numbers are very high in deaths from the pandemic, then
His answer was simply who cares in the case of the president of
trump in the usa seeing the numbers so high just what he said was then
that the tests were stopped for I have no more cases arise these are the
countries where things are a little out of control
and nothing is together
m
with
the werder elements claim in crisis funding hans op 64 false field in
destroy
then the world awaits us after the pandemic in the case of the most
powerful in the history of the United States as the president of Trump said that in
February when he produces his new annual budget he will continue
withdrawing its fund from the entire international initiative to develop some and
that will then continue to provide funds for everything that is the initiative
militaristic and nuclear weapons in a nutshell
[Music]
in that direction
of is
efe
the tukkers
in a theme a theme that unifies everything that refers to the new proposal of
US budget first distribute in the system
health for people for the simple fact of not being profitable so it can
Therefore, it does not make sense, we will have a center to control
diseases are still planted for the public and return to subsidize from a
open way all that is seeking
fossil energy as part of making the capitalist initiative profitable
also the regulation of environmental controls and this must be
highlight the malicious nature of this mentality in removing all
the regulations on air quality controls in the environment in
full pandemic of a health nature where health is greatly affected if
these industries are active and pollute the air more than
which is already apart from the condition of 5,019 land for
know if you allow me to add to what is important what the doctor says
Chomsky is that reducing regulations to
controls of the contaminations did it at this moment with under the mask of
that the economy was going to be reactivated if there were regulations, the
economy but that is why it is the malicious character they hide behind the
reactivation of the economy and thus seek to justify what they are
politics is moving thanks
rain
quest
i
[Music]
16 h
from saint marc
its T
the media have described the cuts destroy the world where you kers
[Music] if really all elements that is
It is important to note that we already mentioned the subsidy to everything that the industry
fossil as in the destruction of public health systems and the
increase the military budget and give that last blow to the remnants the
gun control plan that had been evident for 30 years which all
translates into new contracts for the government since the new countries
would also serve as a means of continuing to direct public funds to
the large arms industries and thus leading us to a new career
nuclear to armamentism again
and me
video
[Music]
expert
i
[Music]
two
marks [Music]
reuters
weapons
[Music]
efe that's the broom
If there are some basic principles of this neoliberal doctrine, we must take
in consideration above all because greed greed and
apart from that because the goals of that greed
keep pace with corporations is simply established by explaining that
seeks to expand profits for members of private
these then new owners of the government at the time leaders like
thatcher and reagan simply as they expressed the need
that private sectors had control of the economy and it is understood that
that Karl Marx in the 16th century criticized for turning this intention of
turn the population into simple sacks of potatoes the inhabitants and in this
more modern times the minister of brazil simply good talks that there is
a whole private structure within the government
I don't know if Luis wants to add something to
very well thanks
singh you
exact konami
[Music]
well
and os windows
then the main thought or the main slogan below the government
except when we need it and it tells us to look for other
mechanisms to protect ourselves and we have a very important lesson from this
pandemic which is that the result of the following that there is state violence
more and economic plans than in the same as
It was ceded in Austria between the two great wars in the 20th century
it is something common doctor chams that rafael there is something that seems important to me when
teaches that the idea of neoliberalism is to remove the government from
center not but control is the hands of individuals but simply
when they need the government they use it again to protect them for
that says that neoliberalism and state violence go hand in hand
as is happening at the moment there was no very strong economic crisis that
we are still not out of it and what did the entrepreneurs and the
Senators both Democrats and Republicans
they wrote trillions in money to entrepreneurs to get back that
power that control they had, they do not want it, the government does not work but
used when they need to rebuild
the gourd today
[Music]
[Music]
i
[Music] fusion
and in the attempt
wang wei
if he is the main idea or what moves
really because this movement of change can really lead to
exemplify it through the case of austria in the 20th century
because it was a moment in which it was led with a strong movement
which was destroyed by economic forces to make way for
new to new forms of government such as fascism such as that of mussolini
it can be said that the establishment of these friendly dictatorships of good
intentions because in many cases it was said that they were the ones that saved
europe at the time
efe
I'm going to take two layoffs
with months
Well, to do it in a fairly simple way if we go to the pages
website of the institution fan page is we need to understand that many of the
things that are explained there after saving civilization because
important is to save the structures not the people
important is the collective in its logic
yes no but but the idea that he added in that web page is that he was told to
people in those moments where they were destroying governments like the
Austrian Social Democrat that after saving society those of the
black shirts that were type of clothing that they wore in which
supported those fascist dictatorships were going to return and disappear from the
scene no and unfortunately we realized that it did not happen that way or there
neither with hitler nor with mussolini thanks reflex
l
you are not
d
[Music]
this is the sun
efe
Nine dollars
with a crack why
[Music]
because there is a compromise it could be called that this neoliberalism
somehow it will bring violence as in the case of Chile for
exemplify cliche cases without going into more detail
Well, torture chambers and money from foreign investors
thus caused the Chilean industry to change
However, by ignoring Feinmann's anxiety, I do not completely
they privatized the copper industry, which we know that somehow
helped anyway in 1982 it should be remembered that there was a destruction
total of its economy is what in the end because it causes all this
trans
[Music]
two
two
as soon as this neoliberal experiment had problems, it was seen as a
establishment of a system that we know prevailed for 40 years with the
Reagan and Thatcher doctrine has caused enormous instability
suffering and discomfort worldwide due to the way in which the
same visit the world
they admire
abroad
i
and in this
we wish
i
[Music] 6
[Music] as
[Music]
h [Music]
and luis huerta there are also para para and para also for translations and
we are doing aybar son louis and of course rafael is great in price he added
what I think may be importing now of the contextualize effect
we continue
Okay
hc we see with concern that all genders in davos switzerland are therefore
concern of these elite groups of the world because in their private environments
where they argue for 40 years they have held hegemony in the past
January there was concern due to the follow-up of a nuisance at the
world against capitalism and as it would be a new issue the issue was the
development of new companies that work in a more humane way in which
propose to privatize everything for the benefit of humanity this is the
new we could say doctrine
so if it is something that appears important than doctor chams that
is pointing out is that generally in each year they met in Switzerland in a
teacher to ski and all that what the people of the capital met and
congratulated each other to point out how well they were doing
In their managing the world, in fact, the Salesians are the owners of the world of the
universe but that this year in January was different because they started talking about
the concern they had as the masters of the universe for the resistance
the social uprisings that people were doing against the
capitalism as a system, not for that reason what Rafael says very rightly that
recognized that for 40 years they have made mistakes and that they were going to be now
now more this humanitarian companies not that they were going to work for the people
with doctor chams I know
we had the story of war z 'extralegal our activity repression harting of
bernal only short rhythms to require regional
natural de los de textiles del arenal software corporation neuer extract
gordi with software
when there is a private eye cherry bomb order
by politicians
if I wanted to refer to a term
because if looking at history 60 years ago
companies switched to them throughout this long period of time when
his thinking predominated approximately these 40 years and they were perfected because
somehow his way of selling himself to the public then this term
software that is human corporations or corporations or businesses
with the human being in the middle or in the center of its activity
it is like a proposal that they had originally made and that they will
retake it they have wanted to sell that it is going to be retaken they are going to rule the world
putting people at the center for your personal benefit they will offer you
that you are going to have a role in everything else, however they are going to dominate what
is at the end the story and something to point out is that that story was the
counted 60 years ago in 1960 when capitalism was emerging again
has a lot of force after the second world war we were told that
companies were that kind of concern for people they did not work
for people etc they have spent 60 years and now what the one mentioned in
davos switzerland worried because people were resisting capital
so now they told us that once again they will be human enterprises like
you said they are concerned that people are well participate
etcetera etcetera but but doctor chams says that we are going to wait for others
60 years to realize that the same thing happens then the state repeating that
in reality the data the facts that we see are not important or do not take them
in consideration people
reuters / eric light
two
vigor
with sporting
two
i
2 warner crisis the lord all softly
is to collect the crises then through the ebro has come the new ever
yes this is very important to make an illustration of three major themes that
we are living the first is that we are in a crucial moment
capitalism is fighting a very fierce class struggle
to ensure that the post-pandemic world is a world
totally according to his vision and second this represents a possible end of the
organized movement an organized social moment for reasons well enough
governments and thirdly because there is a crisis
that will also be intensified by the hammer of the
capitalism in the same way and I would like to add how important
It is the vision that they share with us, we take advantage of it, how to be the world
After this pandemic passes, it is a great question, it is very important because
because capitalism right now as it illustrated when it said it
remove the regulations here in the US for example in the middle of the pandemic that is going to
help production for example oil companies companies
that companies that extract fossils from fossil energy and it is a class struggle
what is he doing against people all over the world and then what will happen
if they actually succeed in the neoliberal system
triumphs when the pandemic passes because they right now as they do in the
doctrine of the clash which I believe that somehow we have
heard what happens when that shake that the system makes at this moment
we are under the pandemic but capitalism is acting the
neoliberalism is pushing to remove all regulations and it will come
a time when if they succeed they will continue to make excessive profits
all that greed and there will come a time when it will put us in a
instance where we are at the point of the destruction of human life from
democratic societies as we know them
this means the use of new opportunities
efe opportunities for what we can work to order rested ruiz football from
raids ternitz no temple guys road production
To conclude, this is a moment of historical significance where there is a
great opportunity also to focus on the human being their needs their
rights and not only in the profit and the obtaining of returns
to put it this way and because at the same time it is some
presents great challenges as Rafael mentioned it is a historic moment
It also gives us opportunities and we should think about the possibility of
build in this case on the social resistance that is emerging
in many countries of the world even here in this country in the usa many people from
power I'm like in a trance I'm in shock I don't know how to describe it because people
he is protesting he is moving he is articulating he is acting
jointly and that did not happen then that is the opportunity for example that
Dr. James points out that because if we can take advantage of this moment that
we are living with resistance in the system we can get to establish
better a new social order where the needs of beings are important
humans not just corporate profits
fernando
do your good but it is
ok fernando, in 5 minutes he has to go to
another good interview was not for questions but
maybe in a dialogue we can get it out but then the happiness that is grateful
really this conference the proposal now of this cycle of the other politics
It is also in asking some questions, yes, we can pass
quickly to the questions and thank Rafael Cardenas teacher of the
english apartment at the university of panama public intellectual and doctoral student
in humanities and social sciences panama university and keeps them
listen to them associate professor of critical pages and multiculturalism that
They were doing this translation and we can move on to the questions all three
questions we had belen tanus the word is shown
educate popular and hungary dora and institute history teacher left
with any of gonzalez Argentina member of the cooperative of
educators and mentors can you historic llc sorry for interrupting you
professor chomsky has to leave in five minutes
well then I don't know if it would be nice to fire him thanking him and
between us handle the questions of the participants I do not know why he does not go
to be more time but yes to think if suddenly a final message is to say
a message to the teachers and with that those audiences do if it is a final message
from doctor chams that for the teachers of latin america and of all
the world ok
you want to tell races
Benefits
wayne
newman sprint
Just be show racing jordi young expert welcome to end
rising
[Music]
racing in the arc
the street
will
[Music]
[Music]
there luis if you can translate
If you are not seeing the final message, it is that we are living in a moment
unique historical and that some of the things have to be resolved by
For example, the great risk that still exists in the pandemic that is active and
very still as affecting many population of the world
we have another big risk another big threat is
the environmental crisis that continues to deteriorate and continues to generate many
problems at the world level and the other is the risk or threat that exists with the
issue of nuclear war not because of the investment you are making in
these moments especially in this country but he says that the essence of the
hope we have time but not much
actually say a couple of decades to decide what kind of world we're going to have
or how are we going to change the world we have
louis ask him if you can do it just a final greeting to close
regards
He left and I think he was in a hurry for two degrees
good to thank you obviously are with this masterful lecture by chomsky as
We said at the beginning this is part of an alliance between the center of
research and international other voice of education
venezuela the cooperative educators popular researchers historical de
Argentina and the international education center of the regidor del rio sin
third and this this talk of this conference today is part
precisely from an international seminar of online training programs and the
Tuesday is the other policy today we had with chomsky on Tuesday who will be
with Juan Carlos Monedero tomorrow will be the day of the other education where
we will have the presence of francesc pedro director of the ies' la de unesco
On Thursdays we are with the cycle that we call other insurgent voices that
this Thursday he will speak about today's youth on Friday the
international contact group coordinated by leaders and leaders
trade unions in Latin America and on Mondays the cycle is about historical memory
union all these as we said are
sanctified by a city of Panama and is the cycle of permanent formation in
line that operates all week from Monday to Friday 3 p.m.
Mexico 4 in the afternoon venezuela time and 5 in the afternoon -Argentine time- we invite
also to enter our pages of the national center of other voices in
education of historical ceip in the face and that of simple being so that they can
see all the information we have on the seminars we are taking
go ahead so well thank you all for being and we will be
seeing we are seeing tomorrow at the same time in the cycle as he just said
classmates from another education so we thank everyone for being
thank you very much thank you very much thank you very much rafael also thanks to
work them
thank you thank you thank you luis 2
thanks thanks
0
21
28
33
38
42
46
51
56
61
67
72
77
82
86
90
93
99
103
107
110
115
120
123
129
133
136
142
147
151
156
161
166
171
177
183
188
193
198
205
212
217
222
226
231
235
240
244
248
252
257
261
267
272
278
283
288
292
295
300
305
309
313
319
325
330
335
339
343
349
353
356
361
368
378
393
399
403
409
414
422
431
445
454
460
465
470
478
488
505
515
522
544
549
554
561
566
569
576
584
599
628
663
668
673
678
685
690
696
702
707
712
724
736
743
759
764
772
778
782
787
795
800
806
812
816
820
824
850
860
879
889
901
907
915
922
926
931
938
943
948
954
958
964
992
999
1009
1018
1023
1029
1034
1039
1046
1049
1078
1125
1143
1156
1163
1170
1175
1180
1185
1192
1196
1202
1209
1216
1220
1227
1232
1238
1244
1250
1257
1261
1267
1273
1283
1286
1300
1334
1340
1355
1372
1380
1391
1396
1402
1408
1415
1419
1424
1429
1435
1443
1452
1459
1470
1477
1484
1495
1503
1508
1520
1529
1540
1549
1556
1564
1568
1576
1581
1587
1591
1598
1606
1612
1617
1621
1628
1633
1641
1657
1677
1683
1692
1698
1704
1709
1714
1720
1726
1734
1738
1743
1748
1752
1758
1763
1766
1773
1777
1782
1797
1817
1832
1836
1845
1863
1875
1882
1890
1895
1899
1906
1912
1917
1923
1928
1952
1968
1978
1986
1994
2000
2006
2012
2020
2024
2029
2033
2037
2042
2063
2066
2070
2083
2092
2112
2124
2127
2135
2140
2147
2152
2156
2162
2167
2172
2178
2184
2196
2203
2208
2232
2243
2252
2258
2263
2270
2278
2289
2301
2313
2327
2339
2352
2358
2362
2366
2371
2377
2385
2391
2394
2399
2405
2411
2418
2422
2427
2431
2436
2441
2446
2450
2457
2461
2469
2475
2480
2486
2491
2495
2501
2507
2518
2525
2538
2544
2555
2559
2576
2583
2590
2597
2603
2609
2614
2619
2625
2633
2638
2647
2655
2659
2663
2668
2672
2677
2681
2686
2692
2698
2704
2713
2718
2725
2736
2742
2751
2757
2768
2774
2779
2785
2790
2798
2803
2806
2812
2821
2826
2830
2834
2840
2844
2852
2857
2862
2867
2871
2877
2879
2884
2888
2893
2897
2909
2916
2927
2935
2941
2946
2954
2959
2964
2969
2973
2981
2986
2991
2996
3000
3005
3009
3016
3019
3027
3030
3036
3043
3049
3053
3059
3063
3066
3070
3075
3080
3084
3087
3093
3097
3102
3107
3113
3117
3122
3125
3141
3154
3161
3168
3183
3189
3196
3206
3214
3220
3236
3246
3251
3257
3263
3270
3276
3281
3288
3294
3298
3305
3308
3313
3319
3326
3336
3341
3346
3350
3354
3359
3364
3369
3376
3380
3385
3390
3396
3400
3403
3408
3411
3416
3422
3428
3433
3438
3442
3446
3451
3459
3465
3470
3476

View file

@ -0,0 +1,994 @@
someone streaming teacher actions what
live on youtube good afternoon everyone today
we continue with the cycle the other policy this cycle is part of the
international seminar of the ongoing online training program promoted
by the international research center other voices in education
from venezuela the cooperative of educators educators
and popular historical researchers from Argentina and the
eduardo del rio rius research center without regret from mexico this seminar
international online training takes place all week on Mondays
with the cycle on union historical memory on Tuesdays with the cycle on
the other policy on Wednesday with the other education tomorrow we will have the
presence of frances pedro director of issste and unesco leaves on Thursdays
with the cycle that we call other insurgent voices this Thursday will be discussed
on today's youth and on Fridays the contact group
international coordinated by leaders and linear leaders of Latin America '
the faculty of humanities of the university of panama has decided that
this seminar the other politics and each of its encounters are part of
the contents of the course on public policies and social participation of the
Master of Social Sciences with an emphasis on educational policy
contemporaries that develop the faculty of humanities of the
university of panama is to say this conference of doctor champ that forms
part of the training of students and students of this master's degree
vice-rector for extension of the university of panama has decided
certify each of these seminars those who participate in 70% of the
courses every Tuesday for this you must interact in the youtube chat
of other voices in education and in each of the facebook
organizations that carry out these seminars this seminar and the
organizations that we promote the international center other voices in
education the cooperative of historical popular educators and the simple being
try to encourage critical thinking and develop political alternatives
educational and union organizations in the face of neoliberalism when we are going to send a
strong hug also the difficult moment that Mexico is living today with a
very important earthquake especially in the south zone for the comrades
brothers and sisters especially from oaxaca we send here from this alliance
that we carry out strong support, enormous support for this situation so
complex that are living at the low complexity of the parador pandemic and
joins fellow comrades is this horrible situation so go a
warm hug from the entire alliance for mexico
well today we have the enormous honor honor presence of intellectual chomsky
US linguist, philosopher, political scientist and activist was born in 1928 from
1945 studied linguistic and mathematical philosophy at the University of
Pennsylvania received his doctorate in 1955 after undertaking the major
part of his research at Harvard University in 998
received the honorary doctorate in linguistics from the rovira university and
virgili and received this same distinction in numerous universities throughout the
world the work and life done and we can
divide into two large planes not obviously separated but are
related because it is always positioned against the structures of
power and oppressor of the dominant groups either in the theoretical plane
philosophical as well as political one has to do with the field of linguistics and
the other with his political commitment and activism against US policies in
1907 with only 29 years jones who revolutionized the field of linguistics
history with his theses on logical structures of theories
linguistics would not be published until 1975 his linguistic and psychological theory
derived from central assumptions of structuralism as well as of psychology
behaviorism with typical forgiveness noam chomsky became interested in politics very
early age stimulated by the free readings and guides of the
Spanish anarchists exiled in New York
defines himself as a supporter of the anarchist tradition especially of
the labor orientation current of anarchism anarcho-syndicalism and is
member of the famous American and revolutionary union east
www.cristinaonline.com and 967 when it began its inclusion in activism
politician totally opposing the participation of the United States in the war of
vietnam from this he produced his essay book entitled the responsibility of
intellectuals for which he obtained great recognition is associated with the law
new left and was therefore arrested several times for his activism
against the war although he has published numerous books and articles against
neoliberalism and neoliberal globalization imposed by the US as another
great work of the North American intervention what he has asked
United States and Canada lift economic sanctions imposed Cuba and
Venezuela so we are beyond proud
to have this great intellectual and thinker of reference throughout the world in our
dear sancho and ezequiel
attention for
is in question world of all the question forums
and that it is important to note that the focus of everything is currently on the
the issue of the pandemic and therefore the crucial question that people ask is
how the pandemic is going to change everything from this great event
three questions
then
He is an expert in pandemics such as the projectiles of 23 teachers of Federico
sanchez in the index impressions was the next a robot awards and things
[Music] first the question would be for
what is a pandemic after all is important the crucial thing now is to find
the reason for its origin since it was predicted in 2003
after the sars case that was so serious then scientists are
predicting a similar event due to global warming
factors that led from blatantly to each other
but it is not, they are not new god
extreme football waner libertadores water black white
west
eleven
football for the sterling and m2
There are basically three factors that have led us to this situation in the
2003 it was understood that it was very possible that this happened and there was the knowledge
to deal with it however currently knowledge is not what
enough and someone has to be willing to act on this
So what do we mean by big pharmaceuticals that are governed by
a logic of capital that if something is not profitable or cannot be voted on
profit because it simply cannot be developed or should not exist
oops
that's the problem
if drugs companies pharmaceutical companies
they are being excluded due to this logic of capital
The obvious alternative is the government that counts for the resources and thus has the
means to develop this profitable solution that is not rigid by capital
However, there is therefore this neoliberal thought that, taking it to
to the presentation of former president reagan
in which he simply said that the government is the problem that cannot be
leave things in the hands of the government so we have this limitation
also by the government game
[Applause]
issues
basic adherents
the replay
the worst of Greece
for ever ready
if you feel ahead because I feel that way that private companies
are excluded due to the logic of capital and the government is excluded by
the logic of liberalism then as how governments can react
Faced with this reality, the cases are known, China reacted by producing
own medicine in search of the solution in his vaccine just like the
countries of east asia oceania also the response of other countries
varied however, since other slow forms such is the case of in the
western hemisphere usa and brazil emblematic in their reaction to the case
of the pandemic
it's me with a glass globe
chris ware 12
beijing
in stream sonar ex
by law
by sea
tucker
in the case of the countries of the hemisphere where things where they can
call from outside or outside the reaction are those countries in which things
are out of control and these two are countries that are led by fans
extremists where they are willing to open the economy
In search of profit and power we can mention for example the case of works
Now in Brazil, the numbers are very high in deaths from the pandemic
because simply his answer was who cares in the case of the
president of trump in the us seeing the numbers so high just what
He said it was then that the tests were stopped so that they would not have us more
cases these are the countries where
things are a little out of control or not at all
on the balance sheet
laughs
Wow
then the world awaits us after the pandemic in the case of the most
powerful in the history of the United States as the president of Trump said that in
February when he produces his new annual budget he will continue
withdrawing its fund from all international initiatives of
development of some and that it will then continue to provide funds for everything
what is the militarist initiative and nuclear weapons
in a nutshell [Music]
lesson
of is
[Music]
2 reuters
in a theme a theme that unifies everything that refers to the new proposal
first of all destroy the US budget system
health for people for the simple fact of not being profitable so it can
Therefore, it does not make sense, we will have a center to control
diseases are still planted for the public and return to subsidize from a
open way all that is seeking
fossil energy as part of making the capitalist initiative profitable
also the regulation of environmental controls and this must be
highlight the malicious nature of this mentality in removing all
the regulations on air quality controls in the environment in
full pandemic of a health nature where health is greatly affected if
these industries are active and pollute the air more than
which is already part of the condition of 2019 and delays the
If you allow me, is to add that the important thing there is what the doctor says
Chomsky is that reducing regulations to
Pollution controls did so at this time under the mask of
that the economy was going to be reactivated if there were regulations, the
economy is not why it is the malicious character they hide behind the
reactivation of the economy and thus seek to justify what they are
politics the one that is moving thanks
this [Music]
efe
[Music]
oops
[Music]
from saint marc
just
so the media have described the cuts destroy the world where you kers
if there are really two elements that it is important to highlight that we already mentioned
the subsidy to everything that the fossil industry because in the destruction of the
public health systems and the increase in the military budget and give
that last blow to the remnants the gun control plan that had
evident for 30 years which all translates into new contracts for the
government because the new countries would
also as a means of continuing to direct public funds to large
arms industries and thus leading us to a new nuclear race and a
weaponry again
and me
[Music]
[Music]
[Music]
i
marks [Music]
reuters
two
two
two
price racing that the broom
If there are some basic principles of this neoliberal doctrine, we must take
in consideration above all because greed greed and
Apart from that, the goals of that greed, where does it lead us?
the corporate guru as he simply stated it by explaining that
It seeks to expand the profits for the members of private these these new
government owners at the time leaders like Thatcher and Reagan
simply because they expressed the need for private sectors to have the
control of the economy and it is understood that Karl Marx in the 16th century his
criticism of converting this intention to convert the population into simple
sacks of potatoes is inhabitants and in this more modern era the minister of brazil
simply good talks about the fact that there is a whole private structure within the
government I don't know if you want to add something louis
very well thanks
singh me
monthly
konami
i
[Music]
and 2
then the main thought or the main slogan below the government
except when we need it and it tells us to look for other
mechanisms to protect ourselves and we have a very important lesson from this
pandemic which is that the result of the following that there is state violence
more economic plans that is the same as I wish occurred in Austria between the
two great wars in the 20th century komen doctor chams that there is something to rafael
that it seems important to me when teaching it that the idea of
neoliberalism is to remove the government from the center, but control is the hands
of individuals but simply when they need the government they use it
new to protect them that is why he says that neoliberalism and
violence the state goes hand in hand as is happening at the moment no
There was the very strong economic crisis that we are still in, we have not come out of it
and what the businessmen and senators did
Both Democrats and Republicans wrote trillions in money to the
entrepreneurs to regain that power that control they had was not
they want the government does not work but they use it when they need to rebuild
the gourd
dyn [Music]
[Music]
two
[Music]
d
[Music] fusion
and in this
6
one way
if he is the main idea or what moves
really because this movement of change can really lead to
exemplify it through the case of austria in the 20th century
because it was a moment in which although a strong movement was led
which was destroyed was economic forces to make way for
new to new forms of government such as fascism such as that of mussolini
it can be said that the establishment of these friendly dictatorships of good
intentions because in many cases it was said that they were the ones that saved
europe at the time
efe
I'm going to take I describe take
name is it you
Well, to do it in a fairly simple way if we go to the pages
web of the institution fan gleizes we need to understand that many of the
things that are explained there after saving civilization because
important is to save
the structures not the people the important thing is
the collective in its logic if not but but in the idea that
added in that web page is that people were told at those times where
they were destroying governments like the Austrian Social Democrat who
after saving society from the black shirts who were kind of
clothing worn by those who supported those fascist dictatorships were
to return and they will disappear from the scene no and unfortunately we gave ourselves
He tells that he did not pass from saman from there neither with hitler nor with mussolini
thanks efe
l
or are you
d
[Music]
[Music]
[Music]
the one with the sun
[Music]
from my
Nine dollars
I don't know why [Music]
because there is a compromise it could be called that this neoliberalism
somehow it will bring violence as in the case of Chile for
identify cliche cases without going into more detail
since the structure chambers and the money of foreign investors and
the geese therefore caused the Chilean industry to change
However, by ignoring the anxiety of priman completely no
they privatized the copper industry, which we know that somehow
helped anyway in 1982 it should be remembered that there was a destruction
total of its economy which is what in the end then causes all this
trans
[Music]
two
working
as soon as this neoliberal experiment had problems, there was a
establishment of a system that we know prevailed for 40 years with the
doctrine of wigan and touch has caused enormous instability
suffering and discomfort worldwide due to the way in which the
same
and admire two suites
[Music]
Hello
news corporation
efe
[Music] 6
[Music]
h [Music]
and luis huerta also and for and for also for the translation
so we are doing there is a louis couple who watched the truth is that this
Rafael is great the price added what I think may be an importer was
of perfect context
we continue
Okay
hc we see with concern that all genders in davos switzerland are therefore
concern of these elite groups of the world because in their private environments
where they argue for 40 years they have held hegemony in the past
January there was concern due to the follow-up of a nuisance at the
world against capitalism and as it would be a new issue the issue was the
development of new companies that work in a more humane way in which
propose to privatize everything for the benefit of humanity this is the
new we could say doctrine
so if it is something that seems important than we authorize it to be
pointing out is that generally in each year they met in Switzerland in a resort
to ski and all that what the people of the capital met and congratulated each other
each other to point out how well they were doing in their driving the
world in fact are excellence for the owners of the world of the universe but
that this year in January was different because they started talking about
concern that they had as the masters of the universe for the resistance
social uprisings that people were doing against the
capitalism as a system, not for that reason what Rafael says very rightly that
recognized that for 40 years mistakes have been made and that they were going to be now
now more this humanitarian companies not that they were going to work for the people
take descriptions that order
we had the story before exteriors igal our activity repression rating of
bernal only short beats to require human
nature angels
textiles of the software corporation neuer extract
2 [Music]
is prohibited
are corrected
if I wanted to refer to a term
because if going to history 60 years ago
companies changed them throughout this long period of time when
his thinking dominated approximately these 40 years and they were perfected because
somehow his way of selling himself to the public then this term
software human embeddings
to companies with the human being in the middle or in the
center of its activity because it is like a proposal that
they had originally made and that they are going to take it again they have wanted to sell that
to be retaken they are going to rule the world putting people at the center to
your personal benefit they will offer you that you will have a role in everything else
however they will dominate what is in the end the internal and something to
point out is that this story was told 60 years ago in 1960 when the
capitalism was emerging again with great force after the
Second world war we were told that companies were that kind of
concern for people did not work for people etc have not passed 60
years and now what the Swiss have mentioned they worried because the
people were resisting capital so now they told us again
account are going to be human enterprises like you said that they are worried that
people are well participate etcetera etcetera but but the doctor says we raise
that we are going to wait another 60 years to realize that what happens
same then the state repeating that in reality the data are the facts that
we see are not important or do not take them into consideration
people
rounders light
two
rightnow vigor
sporting
two
l
2 letting the crisis arm the lord of
plan give me is to collect the crises so today the new mistress has come through the black
yes this is very important to make an illustration of three major themes that
we are living the first is that we are in a crucial moment
capitalism is fighting a very tough class struggle
in a way that ensures that the post-pandemic world is a world
totally according to his vision and second this represents a possible end of the
organized movement a social movement organized for reasons
quite obvious and thirdly because there is a crisis
that will also be intensified by the hammer of the
capitalism in the same way and I would like to add how important
It is the vision that the chamos share with us that what the world will be like after
what happens in this pandemic is a great question is very important because because
capitalism at this time as illustrated when he said remove the
regular regulations here in the United States for example in the middle of the pandemic that will
help production for example oil companies companies
that companies that extract fossils from fossil energy and it is a class struggle
what is he doing against people all over the world and then what will happen
if they really succeed if the neoliberal system
triumphs when the pandemic passes because they right now as they do in the
doctrine of shock 'which I believe that somehow we have
heard what happens when that will shake what the system does at this time
we are under the pandemic but capitalism is acting the
neoliberalism is pushing to remove all regulations and it will come
a time when if they succeed they will continue to make excessive profits
all that greed and there will come a time when it will put us in a
instance where we are at the point of the destruction of human life from
democratic societies as we know them
racing meters this means two achievements or the new
opportunities this opportunity because it is we can work to order will rest ruiz
Ternitz raids football no temple and wish road production
To conclude, this is a moment of historical significance where there is a
great opportunity also to focus on the human being their needs their
rights and not only in the profit and the obtaining of returns
to put it this way and because at the same time we
presents great challenges as Rafael mentioned it is a historic moment
It also gives us opportunities and we should think about the possibility of
build in this case on the social resistance that is emerging
in many countries of the world even here in this country in the usa many people from
power I'm like in a trance I'm in shock I don't know how to describe it because people
he is protesting he is moving he is articulating he is acting
jointly and that did not happen then that is the opportunity for example that
Dr. Sessions points out that because if we can take advantage of this moment that
we are living with resistance in the system we can get to establish
better a new social order where the needs of beings are important
humans not just corporate profits
what fernando
do your good
ok fernando, in 5 minutes he has to go to
another interview very good in condition for questions but
maybe in a dialogue we can get him out of the bar then congratulate and
thank or insane this conference the proposal now of this cycle the other
politics is also in asking some questions if we can
go quickly to the questions and thank Rafael Cardenas teacher of the
english department at the university of panama public selector and doctoral student
humanities and social sciences panama university y les guardas
marry them associate professor of critical couples and multiculturalism who
was doing this translation and we can move on to the questions all three
questions that we had of slow light and we are each the word is to educate
popular and hungary dora and history teacher of the institute left with joaquin
gonzalez argentina member of the cooperative of educators and mentors
Well, historical llc, sorry for interrupting that Professor Chomsky
has to go in five minutes well then I don't know if it would be
good to say goodbye to thank him and between us to handle the questions of
the participants I don't know why he won't be there longer but I do think and
if suddenly a final message ask the teachers for a message and with that
those audiences does if it is a final message from Dr. Chams that for the
teachers from Latin America and around the world
you mean terraces
big benefits
weiss
in this
racing
the expert the com
rising risk observed band mix we know where you guys and william a
waiting
2 discreet is serious
[Music]
question
there luis if you can translate
if it is not saying as a final message it is that we are living in a moment
unique historical and that some of the things have to be resolved by
example the great risk that still exists with the pandemic that is active
I still eat like affecting a lot of the world's population
we have another big risk another big threat is the environmental crisis that follows
deteriorating and continues to generate many problems at the world level and the other is
the risk or threat that exists with the issue of nuclear war not because
investment that is being made at the moment especially in this country but
he says the essence of hope we have time but not much
actually say a couple of decades to decide what kind of world we're going to have
or how are we going to change the world we have
louis ask him if you can do it just a final greeting to close
is
she left and I think she was in a hurry she's hard
good to thank obviously is with this masterful conference of champs that as
We said at the beginning this is part of an alliance between the center
international research another voice of education
venezuela the cooperative educators and popular historical researchers
Argentina and the international education center of the river without third and this
this talk of this conference today is part of a seminar
international online training program and Tuesdays is the other
politics today we had with chomsky on tuesday off we will be with juan carlos
purse tomorrow will be the day of the other education where we will have the
presence of francesc pedro director of ies' la unesco on Thursdays
we are with the cycle that we call other insurgent voices that this Thursday
the contact group will speak about today's youth on Fridays
International coordinated by leaders and union leaders from Latin America
and on Mondays the cycle is about the union's historical memory
All of these, as we said, are certified for the University of Panama
and it is the cycle of permanent online training that works all week from
Monday to Friday 3 in the afternoon Mexico time 4 in the afternoon and Venezuela and 5
in the afternoon -Argentine time- we also invite you to enter our
the national center for other voices in education of historical ceip in the face and
the simple one to do so that they can see all the information that we carry from
the seminars that we are carrying out so well, we thank
all and all to be and we will be seeing each other we are seeing tomorrow in the same
hour in the cycle as the colleague from another education just said so
we thank everyone for being
thank you very much thank you very much rafael also thanks to working the first
thank you thank you thank you luis 2
thanks thanks
0
21
28
33
38
41
45
50
55
60
65
71
77
81
85
90
93
99
103
107
110
115
120
123
129
133
136
142
147
151
156
161
166
171
177
183
188
193
198
206
213
217
223
228
232
236
240
244
248
252
257
262
266
272
278
283
288
291
295
300
305
315
319
325
330
335
339
343
349
353
357
361
368
378
389
403
409
414
422
426
432
446
454
460
466
470
478
488
505
522
529
533
538
549
554
562
566
570
576
584
598
628
663
669
672
678
687
693
698
703
708
720
725
735
743
749
764
771
776
782
787
795
799
804
809
816
820
829
841
848
855
859
876
901
907
916
922
926
931
938
943
947
953
956
980
1003
1014
1018
1023
1029
1034
1037
1045
1049
1092
1125
1149
1156
1163
1170
1175
1180
1185
1192
1196
1202
1209
1216
1220
1227
1232
1239
1244
1250
1257
1261
1267
1273
1286
1306
1326
1343
1350
1355
1372
1379
1393
1399
1405
1411
1416
1421
1424
1429
1437
1443
1469
1477
1484
1491
1503
1508
1517
1521
1528
1539
1549
1556
1564
1570
1576
1582
1589
1594
1602
1608
1614
1620
1628
1633
1637
1646
1662
1678
1683
1692
1698
1704
1709
1714
1723
1731
1736
1741
1745
1749
1754
1760
1764
1770
1775
1782
1786
1797
1808
1816
1833
1836
1845
1857
1863
1875
1882
1890
1895
1899
1906
1913
1917
1923
1928
1952
1965
1978
1986
1994
2000
2003
2008
2015
2021
2026
2031
2035
2039
2045
2063
2066
2070
2083
2092
2098
2102
2114
2118
2124
2129
2140
2147
2152
2156
2161
2167
2172
2178
2184
2196
2203
2208
2235
2243
2252
2258
2263
2270
2276
2304
2318
2337
2346
2352
2362
2366
2371
2376
2383
2387
2391
2394
2399
2405
2411
2418
2422
2427
2431
2436
2441
2446
2452
2458
2464
2471
2475
2481
2486
2491
2495
2501
2507
2518
2526
2530
2542
2547
2554
2559
2576
2583
2590
2597
2603
2607
2611
2617
2622
2629
2636
2643
2652
2657
2661
2665
2669
2674
2679
2684
2689
2695
2700
2703
2713
2717
2728
2736
2747
2751
2757
2768
2774
2779
2785
2790
2798
2802
2806
2812
2821
2826
2831
2835
2840
2844
2852
2857
2862
2867
2871
2877
2879
2884
2888
2893
2897
2905
2914
2925
2935
2941
2946
2954
2959
2964
2969
2973
2980
2986
2991
2996
3000
3005
3009
3016
3019
3027
3030
3036
3043
3049
3053
3059
3063
3066
3070
3075
3080
3085
3088
3095
3099
3104
3110
3114
3119
3125
3136
3155
3161
3170
3174
3183
3196
3203
3220
3235
3246
3251
3257
3263
3271
3276
3284
3291
3296
3303
3308
3313
3319
3324
3336
3341
3346
3350
3354
3359
3366
3371
3377
3381
3386
3392
3396
3401
3404
3409
3413
3419
3425
3430
3436
3441
3444
3449
3455
3459
3470
3476

View file

@ -0,0 +1,294 @@
is the 15 companions to your music the secretary of relations
that the honor of presenting the watch goes everyone already knows well the honor of
to present to that press conference professor jones that that is a
of the most important intellectuals in the contemporary world is a great sausage
emeritus professor philosopher from several North American institutions and to
in addition to this your intellectual academic production of relevance
very important for humanity is a political activist is socialist
libertarian defender of the good causes of humanity
he gives us the honor of coming to Brazil especially to visit the
president squid here in his prison in addition to having participated in a seminar that
was held last friday in sao paulo is and we too having the pleasure
everyone already knows how to present our minister senator aloisio
merchant who also accompanied the teacher shows that on the visit the
president squid and both can give the statements the president's messages
squid and eventually answer questions and we also have mine with valeria
wasserman that the teacher's wife who is also an activist who is
we don't have the honor of having a
and she will translate the questions and answers of the
professor joseph now though his king if anyone wanted to
get ready to do the favor feel free because I'm already tired
after all and the claw of the meeting for an hour if anyone wants it like that
to stay I think it's useful from Brazil because it's going
having daughter plaid wrestling heh heh mmc viviane the village is a boris journalist
matter if opel was media in brazil is political the body
from the land at 20h
report chelsea to the great place to run spanish to organs of the year 1986 a bow
wow
joao rocha novo with a shock in this important book
now chatroulette is expected and they were waiting 80 school and look just twisted will
take a long time, but I think it also leads to FIFA because I was able to remember
mine because this is the difficulty of reading already touched the raw rock I will not do
like this but I ask everyone afterwards he will answer and now he will
produce August but it is summarizing what the president said here attacks
squid suffered during the period he was in government
this retreat from the press didn't give a break and it's important that this
type of press does not retain it is more balanced, right, because they say that
only constant criticism throughout his government
summarizing the sporting coach but what the hell civilians island of brazil intellects
the time of things rio the brazilian is already expecting class leadership
Northern intellectual we should not expect leadership from the
intellectual class liu tian xi colloquium of people like you
was one of the top 10 popular movements luiz cruls all movements
popular grow or another or san antonio by bus delivered some
often join movements and, together with their voices, sexual and
Bruno cellulite and night for example civil rights in the united states
everything around the year didn't start as intellectuals us history started
with some black students sitting on the streets next in restaurants
while the rest of the Englishman were arrested and taken to other students
bruno's children came are soon you had a number of students to a
absurd brothers project direct to in July 2011 were able to vote volts trump
of the goal is to register to pull out the best deal that was extremely dangerous
the production of grape sound adopt the use of peeling on the face and another of the own
ian core the time to hear from a little bit of that
the time today to perform more that started to appear
the exit then was the pilot is jack black raulzinho who started to unite
to social movements we discuss and this is the way I think that
changes happen this way thank you I'm not President Lula's and
how about what they talked about to sum up in a confrontation in the bucket exchange business
even today the spiritist group was a wonderful experience
it's not true a nixon i used in the years following the game
whoever changes is not every day that you find an extraordinary figure of a
21st century
royce kick the next to you that the person with the right should be the next
Brazilian President
remains optimistic in athletic know and infinite many clear plans for the
future the mother sister of andre santos
the imam corrected me i reminded him when we met 20 years ago and all
month of blood life that the government banque he said he never thought that
could be elected
he was elected at home leaving bogota in the filter area and this is an indication
of what can happen in the future
look I have some messages from President Lula
first it was extraordinary to follow the dialogue of 15 intellectuals
lushan president squid but he said he has conviction was actually won
election he is excited about the campaign
think that fernando our candidate purpose his candidate even in
excellent performance a lot of dignity and a lot of consistency with a lot of
tranquility he wins the hearts of the rectors every day more than ours
military militancy a vehicle we will win the elections that in
truth will be the next president of brazil
he is also asked that the militancy do not just wait for the research that
Canada will stay alive nor will I watch the campaign.
the clay mass on the street hitting from house to house and work because the future of
Brazil depends on these next 17 days of the campaign that shows everything is going
very well in the campaign another great asset the big difference that we
we have is the militancy of social movements is the militancy of the pt
we have to go to the street forwarded showing that the option that is
a landmark a culture of respect for diversity dialogue with the difference that
allows plurality but that Brazil needs peace and that the path of peace and
fernando haddad presence in brazil are the dogs and cats that he asked for the
process is you and it is very difficult for me to know since the mid years
70 see the squid at a time like these people
that he on the street and that he wants from the republic locked in a cell
of 15 square meters but he is much bigger is a giant and
nothing is going to choose the pace is one thing he said I
I want to ask you guys it's amazing that he gets bigger
American intellectuals of the contemporary world and comes to
parliamentary leaderships from everywhere from everyone more representative
parliamentary leaders coming or four ex ministers and ex ministers of europe
this week in Brazil defending his freedom and denouncing injustice
and that the Nobel Peace Prize Pope Francis sent him a third
of a book and nobody goes to the newspaper's palace
nobody visits this coup government so I think of the world and the UN and the show
is saying is free squid the people want the world also about the woman spoke
something about this polemic of pardon no he said he already sent more
of a letter making his position very clear he is an innocent man and
who believes in his innocence and that's why he didn't take refuge in the embassy
he came to face in justice and in the courts because he is sure that he
will prove innocence because what has happened so far is to run over deadlines
agency will prevent him from being a candidate to phrase the true truth
of this process and everything that was built to prevent it from being the
presidential election shift candidate
however does not want to include the check proving innocence that justice recognizes
who gave and will fight for it and I'm sure
that this is also the commitment as I said that fernando haddad the work
will fight along with so many intellectual and political leaders and as advice
of human rights the UN has already said for the freedom of squid has I don't know if he
is alone in a more optimistic scene today after meeting in an economy
I thought more optimistic with 166 in the last year
is not a source of energy and in the exam but the violent episode is with him a
great experience
happened the last time they met if today insurance has little
entered twice with the saints the object of the icomon of the colleges years
running like that was just the embu film where he spoke for the future
for him for the squid doesn't seem like his thirst a sentence but it seems to be
prepared to board as if it were a board to catch my hinterland
bicolor leather it all illegal and with the help of you people how can you
become a reality, we leave there with a broken heart and willingness to
cry but the smile his strength is so energetic that we leave more
motivated when he becomes a giant and the courage he has of innocents who
invented is facing with head up and justice despite little 1916
skeptical about the school he did an assessment of anac or in what he always
demanded today he must be in the lead to create a free society with light
of you talked about what the polls are announcing so
present the candidate there the one that we don't
speak the name in front ooo save from going up you
commented on this, went on to detail more of researches have a lot of information but
I think that at sea the historical experience of Brazil none
candidate who has experienced such extraordinary growth in such a short time
to command detained in those little more than a week that he is candidate and has a
reason clear this legacy from the pt government the strength of our party militancy the
third old militants of social movements and the will of the goal of flame is
squid heart of the people part po non-resident
android has grown a lot and has an avenue to keep pressing can
stop just an Angolan flag I take a whole gap
human rights socialism and freedom
i draw zinho
8
16
23
29
35
42
48
53
58
63
69
76
83
86
93
99
104
108
114
120
124
130
137
148
158
174
219
230
245
252
255
259
264
269
273
280
288
291
301
322
328
336
343
349
355
361
370
375
384
396
408
415
422
427
430
436
443
449
457
463
469
473
476
481
498
504
508
516
520
523
533
540
544
551
558
562
566
571
577
582
584
593
598
604
609
614
619
623
628
634
637
643
647
650
656
663
668
672
676
682
687
694
698
703
709
715
721
725
733
738
742
747
749
753
757
761
766
771
778
788
797
802
808
816
823
828
833
838
844
849
856
863
875
887
894
899
906
911
914
918
924
929
936
941
948
963
969

File diff suppressed because it is too large Load diff

File diff suppressed because it is too large Load diff

View file

@ -0,0 +1,150 @@
The current situation is very serious,
you don't have to tell anyone in Spain.
The virus, we should understand
as the result of a colossal market failure.
It is important to understand the context
if we want to avoid future reappearances
of catastrophes like this.
At some point, it will end,
but the cost can be very high.
It was known that there was very likely to be a pandemic,
including one for coronavirus.
It was something pretty obvious to scientists
after the SARS epidemic in 2003.
The genome was sequenced and a vaccine was created,
and it was all over, but the cost was very high.
And it was immediately predicted that other coronaviruses would appear
and that we should prepare for it.
The foundations were laid,
but there needs to be someone to pick up the testimonial and move on.
Who did it?
No one.
We will recover from all this,
we have recovered from worse pests,
the cost will be terrible, but we will partly recover.
Maybe we'll even recover completely in a long time.
The courage and heroism of those who fight on the front lines
against the pandemic,
Doctors, Nurses, Health Workers,
they are admirable.
Local communities have organized and helped each other.
Schools are closed,
the children are at home, the parents cannot work.
But in this kind of situation,
in which we live in a very fragile system,
which can go awry if nothing goes wrong
but in which everything collapses when there is a catastrophe,
education will also collapse.
And we have much deeper problems
about the kind of education system we want.
Do we want a society in which we treat children
as containers where we pour water and something comes out of it?
Or we want an education system that encourages creativity,
participation, cooperation
and encourage you to meet your goals
and take advantage of the possibilities
that open before you to pursue your interests?
I don't think it's a matter of telling them,
but to provide them with the stimuli and opportunities
for them to follow their own creative instinct,
so that they explore the world as much as they can,
on the Internet if it is the only one they have;
to do creative activities,
such as writing, drawing,
or build things that help them understand the world.
This can be done at any level.
For example, there is an interesting project
which has been done with older students
in which the following question is asked to them:
How does a mosquito fly in the rain?
If we calculate the pressure exerted by a raindrop
about a mosquito,
that can be calculated,
it is so large that it would crush a human being.
So how does a mosquito fly in the rain?
As they study it they learn a little physics,
a little bit of biology, of our organisms, and so on.
Many similar projects can be done,
which give children the opportunity
to satisfy his natural curiosity
so that they can make them understand things about the world.
And it can be done in all areas.
Literature, History, whatever.
That should be education, and it can be achieved.
Of course at home, where there is no interaction between children,
it is more difficult, but not impossible.
3
7
12
17
22
26
31
35
39
43
48
51
56
60
65
69
73
77
79
84
85
86
88
91
95
100
103
105
110
111
115
117
122
123
127
130
134
136
139
143
146
152
156
161
164
168
172
175
181
186
190
196
198
202
206
209
212
216
221
225
228
230
232
237
240
243
248
251
254
257
262
266
269
273
277

File diff suppressed because it is too large Load diff

View file

@ -0,0 +1,122 @@
and i know you once a day i dunno the first amendment external speech was one
intel really the the civil rights movement for those were so real ik protest en
peak is typical for architects 5
for the en prostalife eye for detail and this is not just a given you first me
thousand product freedom switch the first amendment jury the keys
create history what you area context for the speech of the furthest mine
accelerating tenzing wanting to excel there was a theory to the century
that's you starter reaching the bike or
and scream for the early statements model this boring freedom of
speech the workmen cents and spray our burners and rain soak because you want
was a chill pc printing civil rights movement there
power we stand at the fever and pond polluters
I so in times who anoint my king sixty four the
supreme court for the first time a struct and the principle of sorts
becomes less so with pear and quiet thousand games
a little chain pull that's about word '
this and the wild create where the fair
1916 line and jump corfetti but the faster you cut the knife over my rich and
famous impacting freedom of speech cushions or we ku klux klan cees
idenburg are a party and the week was speech and the greater in
established lesbian lovers also speak to you
I curl up participation and implement with him
ewan own white we store and now I want a menu become small and you sea
shake let's not permitted speech need pc media and course which flexible
my hands dirty prince on our exactly how winter with the jelly the
fridge speechen beat your query shirt became a specific topic with
these ring issues are so far posters are following a neo-nazi
your in lecture it is something too clean use billboard in
times square in new york about the no time square they had to
look cities crematoriums so you have the beeper in the middle an object myself there quickly
means calling a kiwi here this morning
professional but a feeling is who the deal with it for speech
there is a black one with drugs tomorrow and then men
thrust are upon us in an ever human party crawley
jan a whole culture and they have their protection of freedom speech
got swimmers and two-wheelers so mister neo-nazi
group just go it reve gray and economically you cook
wages and witches full of luck or they stay back on a brown and is notice
illustration tell me in spree and nelis cru middle
that is all of you they want to quarrel
tony simmer to know where i will organize the car demonstration
script s'posed the group plus cryptologist cuddly euro and you see that
the barry white whale aboutaleb not on and
is a posts i say block the easy way in an a location to acetyl
label for cheating the that sometimes know
it is that the best tactic to pick them up case and many more exposure is one
while sleidinge nathaniel i'm s'pose so two crossed just haven't
and willy trio we can buy the channel from the new york times
loic rose the viewer and they finally carol it works here earlier you like this
long course new concerns will make the production
villains to mulder people in hiding places I give my sister the sweetest rinus
the one that repeopled your profile from the manly
criminals pc criminals how they did what i we are short when
you major newspaper you see your fans our post
quenched up and jon bon for the people curious
take risks banish you run l so let's be the worst criminal ever
bodies the cosmic worked with x need a pointer
the nash us curling like is a dutch around that the music u
[Music] yes
beautiful
[Music]
0
5
11
14
21
28
34
42
46
54
61
65
70
77
84
89
95
101
108
114
120
127
133
141
149
156
164
168
173
179
186
191
198
203
209
215
221
229
235
240
246
253
262
265
270
273
278
285
293
302
306
312
317
323
327
334
340
346
353
357
361

View file

@ -0,0 +1,842 @@
Judy Cole: Welcome to the Faculty Forum Online, a program of the MIT Alumni Association.
I'm Judy Cole, the EVP and CEO of the Alumni Association and I will serve as moderator.
Our viewers of today's conversation include MIT alumni, friends, friends of MIT libraries and the
general public. Any MIT alumni who wish to ask a question, enter your name and question
and we'll try to get to as many questions as possible. The general public is encouraged
to share their questions on Twitter by using #mitfaculty. Our guest today is Noam Chomsky,
Institute Professor Emeritus in the Department of Linguistics at MIT. Professor Chomsky is
an author, political activist, and philosopher, and he created the field of modern linguistics,
the scientific study of language. He is also the subject of the Chomsky Archive, a recently
launched MIT Libraries project to preserve and digitize the lectures, personal papers
and materials he has donated to MIT's Institute Archives and Special Collections. Professor
Chomsky, welcome. Could you start by telling us what you hope readers and researchers will
draw from these historic items?
Noam Chomsky: Well, the archives include everything I could think of. Endless amounts of correspondence,
the hard copy of the maybe 20 years ago and it starts mostly to be electronic. Books,
papers, class notes from most of 60 years, notes or talks, lengthy transcripts of discussions,
and probably tapes of things like this. What I hope people will be able to do is reconstruct
some of the history of both sides of my existence, both how the linguistics, cognitive science,
modern philosophy have taken the shape they have, and on the other side an ongoing commentary
on what's going on in the world. So lots of data in there.
Judy Cole: No doubt, I'm sure it will provide a rich, rich text of the evolution of your
thinking. Questions are coming in now and as we gather them let me ask a question or
two of my own to start us off. As you may know, we've been doing these forums for years.
Never have we had so much interest from viewers as for this one, nor so many testy responses.
As a public intellectual, you've certainly sparked controversy. How do you decide which
contemporary issues to address?
Noam Chomsky: Well, it's a mixture. Partly it's just personal interest and background.
Partly I try to evaluate what are the most humanly significant issues that we're now
confronting. And some mixture of those two considerations.
Judy Cole: So here's another question. You have been applauded for your boldness and
clarity and your many vigorous public debates are legendary. Is there a favorite debate
that stands out or do you have a favorite opponent, perhaps someone you vigorously disagree
with or enjoy engaging in debate with?
Noam Chomsky: Well the people I enjoy most engaging with are in the so-called, what I
think of as the professional side of my field, so discussions about the nature of language,
the origin of human cognition and language, and lots of lively discussions and debates
about that. Those are pretty constructive.
Judy Cole: So now we are getting them from our alumni. Bob in Leverett, MA, asks...uh,
somehow this isn't scrolling properly, there we go. I value the insights I've learned from
you but every time I hear you speak I feel depressed. How can we change feelings of helplessness
into positive actions that can turn our governments around?
Noam Chomsky: Well the best way to do it, there are several ways. One is to pay attention
to history. Things may look difficult and uncomfortable now but they were much worse
50 or 60 years ago. Take MIT, where we're all from. When I got here in 1955, the Institute
was virtually, entirely white males - well dressed, polite, deferential, relatively formal
relations among people, faculty and students. Take a walk down the halls today, it's radically
different. It's half women, maybe a third minorities, informal relations, informal dress,
which is in fact symbolic of the informal relations among people. Look at the bulletin
boards - calls for engagement in all kinds of issues, at that time, it was virtually
nothing. That's happened all over the world and it's a very positive development. It
didn't happen by itself, it happened by a lot of difficult struggle. Yesterday, Martin
Luther King day, was a good time to recall a very substantial part of it. It was by no
means easy, and there's plenty to go forward. If you look back beyond, there's kind of
a trajectory, with relative progress over the last few centuries. In many respects.
There's also regression, but the best reason for optimism is we've changed things before
and we can do it again.
Judy Cole: It seems like there's a certain impatience in the MIT DNA that wants things
to happen more quickly, so. But you're right, putting it in perspective is what really...
Noam Chomsky: One of the difficulties in the United States is that there's very little
continuity in activism. Everything begins from zero. So take the Occupy movement. It
began with a, it just sprang up, no historical recollection, no, few connections to everything
that happened before. You have to kind of learn everything from scratch. Along with
that comes a feeling that we want quick victories. If you do have this sense of continuity and
struggle, you know it goes back a long time, so take again the civil rights struggle, it
kind of sparked around 1960 when several events, a couple of black students sat at a lunch
counter in Greensborough, North Carolina, others joined and were arrested, others joined
them and pretty soon you had freedom riders in the south, violence, tremendous courage,
registering voters, marches like Selma and so on, and finally some victories. But it
didn't begin in 1960, it goes back to abolition, and that's the way life works, you're
not going to get quick, you can get small changes, but major victories are going to
take time.
Judy Cole: So another alumnus, David in Jerusalem, asks, what influences and which teachers helped
you form your current world views, including your view on the Arab/Israeli disagreements?
Noam Chomsky: Well actually that was a major concern of my life as a teenager. There were
individuals of course, but I was very much involved as a teenager in what was then called
Zionist activism, now it's called anti-Zionist. It was part of the Zion - this is pre-1948,
it was the part of the Zionist movement that was opposed to a Jewish state, and was committed
to some form of Arab-Jewish cooperation at the time within an effort to develop a cooperative
economy, an economy of the kind that was in fact partially developing in Palestine at
the time, the Jewish sectors of Palestine. And there were, there were particular individuals
who were influential, but it was mainly the...simply engagement in the constant activism committed
to those goals and continued from there.
Judy Cole: So, Louis in Massachusetts asks, do you feel your writing has influenced or
directly impacted decisions made by policy makers and what evidence if any do you see
to support this?
Noam Chomsky: The influence is often, the most significant influence is indirect, so
take, say the Vietnam War, a major topic, I was very intensively involved in it through
the 60s and 70s, and many others were too, in fact MIT became one of the leading centers
of opposition to the war, even resistance activities. What was the effect? Well the
effect, it had an effect on bringing the war to an end, very slowly, much too slowly, not
until millions of people had been killed and several countries practically destroyed, but
it did come to an end. If you look closely at how it came to an end, uh, it traces back
to the fact that there was so much opposition to the war engendered by these activities
that the government was never able to call a national mobilization of the kind that was
called during World War II when people really dedicated to the war effort. Well, the national
mobilization is very good for the economy, uh, if you take a look at what happened during
World War II, the war's horror story, if you just look at the economy, industrial production
almost quadrupled, depression was ended, there were jobs for everyone, the basis was laid
for very substantial technological and economic growth in the subsequent years, cause people
were really committed to the effort. In the 1960s you couldn't do that, it wasn't
that kind of commitment. So what was fought was what was called a guns and butter war.
You have to keep the population quiet and at the same time continue with the war. That's
very harmful to the economy. And in fact it led to stagflation. Stagnation and inflation
became the...the internal economy began to suffer. In January 1968, there was a major
uprising in South Vietnam, the Tet Offensive, that made it very clear to the decision makers,
in particular in the business community that this war was going to go on for a long time.
At that point a decision was made to begin to wind it down. Now it ... they don't,
no one says the peace movement pulled the decision makers to wind it down, but the indirect
activities of stimulating opposition concern, dissent, protest, had the indirect effect
of leading to the decision, and in fact we have direct evidence for that. It's pretty
obvious from what happened, but if you look at say the Pentagon Papers, the famous Pentagon
Papers, the record there ends in mid-1968, a few months after the Tet Offensive, and
if you look at those last few sections, they're pretty interesting. What happened is that
the government...these are internal records so not intended to be read, but, the government,
uh, the Johnson administration, wanted to send a couple hundred thousand more troops
to Vietnam after the offensive. The military was wary, they didn't want to do it, and
the reason was, they said that there would, if that happened they would need troops in
the United States for civil disorder control because of the extent of the protest and dissent
among young people, among women, among minorities. They listed the groups they were concerned
with. Well, that's -
Judy Cole: I remember those days.
Noam Chomsky: Yes. That's a way to influence policy. And it happens over and over in complicated
ways, and it's not a matter of, take a trip to Washington and convincing the president
that you should do so and so, you know, they know what you're going to tell them anyway.
But there are indirect ways of, uh, bringing about results. Yesterday's commemoration
of King is a good example. It wasn't a matter of Martin Luther King going to Washington
and convincing Lyndon Johnson to pass the voting rights act. A lot of activism took
place for years, in fact going back centuries, but in recent - in the immediately preceding
years, there was very intensive struggle, activism, popular mobilization, it created
a situation in which certain decisions were made.
Judy Cole: Very interesting, I have to tell you, it's a much more international set
of questions than we typically get. The next one is from an alumnus, Kalil in Saudi Arabia.
What role did the west and the regional powers play in distinguishing the Arab Spring outcries
and flares? Do you think they will rekindle again?
Noam Chomsky: Well the Arab Spring took many different forms. It actually began in the
last African colony, Western Sahara, about a month before the Tunisia, uh, the demonstrations
and protests.
Judy Cole: I didn't realize that.
Noam Chomsky: Well it's not discussed, but it's important that it's not discussed.
There's one colony left in Africa, Western Sahara. It was Spanish. The Spanish left in
1975. It was supposed to go through decolonization under UN auspices, but Morocco invaded and
uh, the, a war began which continues between the indigenous population and the Moroccan
invaders. Morocco transferred arms, a number of people into the territory, hoping to swamp
a referendum if it ever takes place, and this struggle continues right up to the Security
Council. It's one of the cases where there hasn't been significant progress because
there isn't popular activism and mobilization. That's quite significant. In cases where
there has been, there was progress. Back in, I guess it was October, shortly before the
Arab Spring broke out, there was a popular demonstration, a tent city, set up in the
main cities of Western Sahara by the Sahrawi indigenous population. They were crushed by
force very quickly. Went to the Security Council and it was blocked, mostly by France which
is a patron of Morocco. That one ended. Then came Tunisia, then Egypt, then other places,
and the effects varied. So in Tunisia there was, there has been significant progress,
uh, again it's mostly French influenced. French tried to block it, but it didn't
break out, and it continued. Egypt is a complicated matter, they're again, substantial achievements
but a sharp reversal. Egypt's now heading into a very dark period. Saudi Arabia, where
the questioners is, I'm sure the person knows, there were initial attempts at joining
the Arab Spring, very mild purposed, they were crushed by force instantly and nothing
ever happened. In nearby Bahrain, where struggles went on for a while, finally Saudi Arabia
sent troops to quell the uprising, and it, Syria of course turned into the whole monstrosity,
Libya was torn to shreds and nothing left, so the question what happened, well, right
now I think it's kind of in limbo. My suspicion is it's going to, I think there were substantial
achievements despite the regression, and it probably lays the basis for something that
will break out soon. I don't think the current regimes will mostly really dictorial regimes,
have the capacity to deal with the demands of the, the just demands of the population,
for freedom, for economic development, for some degree of social rights, and ...
Judy Cole: The current situation seems unsustainable indefinitely. Maybe a little longer but hopefully
not too much longer.
Noam Chomsky: Well right now the region is being torn to shreds by the repercussions
of the invasion of Iraq. The invasion of Iraq was very devastating for Iraq, but it also
set in motion sectarian conflicts which didn't really exist before. Take a look at Baghdad
in the year 2000. Shiite and Sunni were intermingled, they intermarried, they lived in the same
places, sometimes people living in the...it was kind of like knowing what Protestant sect
your neighbors were in . Some you didn't know. Within a couple of years it turned into
a raging war, now tearing the whole region to shreds. That's going to be very hard
to deal with.
Judy Cole: Indeed. So our next question comes from Geneva. Alumna Simone. What are the fundamental
differences between spoken and invented languages, e.g. Elvish, and what are the main difficulties
in inventing a language?
Noam Chomsky: Well, the concept of inventing a language is very misleading. So take say
the best known one, Esperanto. If you take a look at ta grammar of Esperanto, it doesn't'
tell you the rules of Esperanto, just as if you take a look at a grammar of Spanish, it
doesn't tell you the rules of Spanish. Those almost nobody knows, those are matters of
discovery. To try to find the principles that are really operating when you and I converse
is a problem like finding out what's going on in our visual systems when stimuli hit
our retina and I see a person or a room or whatever, that's very com- you can't interspect
into that. You don't know what it is, you have to discover it from the outside. The
same is true of language. Esperanto is, carries over, when people think they know Esperanto,
what's really happening is they know language, they know their own language, they know something
about common romance languages. Unconsciously. And beyond the level of consciousness, just
like they can't figure out how your digestive system is working, or your visual system or
whatever. So the invented languages are really just the invention of extremely superficial
elements of language, like the choice of words, or the choice of sounds, or the decision what
order to put the words in. These are all facts about language but they're extremely superficial.
What's really happening, say in our interchange, is deep and below the level of conscious awareness,
and it's actually the topic of linguistics and cognitive sciences and brain sciences,
is to try to unearth it. But all of that is taken over unconsciously, when people say
they're inventing a language, what they're doing is actually filling out some of the
superficial details of their actual linguistic knowledge.
Judy Cole: Fascinating. I'm not sure I understand all of that but it was really good. So Michelle
in Philadelphia: what do you think of the impact of the world wide web - what do you
think of the impact that the world wide web has had on language.
Noam Chomsky: My hometown. Philadelphia. I don't think, I mean it's had a kind of
effect in the way that teenage slang has an effect on the language. So there are some
locutions that are used that weren't used otherwise, but languages are constantly changing
in these pretty superficial respects. The web is, use of the web, especially texting
and so on, has probably had some minor effects but the language doesn't change.
Judy Cole: It seems it's sort of in formalized it somewhat in the same way that relations
between people at MIT has become less formal over time.
Noam Chomsky: Well that's a process that's been going on for a long time and it affects
usage of the language but it doesn't affect the language.
Judy Cole: Okay.
Noam Chomsky: The language is the same whether you use it in formal discourse or informal
talk with your grandchildren.
Judy Cole: Got it. So Erik in California asks, what are the long term prospects for the U.S.
economy? The standard of living has been maintained through consumer debt and asset bubbles but
these cannot continue indefinitely. What other obstacles are there?
Noam Chomsky: Well actually consumer debt did rise sharply in this early part of this
millennium, but by now it's not really high relative to GDP. Problems with the economy
are different. Problems are...the problem is that during the, what's called the new
liberal period, roughly the past new generation, productivity has increased not quite as fast
as before, but it has increased, on the other hand it hasn't reached the population. For
the majority of the population it's been a period of relative stagnation or decline.
So a real minimum wages today are at about the level of the 1960s even through productivity
has gotten much greater, wealth has been produced but it's gone into very few pockets. The
last decade, I don't have the exact figures but I think about 95% of the wealth produced,
something like that, went to 1% of the population, and the 1% that people talk about is misleading,
because if you take a look at that 1%, it's heavily skewed towards a tenth of one percent
at the very top, so what's happened is an extreme maldistribution of wealth. Stagnation,
relative stagnation for much of the population and the limited opportunities for work. I
mean there's now a lot of, uh, some, uh, praise for the fact that the unemployment
rate has gone down, which is good but misleading because one of the reasons it's gone down
is that people have just dropped out of the workforce.
Judy Cole: They've given up, yeah.
Noam Chomsky: If you take a look at the proportion of the working population that has good, full
time employment, it's still way below what it should be. I mean, this, you know the financial
access is for the last roughly, actually it goes back 20 or 30 years since deregulation
started, but particularly the last decade have lost trillions of dollars of output,
and those are the problems of the economy. You can see there's much discussion now
about the minimum wage. But some things are overlooked. If you go back to the rapid growth
periods, 1950s and 60s, what's called the golden age of the economy, the minimum wage
tracked productivity, which it should. As productivity increases the minimum wage increased.
As you get to the mid-1970s they start to separate. Productivity goes up and minimum
wage flattens, which means it goes down relatively. If the minimum wage had continued at the rate
of the 50s and the 60s, it would now probably be about $20/hour or something like that,
and that's a reflect- and that of course reflects everything else. AS minimum wages
go down, so do others, and we have a period of, if you take a look at the economy today,
you can see really deep failures. I mean there's a huge amount of work that has to be done,
Drive around the city, the infrastructure is a wreck, schools underfunded, the health
center is an international scandal, way too expensive for what's achieved. There'
s a tremendous amount of work to be done, there's lot of people who want to do the
work, plenty of resources, and it's not happening. The system is so dysfunctional
that massive capital resources, great and willingness to work, vast amounts of work
to be done can't be put together. That's a serious, I mean, we can think of ways out
of that, but the fact that it's happening is a major problem. Consumer debt in contrast
is not a major problem.
Judy Cole: Right, and that has actually gone down more recently anyway.
Noam Chomsky: It's now within a reasonable limit. It did increase briefly during the
housing bubble.
Judy Cole: So I was hearing on the radio this morning about legislation around creating
super PACs, and the ability of anonymous donors to support different political lobbying efforts.
It seems to me that that might be a part of the causes of some of these problems that
you're talking about, getting it all together.
Noam Chomsky: There is a very fundamental problem of the functioning of the democratic
system. There's a very good study of the last election, the midterm election, by two
leading political scientists, Water Dean Burnham and Thomas Ferguson, the major students of
electoral politics, and the figures, the results that came out are pretty startling. It turns
out that voting participation in much of the country is about at the level of the early
19th century. That's a time when voting was restricted to propertied white males.
Judy Cole: That's scary.
Noam Chomsky: It's very scary and what they conclude is plausibly, people have just given
up on the political system. They know that it doesn't do anything for them. And if
you look at other studies, you see the details. So for example an important book came out
a couple of years ago by Martin Gilens, I think he's at Princeton, it's called Affluence
and Influence, it's just a study of how, the relation between public opinion and public
policy. There are many such studies. This is one. What he found, which is what others
find, is that for a large majority of the population, roughly 70% at the lower part
of the income scale, they're effectively disenfranchised. Their representatives simply
pay no attention to their opinions. As you go up the scale you get a little bit more
influence. When you get to the very top, that's where policy is made. And that's closely
related to what you brought up. The elections are basically bought and those who are, uh,
put into office by the massive funding of concentrated wealth are responsive to that
constituency. Actually, this goes way back, it's nothing new. You go back about a century,
the famous campaign manager Mark Hannah, he was once asked what are the important things
for running a successful campaign? And his answer was, he said there are three things
that are important: the first one is money, the second one is money, and I've forgotten
what the third one is. That was over a century ago, and it's gotten much more extreme,
particularly in the light of recent Supreme Court rulings.
Judy Cole: So I'm going to jump around a little bit here and stick with the international
flavor. Tugral in Nairobi, Kenya, asks, media powerhouses around the world use words and
language of exclusion and division such as martyr, religious, and terrorist. Do you think
social media has the ability to counter the divisive language used by mass media?
Noam Chomsky: They can in the same way that popular activism can counter public decisions
that impose repression and oppression. So social...take, say terrorism, social media
- the term is used in almost a certain Orwellian manner, the terrorism means the terrorism
they commit against us but not what we commit against them. So social media, I mean we've
seen this, right, in the last couple of days in regard to the Charlie Hebdo affair. It
was a terrorist act. There are others that we've committed that are very similar that
don't even enter into the discussion. Some are even worse. For example the U.S., and
NATO, bombed and destroyed, put off the air a Serb television station, uh, during the
attack on Serbia in 1999. And killed 16 journalists, about the same as Paris. And there was a reason:
it was producing information supportive of the government we were attacking, okay? That's
not called terrorism. We did it a couple of years later, uh, the U.S. Marines invaded
the town of Fallujah, in Iraq. You take a look at the newspapers just days of the invasion,
very positive reporting, it was described as a noble enterprise. It's still described
that way. It's actually one of the worst war crimes of the millennia. First day of
the invasion, you take a look at the New York Times, there's a picture on the front page
of, which is described in the caption, the picture is patients lying on the floor of
the general hospital, the troops invaded the general hospital, which is a war crime, uh,
took the patients out of the beds, put them on the floor, tied their hands behind their
back. Same with hospital personnel and so on. There were questions from reporters and
there was a reason: they said the hospital was a propaganda agency for the rebels. What
was the propaganda? Producing casualty figures. Well, when we do that's considered fine.
In fact, there's a bestselling movie now, a famous movie that glorifies some of these
things. When if they were to do that to us.
Judy Cole: They would be terrorists.
Noam Chomsky: Oh my God, beyond terrorism. But that's the kind of thing that can be
overcome by popular engagement, and social media is just one form of popular engagement.
Judy Cole: Mm hmm. So going back, let me see, where was I, Jane in Cambridge: how do you
write and how have you managed to be so productive. Was it a conscious goal for you to be prolific?
Do you believe that it's possible to be so politically active while still climbing
the ranks of academia?
Noam Chomsky: Sure. There's no special trick. It's just hard work. It's something anybody
can do if they want to. You have to decide how you want to spend your time. It takes
time for other things, you can't help but doing that.
Judy Cole: Right, there's only 24 hours in a day.
Noam Chomsky: Only 24 hours, but it's very fulfilling in many ways.
Judy Cole: So Jonathan in California asks: do you have any observations or predictions
about the recent warming of relations between the U.S. and Cuba?
Noam Chomsky: Well that's an interesting development. We should look a little bit at
the background. The U.S. has been extremely isolated on Cuba. You take a look at the votes
of the United Nations. Every year there's a vote in the general assembly on the U.S.
embargo in Cuba, basically a blockade. The votes are, you know, 180 to three. The United
States, Israel, and the Marshall Islands or something like that. But it goes on year after
year. It's gotten so extreme. A very interesting development has taken place in the Western
hemisphere in the last ten or fifteen years. For the first time in the last 500 years,
literally, the countries mainly of South America, have begun to extricate themselves from imperial
domination. In the last century or so, that means U.S. domination. They've begun to
move towards integration. They've moved towards independence. The U.S. is, one sign
of it is the U.S. doesn't have a single military base left in South America. The,
uh, and they've begun to confront their very serious internal problems. One consequence
of this is that the U.S. has lost its influence in the continent. If you go back to, say,
1945, where at the end of the second world war, the U.S. was able right away to call
a hemispheric conference in Mexico, where the U.S. virtually dictated what was called
an economic charter for the Americas, designed very explicitly to keep the continent as exploitable
resource base for U.S. industry and enterprise. You can't conceive of doing that now. In
fact the last hemispheric conference, the U.S. and Canada were virtually excluded, and
the next one they may be literally excluded. That's the background for the...Obama's
move toward Cuba. One of several issues which the U.S. has been isolated in the Western
Hemisphere is the refusal to allow Cuba to enter into the Hemispheric system, the rest
of the hemisphere is in favor of that and has been for a long time.
Judy Cole: Well and haven't some of the South American countries been ignoring our
blockade?
Noam Chomsky: They try to ignore it but you can't really ignore it. The U.S. has been
very punitive about the blockade. Not just South America, so, you know if Sweden, to
take a real case, sends medical equipment somewhere that's using nickel that was gotten
from Cuba, that can be punished under the U.S. embargo. It's a very punitive system
and it's been, of course, extremely harmful to Cuba. But on top of that, going back to
terrorism, the U.S. tends to forget that beginning with Kennedy, the U.S. launched a very serious
terrorist war against Cuba. What people talk about is attempts to assassinate Castro, and
yeah, they existed. But that wasn't what it was about. It was blowing up petrochemical
plants, killing a lot of people, sinking ships in harbor, shelling hotels, uh, biological,
probable it's not certain, biological warfare it could be, it's not certain. A very serious
attack. That's kind of out of our, our history, but it's in real history. And that's again
part of the background that went on into the 90s.
Judy Cole: So we're going to, we're running out of time here, but um, we have time for
just one or two more questions I think. I think this is an interesting one. What do
you think is the greatest tool in demilitarizing our economy and our culture?
Noam Chomsky: The human will. It's the greatest tool for any change. But take, say, nuclear
weapons. There are now plans to spend about a trillion dollars in the current coming decades
to upgrade the nuclear weapons system. That's a tremendous threat to survival. I mean it's
kind of a miracle that we've survived the nuclear age. If you look at the record, there
have been case after case where war came very close through inadvertence. So take a recent
case that was just discovered from archival research. In the early 1980s, this is one
of many incidentally - in the early 1980s, the incoming Reagan administration decided
to probe Russian air and sea defenses by simulating attacks including nuclear attacks to try to
determine how they would react and to learn about their defensive systems. They also declared
a nuclear alert intended for the Russians to know it so that they would take it seriously.
Well, this was a very tense moment, it turns out. Pershing missiles were being installed
in Western Europe, a five or ten minute flight time to Moscow. The, of course Russia was
completely surrounded by missiles, Turkey, everywhere. Star Wars, so-called SDI program,
was announced. That's understood to be on all sides a first strike. The Russians took
it very seriously. Newly released archives indicate that there was a major war scare
which was not well understood but it's worse. Just about a year ago, again, archival information
revealed that, you know, in this very tense period, the Russian automated systems which
make huge numbers of errors, errors, detected a major missile attack from the United States.
And the protocol is that that information is supposed to be transmitted to the high
command which then ordered a retaliatory strike. Well there's one human being, his name is
Stanislav Petrov, who received the automated information and decided not to transmit it.
And that's why we're here to talk about it. We don't know how many cases there are
like that but there are, there's a recent study that came out in the Atomic Scientist,
just studying the, whatever data they have, a lot of it is classified, but whatever data
they have from the U.S. systems, from about 1980 to 1983, that period, they found probably
hundreds of cases where there were accidents that could have blown up and they assumed
that it continues. Well this is quite apart from cases where there were really open confrontations
like the Cuban missile crisis, or what might be building up, that's constant. In the
face of that we're now upgrading our missile systems. Just a couple of days ago the Russians
announced that they are withdrawing from a pretty successful agreement in which the U.S.
helped them eliminate dangerous nuclear weapons stores that they had after the Cold War. They're
pulling out of it because of the conflict in Ukraine. That's hazardous. And this is
a case where we know, at least we know the answer of how to end the problem: get rid
of nuclear weapons. And in fact we're committed to that by the non-proliferation treaty. But
we're going in the other direction.
Judy Cole: Like that old movie War Games, where the only winning move is not to play.
Noam Chomsky: Well if the article of the Atomic Scientist starts off by talking about black
swans, you know, highly improbable events that do nevertheless take place. And what
it says is a nuclear war is a black swan. We won't know that there is one until we're
all dead.
Judy Cole: Well going back to the person who asked about how to feel better afterwards,
that's kind of a sad note to end on, but I'm afraid we must. Cause we're out of
time.
Noam Chomsky: It's an optimistic note to end on, and the reason is that this is at
least one problem that we know how to solve. There are others equally serious where it's
not clear that we know, like environmental catastrophes.
Judy Cole: That's very true. So on behalf of the MIT Alumni Association, thank you Noam
for your insights, and thanks to our viewing audience for joining us. For more information
on the Chomsky Archive at the MIT Libraries, visit libraries.mit.edu/chomsky. We encourage
you to continue discussing these topics on our blog, Slice of MIT, by following the link
that will appear on your screen, and on Twitter by using the hashtag mit-faculty. You can
also view an archive of past Faculty Forums Online by visiting the Learn section on the
Alumni Association website. Please join us next month for another session of the Faculty
Forum Online.
3
11
18
26
35
40
49
55
61
67
72
78
84
86
95
104
116
125
136
144
149
156
163
171
178
184
186
193
202
207
216
222
228
232
243
252
259
262
270
280
286
289
296
304
316
328
335
344
353
362
366
374
380
389
397
404
405
410
415
420
428
436
442
451
458
471
476
482
488
496
503
504
512
517
530
538
545
552
562
569
576
583
586
594
600
602
609
616
623
630
639
645
653
660
664
670
675
682
689
696
702
708
714
721
730
738
742
750
757
765
770
776
786
792
800
805
812
818
826
830
831
834
841
848
853
860
870
876
883
890
892
897
905
911
915
923
932
933
934
938
946
954
963
970
975
983
989
997
1004
1011
1017
1025
1031
1037
1046
1052
1060
1067
1074
1082
1088
1095
1101
1109
1116
1121
1130
1131
1136
1146
1153
1162
1166
1171
1178
1179
1187
1194
1195
1201
1208
1213
1219
1226
1234
1241
1246
1254
1260
1268
1273
1281
1287
1294
1304
1310
1316
1323
1326
1335
1340
1344
1351
1359
1365
1373
1378
1382
1386
1391
1393
1395
1401
1402
1412
1418
1421
1428
1436
1441
1449
1455
1461
1468
1475
1482
1490
1496
1504
1514
1523
1528
1530
1531
1538
1546
1553
1558
1563
1569
1578
1584
1591
1598
1605
1610
1617
1624
1632
1636
1640
1648
1658
1664
1669
1671
1674
1681
1682
1690
1699
1705
1706
1712
1719
1727
1734
1741
1749
1750
1756
1761
1767
1774
1781
1786
1794
1800
1805
1813
1822
1830
1837
1846
1852
1858
1864
1868
1875
1884
1889
1894
1903
1910
1921
1927
1933
1939
1949
1957
1968
1975
1985
1994
2000
2006
2011
2019
2026
2032
2038
2043
2049
2056
2058
2061
2067
2075
2082
2088
2092
2098
2104
2108
2111
2113
2117
2122
2125
2130
2138
2143
2152
2157
2163
2171
2179
2185
2193
2199
2206
2213
2219
2227
2237
2244
2252
2259
2266
2273
2276
2281
2282
2289
2295
2304
2310
2316
2325
2332
2338
2349
2356
2363
2366
2374
2378
2383
2391
2400
2407
2413
2422
2429
2436
2448
2455
2461
2468
2476
2483
2489
2497
2508
2518
2527
2532
2540
2547
2554
2561
2566
2574
2582
2591
2599
2605
2613
2623
2628
2636
2643
2644
2650
2657
2664
2671
2672
2678
2681
2682
2685
2691
2694
2700
2706
2714
2720
2727
2732
2738

View file

@ -0,0 +1,740 @@
[Music] ah
here [music]
after 200 years of independence two countries divided by the powers
plundered by the transnational companies we met to find a
integration but an integration for liberation our peoples we have
coexist integrated world is now that this world is stopped the funds
vultures and insatiable banks did not have that also threatens and harasses not
we are here to win we are here to form a government we are here to
change the country economic terrorists are also those who destabilize the
economy of a country and cause poverty hunger and misery from the sin of
the high speculation high to the shit out of here the bankers no longer send
here they no longer see the media power here to nome in the monetary fund and the
international bureaucracy that don't go to the hairdresser here you send
free no matter what and whatever it takes
today [Music]
good night we are tonight before an important event we are going to
interview noam chomsky one of the world's most renowned intellectuals
within the framework of this exceptional forum that has just taken place in buenos aires- the
international forum emancipation and equality a forum that has brought together
intellectuals come from practically the entire world intellectuals of enormous
prestige come from the usa come from all latin america 'come from many
countries in europe and that has tried to reflect on the moment that is being
living not only in latin america but also in some european countries
where some political organizations first like ciriza for example in
Greece has come to power is trying to change things in Spain there is a
organization how can we are also showing up to
the elections that can come to power that can change things in Spain and
in other European countries some organizations are contemplating what
It has happened in Latin America 'in progressive countries and it tries, although not
imitate but do reflect on the solutions that have been provided in
Latin America 'of social inclusion in the fight against neoliberalism and what
How could this bridge in Buenos Aires be implemented in Europe?
this bridge between europe latin america has been witnessed between reflections in the
two continents has been let's say at the center of this
international forum and let's say the personality that has been the the center
also from this general reflection as he has spent years thinking about what
it is precisely a more just world a less unequal world a world with less
violence is this American intellectual noam chomsky who now
for viewers who do not know him, we will be able to meet him at
through this tape that we are going to spread and then we can meet him and I will
to have a conversation with noam chomsky so at the moment we see
this tape
what we are and what we do is just language, they assure not jones that the
top intellectual of today linguist philosopher and
American political activist was born in Philadelphia in 1928 he entered the
university of pennsylvania to study linguistic and mathematical philosophy and
he obtained a doctorate in linguistics in 1955 in 1957 chomsky revolutionized the
field of theoretical linguistics with the publication of the work structures
syntactics based on his doctoral thesis logical structures of theory
linguistics in which he raises the existence of a brain device
innate that allows you to learn and use language almost instinctively is
emeritus professor of linguistics at the massachusetts institute of technology
in haiti since 1961 and one of the leading figures in linguistics
of the 20th century his academic and intellectual work throughout half a century
covers the fields of linguistics communication
and sociology his work is very extensive comprising more than 30 books and hundreds
of articles chomsky is one of the linguists who have
transformed the most essential concepts of general grammar
founding the transformational generative grammar according to chomsky being
human has a natural faculty that develops language as a mechanism
necessary of militant communication of the North American intellectual left
is recognized worldwide for having chosen the path of thought and
political activism its critical and committed position in relation to capitalism
contemporary and foreign policy of the us since the war years of
Vietnam to this day this firm decision has allowed him to be a
privileged interlocutor in debates on world order problems
In numerous articles and public presentations, he highlights that the media
communication are strategic instruments subordinate to large
economic corporations that dominate the state and civil society
good night and business welcome to the set of
Argentine public television
we are going to tackle a series of themes gathered around three themes
individuals let's talk about latin america '
we are going to talk about the usa in the world at the present time and we are going to talk also
mass communications communication manipulation of spirits a subject or
two three topics on which you have reflected a lot I would like
ask the first question
a few days ago president obama made a statement that is an order
executive in which she declared that Venezuela was a threat to the
us national security what do you think of this statement from the
President Obama
[Music] we have to be careful to distinguish
two parts of that statement on the one hand one part was real was the
imposing sanctions on seven officers Venezuelans the
another part is also a technical aspect is the way laws are formulated
Americans today when a president imposes a sanction must raw invoke
ridiculous statement esther saying there is a security threat
national and the existence of the us of the island of granada or whatever
that's a technical aspect of American law is so
ridiculous that the lender never actually records it if they
records in the us but only because this
emerged in Latin America the original statement is never mentioned in all its
context and I think it's the ninth time obama has invoked the threat to
national security and survival usa
because it is the only mechanism within its reach by which the law allows it
impose a strong sanction, that is, what counts are the sanctions, the rest is
an absurd formality that is a history of many years that we could
which we could do without but love the case it doesn't mean anything sometimes if for
example in 1985 president reagan
invoked the same law saying that the state of nicaragua is a threat to the
national security and us survival but in that cavern it was true
it was fine at a time when the world court had ordered up
two husbands who sustraba an end to their attacks against nicaragua
with the side the inappropriate use of force against terrorism
Nicaragua does not take it into account and the nations security council
united considered at that time two functions that asked all states
they will respect international law did not mention anyone in particular
return and I knew they were on their way refer the United States and states and the
second he did the same in both cases in the congress
American court asked us to end terrorism
international and it will pay for very large repairs and congress
what he did was increase the financing
of the North American forces that attacked Nicaragua is to say that the
government did not expose its veto to the resolution and violated what was being
seeing in that context king gun put on his cowboy boots and said it was
a threat to the security of states that made sense will remind them of
moments he organized a course saying that the Nicaraguan troops are only
two days walk from some old cities
so we were in big trouble and they couldn't have survived well that
man unfortunately it was a reality but now it is not a truncal
try to say it's not an extra effort to try to undermine the
government of venezuela something that the united states does and that almost always does
In those cases they have not met President Hugo
chavez
On the other hand, President Chavez had great admiration for you
he promoted some of his books very insistently
What memories do you have of President Chavez and what opinion do you have of him?
he deserves president chavez as ruler in particular for his
influence in latin america [Music]
after the pepper and chavez after they showed the yellow radiation
it sold very well and a friend of mine said his book was 2,600,000 in
souls
ovidio asked me if president chavez could not show my book the book of
he
that we had with him in science evaluation price I had a
day with a friend we basically talked about how he got to
power how the united states reacted and many
things of that nature
Chavez made a very important effort to try to introduce changes
substantial in Venezuela and its role in the world is more one of its first
Hindu acts was brought to the opep
the notorious case of going down to production to increase a price according to what I
he said that was the time that the us finally turned against
Venezuela used to tolerate it and much more
fire with oil supplied cheaply to Cuba and other Caribbean countries
efforts to develop or improve the health system in that
poverty the missions they got it was an effort within their community
entire etcetera this had some degree of success from
Steve who faces serious difficulties particularly the
incompetence and corruption as dreamed strike etc and the other end
it is a difficult context for a venezuela internally and the most important problem
serious that has not been overcome and is a problem for Latin America in general
insofar as they depend on a new unsustainable format of development
economic based on the export of bread
one can get with that as argentina brazil among know it but unless
the economy diversifies in such a way that it cannot develop
from basic car production to industrialization
both of agricultural products but the industry that most is not its social model
and if you take the developed countries starting with england
united states and others all upload originally started exporting
basic products for example the case usa was developed because it had almost a
monopoly on commodities most important in century but that was the
cotton made in slave camps in the usa
that there were camps that would have impressed the Nazis if they had
could see they failed to increase cotton productivity faster
industry had no technical duration apart from the whip they used every time
more for three gilded slaves with the widely used torture and other
activities to the reptile before cotton production increased very
quickly which did not enrich the owners we are slaves
for they have put but also development of the manufacturing system if you go for
example to the northeast which is a manufacturing area
at that time the main expenses were spent on spector and cotton
predicted cotton cloth the same as the earth
it did not matter usa and they had their first factory and that also developed their
financial systems themselves it was an extremely complex move
about borrowing funds and other financial stuff and all that from
cotton export a trading system financial systems well
The US like other developed countries that did not respect what is called the
healthy economy under which those principles that today are done with
high tariffs and with other mechanisms and exports continued like this until the
year 1945 when they could really develop the industrial production of
textile steel and other drugs this is how development can be done if a
country is self-imitating the importation of basic products is going to be installed and
that's what happened in that the economy continues to depend
terribly of oil export
and this model is also sustainable for the export of soy or other
agricultural products in such a way that we have to go through a format
other than development like England and the USA and others did for
course for example france lived in the 90's the wealth came from the torture of
Haitians today sadly continue the same with history
knowledge about other countries venezuela has not overcome this obstacle and has
other serious internal problems and of course the us exacerbate those
problems and I believe that sanctions is an effort to achieve this
For me it is a good answer to Venezuela, it would be just letting go
ignore sanctions cannot be ignored because they are real
but raise what you mentioned the ridiculous claim of threats to the
American national security it's important to remember that this in itself we
represents like I didn't say it was just a matter of ways
It is something that was not reported to the US It is something that is important is the role in the
Latin America that counts in that case last December 17
President Obama and also President Raul Castro made a
joint non-joint statement each for his part in which they announced the
normalization of relations between Cuba and the US President Obama in
that statement acknowledged that 50 years of US pressure politics
Americans with included economic blockade had not produced any
result and that you had to change your policy what do you think of this
normalization between cuba and the us and how do you see the evolution of relations
between Cuba and the United States and its influence for the whole of Latin America '
it's not normalizing your first steps to what might be a normalism
that is, the embargo, but it will be the restrictions on the neighborhood
they can travel debt free but if it is a step towards
normalization and it's extremely easy to see what the current rhetoric of the analysis is
of obama and suppression do whatever fertile he said 50 years of
efforts to bring democracy freedom and human rights agreements
have failed and that other countries unfortunately were not supporting us in
the reinforcement carmen we have against another way to continue our
dedication to the imposition of democracy, freedom and human rights that
dominate our benign policies in word plus word plus word
less than eight flights the eggs fill up though when a government
pronounce something you have to translate it into a cute what does this mean
for 50 I have made a terrain of the great is to change an economic struggle
simple have left the us totally isolated in
a world in Latin America that we have not been able to undermine the government of Cuba in
those fifty years with which how about five we close another solution is the
translating a little bit of the speech is what it really means or what is
can say Spanish or English it is worth remembering that most of these
issues are suppressed the North American debates and even
Europeans indeed usa campaigned
terrorism terrorism against Cuba under Kennedy terrorism was we will include
right now there is a debate sometimes about assassination attempts
trace that is they made to saturate that those
petrochemical facilities bombing hotels where they knew there were Russians who
they were housed in killing cattle or a very large campaign that lasted many
years but more after the united states will end its terrorism the
direct appeared supporting terrorism let's say
based on miami from the 90's but the economic war didn't play a part
started by jce en haul but really picked up momentum during the era
kennedy and got worse after excluding the pretext of economic war was not
democracy and the introduction of black brothers but that is cuba was a
appendix of the great satan who was russia straight and who had we had to
protect ourselves in the same way that we had to protect ourselves from others
collapsed in the Soviet union with the embargo the blockade got worse
clinton won him the status game to extend the brito block then
made a liberal senator much stronger or something weird from being without later
Worse still is an effort to strangle that it obviously has nothing to do with
with democracy and with human rights it's not even a joke because
is the only thing we have to do is look at the North American records of their
I support violent terrorist dictatorships not only support them and not
impose on them with the case of those destined where the us was the strongest support of the
Argentine dictatorship and when they reagan
the guatemala government was carrying out a genocide
de regan wanted to support them but the congress of the day set certain minutes
that's why he said well how about we do it in Argentina we transform them with neo-Nazis
to do what we have unfortunately Argentina became the
democracy later and that's where they lost that support they had then
They went to Israel to continue training the armies of
terrorism in guatemala
we analyze international relations specialists well no
they want to talk about this but in fact it is a very important principle of
monetary policy sometimes domain theory for example
if the usual argument is that the us lost if the world war but not
it's true if we look at internal planning the us achieved the most
their goals if not perhaps the maximum goal if we think that the Philippines for
example but if the basic objectives that were good similar to those of Cuba if
the concern they had in the 50s was that maybe in vietnam it might
follow a path of successful independence a radical nationalism like
we could call it and so this would be a model for others who would like to follow
regions along the same path which could lead to undermine this
domain system that could later be copied in thailand for example
and in other places governments is a big problem it was indonesia that gave
many actions for the resources that they already had the us is worried because
japan was sometimes called the super domain
it could also follow this desire for independence and become a center
industrial in asia in economics also so they lost the facet of the
peaceful in war and then there we have the new order of japan already
the early 1950s the us was not prepared to tolerate this loss to
lose the second war so what they had to do was a henry kissinger
I used special terminology to describe this these small countries are
like viruses that could transmit diseases to infect us if by
example to other places here chile for example that could conquer others
countries then we have a the system
parliamentary democracy here in chile and could bring this disease to the south of
Europe and others could be contaminated with what we could call the car
communism in some is a danger what we do if we have
a virus that can transmit diseases so it must be destroyed
to the virus it is necessary to inoculate the possible victims it is necessary to vaccinate those like
imposing these tough military addicts baquba the virus
in 62
Kennedy had already led the economic war on terrorism and had also
made a very important decision one of the most important of his government is
change goes the mission of the Latin American military that were controlled
For the United States, it replaced by hemispheric defense and became
internal security and this of the hemispheric defense was something of the second
war this internal security is not something that has no meaning is
war against the people against the population and in the towns of
Latin America knows what others mean by a neo-Nazi style of terrorism
murders here argentina the new the worst cases and we see one after another
then you well as the domino pieces were falling in the direction
Correct this contagion of terrorism in Cuba was also subject to the
huge pressures and why did this change good and change because states
sustainable they had what they said is that Cuba was isolated but the opposite the
the us are the ones who are isolated and think about the votes the voting in
united nations year after year voting on embargo
then we have a hundred and one votes on one hand and then we have the countries
The United States is almost alone, and in Latin America the cases are so
extremes that the congresses of this hemisphere
no full agreement is ever reached by the us and canada itself
They support the rest of the countries of the hemisphere and we have it in Cuba and Cuba.
is a member of this us isolation got to the point where you have to
make another kind of effort to undermine and weaken and destroy this virus and this
is the correct translation of the words of obama
in 1999 another virus appeared but in the opposite direction chavez appeared in
Venezuela a number of countries adopted some
very different anti-neoliberal programs some governments
Progressives began to appear in Latin America 'first in Brazil
after venezuela truth with lula then in bolivia with evo morales then
in Ecuador on a leash then in Argentina with Kirchner
in uruguay with tabare vazquez and mujica and this has spread throughout latin america
and indeed, as you have just said, Latin America has left a
little of the hands to the us I would like to ask first what
opinion do you have of these progressive governments in general of america
Latin and second, how is it that the U.S. has been in this situation?
of loss of influence in Latin America what you wrote is a
very significant change is a point of historical importance and the us are by
course the country the power that exercises the most dominance of all the all the
world all united no longer have the overwhelming power to destroy governments and
impose military dictatorships where you want if you think for example the
last 15 years there have been some coups a coup attempt in
venezuela in 2002 yes well it worked let's say for a few
days nothing more if the us fully supported it but did not have the power to
impose the new government or another in haiti in 2004 so there we have the
torturers from haiti french usa combined
to rip kidnap the president and send him to central africa and
keep it hidden there so that it could not even participate in
elections well this was successful but haiti is a very weak country there was another
case in honduras in 2009 if with obama the military if they got rid of the
parliamentary government so there's a democratic excuse from us they didn't want
condemn it as a military coup or were isolated in this they were led to
After the elections, with the permission of the United States, this military coup supported it.
successful and now this country is a mess by completely caught we have a
terrible record of the worst human rights and if we see the migration to
united states which is a great topic most of it comes from honduras because this
country was destroyed by the coup that the us supported
so you see some success stories so to speak
but not as in the past not as formerly Latin America has now
taken a step forward to achieve a certain degree of independence is the
correct path forward yes so good the mercosur unasur is lab there
different groups representing steps towards integration something totally
Celac is completely new because we are not united and Canada remains
excluded and this good no one could have thought of this is inconceivable
years ago and this is reflected in various places
a very interesting recent study if what is called for example the
way of reflecting the worst torture in the world we take someone and what
we send the worst military dictatorship to torture him and with impunity and
we can have information this is the worst form of torture
The US has been doing it for years, I live a study to see which countries
Middle Eastern countries cooperate of course
there we sent them to carry out this random torture syria in egypt they were
kadafi libya well they torture well no and the European countries mostly
england sweden france all participate then there was a region of the world
where no Latin American country participated
and this is really striking very interesting when you are america
latina was under the control of the us it was a global torture center and now
they even refused to participate in this kind of this us torture game and
this is a very significant change and it is a sign it really is an event
very significant there have been certain partial success stories in america
Latina who has led the resistance to this neoliberal game
we can call it that also other successes
and there is still a long way to go
[Music]
0
21
34
41
46
50
56
61
66
70
76
83
87
92
101
146
155
161
170
176
181
188
195
200
206
212
216
220
227
233
240
246
253
259
265
277
284
290
297
303
309
313
316
321
326
332
336
344
348
353
357
364
367
373
379
382
388
391
395
400
404
409
414
419
424
429
435
439
443
453
459
465
471
476
481
489
494
498
504
512
518
521
527
533
540
546
554
562
571
576
581
587
592
598
602
608
614
620
625
631
637
644
650
657
665
670
677
681
688
692
697
704
707
713
718
724
728
735
739
744
755
761
765
772
775
782
789
794
797
806
813
825
828
833
839
844
852
855
859
865
871
878
884
890
898
905
911
917
922
929
936
942
948
956
960
966
972
978
983
987
994
1001
1006
1012
1015
1023
1030
1037
1042
1047
1051
1057
1063
1068
1078
1084
1090
1097
1104
1110
1117
1126
1131
1138
1143
1146
1155
1159
1166
1177
1185
1191
1196
1201
1207
1211
1220
1225
1230
1236
1243
1249
1258
1266
1274
1280
1285
1294
1305
1313
1320
1326
1332
1339
1345
1351
1355
1360
1366
1373
1379
1385
1391
1399
1403
1408
1414
1422
1426
1433
1438
1443
1449
1456
1464
1469
1476
1483
1490
1495
1500
1504
1513
1524
1532
1540
1545
1549
1555
1561
1568
1575
1581
1585
1590
1594
1600
1605
1608
1612
1619
1626
1632
1639
1645
1650
1655
1661
1666
1672
1678
1682
1686
1694
1700
1705
1711
1716
1721
1726
1732
1736
1741
1746
1750
1753
1759
1766
1770
1778
1783
1789
1795
1800
1805
1809
1816
1823
1827
1835
1841
1847
1853
1858
1862
1867
1873
1878
1883
1891
1897
1901
1909
1916
1923
1928
1933
1938
1944
1949
1956
1960
1969
1976
1985
1990
1997
2002
2007
2013
2018
2025
2030
2037
2042
2047
2054
2060
2064
2071
2076
2081
2086
2091
2094
2099
2103
2112
2116
2122
2126
2131
2138
2144
2151
2155
2163
2166
2172
2178
2185
2190
2197
2202
2208
2214
2221
2225
2229
2236

View file

@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
[Music] you snono ali hassoun for cult
value sound tim cook art we will have to do our best wishes for her
ninetieth birthday because it allows us to thank you for marking the
our experience as a linguist
[Music]
schools
[Music] graphic than ever by china limited and ipod
touch my generation bislacchi and many many generations from tears and of
therefore an opportunity for sky with no doubt language
main stage
the mechanical food designs are fake and dario indie scene did baby jane
holl student at france tournaments and modern manas science owes them in one
Intellectual connection you will learn Professor Jones' happiness
john stephens
[Music]
[Music]
5
26
32
36
51
63
72
85
93
98
105
113
140
145
185
194

View file

@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
I put a question to most famous linguist in World, on the planet Earth.
I asked the professor for his most valuable professional "linquistic" help.
It's interesting how other point of view, simply other angle of camera here, can change and changes the whole tone of the event.
Similar happens in theatre drama "13 Angry" (see on www.earthrecovery.eu) from the cosmic point of view for the whole space shuttle crew.
Could it be misused as an effective tool of propaganda as well?
I asked Mr. Chomsky for 'Mr. Chomsky's best linquistic unpolitical help:
What language will be most suitable for the planet Earth to recover it, if this happend?
Avram Noam Chomsky is an American linguist, philosopher, cognitive scientist, logician, political commentator and activist.
Sometimes described as the "father of modern linguistics".
Chomsky is also a major figure in analytic philosophy.
He has spent most of his career at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), where he is currently Professor Emeritus, and has authored over 100 books.
He has been described as a prominent cultural figure, and was voted the "world's top public intellectual" in a 2005 poll.
MAKRO film video management 2014
Thakns a lot to Richard Cotes from Czech capitol Prague!
Thank U Mister Chomsky!
0
9
14
27
37
44
50
73
85
95
112
149
167
174
181

View file

@ -0,0 +1,600 @@
welcome to the broadcast in conversation with korea today we have a whole
special guest one of the most influential thinkers of the week
great scientist and professor i speak of noam chomsky his contribution
linguistics has the approach to research in this
science area that is known worldwide for
his political commitment and his search for justice that he and the
extremely unfair international politics of the united states always amine
condemned for conflict and war and violence
imperialism on the whole planet welcomes criticized professor
our broadcast in conversation with korea thank you our invitation
if they like it here how he is doing very well they live now
here in arizona yes i live here in arizona i got some years ago
married we are very happy wonderful i congratulate let us
Talking about imperialism would help us a lot if you
please define the term short six years an entire
the term broadly speaking means the term in one or the other
others form the ability to control and dominate what
others can sometimes do so through extreme violence, such as that
invasion of iraq sometimes through financial manipulation like that
favoring the migration of capital or the imposition of
adjustment programs are carried out in some cases, even the
kidnapping a president as happened a few years ago
Many different shapes are essentially what the term means
ability to exercise control and get away with it in the least
to be punished to say it critically
I am thinking of the free trade agreements or the adjustment agreements etc
there are the deals and also what my friend edward hermann deserves
and unworthy victims make a distinction between the invalid victims and theirs
fulfill obligations with the agreements
the finished do what you want mr professor the world politics of
the twenty-first century will consistently rise again from russia
and china shaped as new economic powers, especially the usa will become china
continue to be the hegemon of international order if you take the time
after the second world war, the highlight was the united market
states in 1945 at the time the united states owned
probably the world's prosperity you had the certainty of control
the two oceans and their coasts across the entire western hemisphere
they also had an unprecedentedly strong military with nuclear weapons
this is a degree of dominance for which there was previously no historical president
gave as if crumbling started quite quickly in 1949 something happened
what is interestingly in the united states under the term
loss inas is known that is a very interesting
formulation because I can lose my computer, for example, but not in
yours but the prerequisite is only that we occupy the world and if someone has it
then we lose independently and the loss of china had one
the so-called magical repression had an enormous impact on the domestic market
he is considering an enormous effect on foreign policy, such as kennedy
whether he attacked us against south vietnam where it was all in china
One of his concerns was that the loss of inter china
accused it is not ours if we do not
check strictly if you look at the
period of 1945 you should see that it does
the united states has steadily decreased there is one more factor
who is usually not measured by economists and political scientists
usa live international system in the form of us company
meanwhile, the world has changed as a result of neoliberal globalization
and if you now look at the property in the world
us groups and international companies in the united
states are home to around 40 percent of the global economy
us groups are leaders in almost all categories of production
finance trade in pretty much everything so the national power has in
from a certain measure, but from a different point of view it is
economic and political power in the united states is still changing
and there is still the military area in which nobody is approaching the usa
come they spend almost as much on armor as the rest of the world
together they are technologically advanced
advanced they may have around 800 to
900 military bases worldwide but not in manta i will be yours
wonderful comment in this regard will never be forgotten
i repeat it again and again offer ecuador but has no base either
in miami no other country is far from him
team set up like the united states
i think china certainly has a dynamically developing economy
which enables him to have a say in world divorce
but it is still a very poor country if you look at the
United Nations Human Development Index View Who You Are
china finishes at number 90 it has enormous internal problems
this includes ecological and demographic problems as well as political ones
repression then a lot of inner problems so the developed ones
industrialized countries have not professor you mentioned that
United States military power in the world exercise
according to donald trump, this makes even bigger and better under his government
become stronger what is the military strategy of the usa
under the government of donald trump the opposite is actually the case
in case of trump it becomes weaker less
effective it disintegrates internally and loses its international authority
and to see that you sat once the trump government moves
Towards the destruction of the world by far the most important policy
government is the approach to a driver's existential crisis
climate change here the united states
detached from the whole world every other country feels like it is something
be clearing with regard to this actually growing and upcoming
crisis the united states are under
not only give up your efforts in this area but abandoned
Aggressively increase the risk of escalation by becoming even more concerned
concentrate the production of fossil fuels
the united states are saudi arabia as the largest
oust producers of fossil fuels
this is devastating i understand it but how do you want the united states
get, for example, to sign the environmental contracts if you have one
have such strong military power
of course, the united states have no capacity to destroy everything
question any other nuclear power can do that but we also have to understand
that we have reached one point is one of my argument
between the leading nuclear powers atomic life for him on the whole
extinguish planet worth the first blow he will also have that nuclear power
meet him personally chosen because of the consequences of a very
probable atomic winter including one out of sheer volume
decades or even centuries we have reached an annihilation stand
that is already beyond human imaginations
based on many years and now it will always be dangerous to see them
nuclear war clock in the report sheet the atomic scientists at the 1947
was founded every year by a scientist
political analyst tries to assess the threat to the world and the
minute hand set at midnight
midnight means the end of our style and, like many other styles, the watch
was set up in 1907 and is set to seven minutes to twelve after that
the pointer is moving and it reached two minutes before midnight
That was in 1953 when the United States played and only these offer theirs
atomic bombs have tested hydrogen bombs that were all capable of it
quickly destroyed then the watch has been swinging back and forth for several weeks
she is back at the next two minutes before midnight
distance since the establishment of the eu very interesting professor that
it was the twentieth century and the bloodiest in world history
Have you claimed that the world is at even greater risk than the world?
the countries' nuclear arsenal faces the war rhetoric
between the united states around north korea concrete and predictable
take shape
it can be done very easily as in this case there is a very doable
approach to coping with the crisis this is well known it is a
proposal from china has been on the table for years and yes from russia and
most countries will support North Korea as well
potential support and that makes a lot of sense
the approach has freezed david friesen in north korea
weapons development and its nuclear weapons development
in return you will be frozen hear the united states with theirs
threatening military maneuvers on the border with north korea on the usa
the most advanced aircraft of the type he once used as 52 can one
atomic bomb is constantly transporting and flying over the north korean border
that is a serious danger now back to the losers
there is the un charter that prohibits a threat or the use of violence
threats or violent use are a serious violation of the un
charter they are a crime that happens all the time when you see them
looking at the history of the united states and north korea is one thing
meaningful threat the united states have the country
practically flattened in the 15 years so the united states would have to
stop these threats and north greens that its weapons development
from freezing that could be a basis for negotiation
create them in a reasonable and constructive way with the conflicts
and the crisis bypasses whatever you can about the north korean government
some may think they are the worst government in history
It is known that the government is trying to move towards the
to move economic development and she told some successes in
this fight, however, the weapons programs and the constant confrontation risk
if you are an enormous burden you have every reason to be one
type of agreement to relax the tensions and a
economic development and possibly an agreement too
enable if you look at the history of the
Negotiations looks really show a lot of propaganda on them
That there are many possibilities, the professor considers the main subject of this
talk is imperialism let's talk about the internal
talking about american problems the same problems as for the
rest of mankind violence for example violence is one of the biggest problems
of american society how do we solve this problem why do
we are not the obvious weapon control that is internal
problem in the united states it's a real cultural and social
illness the deaths from the north are about 25 in the united states
times as high as in comparable countries in all countries that do not like
Syria war is 25 times higher and there is one
widespread i cant even believe it then a widespread kind
passion in the usa that says that God has the right here
To carry an assault rifle in a cafe if you want to drink coffee without
curve youth but where does it come from that there will be a lot about the saint
missed the commitments of the second additional article
do you know when it started in 2008 it's not american
history and now additional articles had existed
but in 2008 it became a judgment 2a and gods do it
judgment in the washington dc trial against helga was not only very interesting
interesting what is but also the way it is handled
the decision was very tight that is when you look at the second addition rtl
it is said to maintain a well-organized civil service
people have the right to carry weapons and the debate was about it
whether it means that wearing the right weapons is a requirement for the
founding the citizen via is or whether it is an individual right is independent
from the civil defense that is the debate and the decision
from richter scale to a highly respected lawyer is a so-called original
says that we are on the intentions of those people who are the law
have decided that it is a
individual rights and is not dependent on animals, then there is
the debate among lawyers whether it is a form of civil defense as a tea or not
all of this is totally irrelevant if you are a real original
goals of the founding fathers looking back why did people want back then
examining weapons it's very easy to kill Indians
and to control slaves why do you need a civil defense because
The British came first of all, regardless of what history
means that is somehow used today no
the second additional article has no applicability these discussions are
completely irrelevant for the facts if you asked why this
Weapons needed so they had these larvae and I did
cruelest belief system in human history under control
keep going on the continent
Spread honors to advise the population that is why they have weapons
this is an interesting story in connection with the
second additional article if you pay attention but what is discussed
almost completely irrelevant and that is the reason why the decision from the
year 2008 which has unexplained 100 years of traditional opinion
which said that it is not an individual right but that it is only with one
civil defense connected
let's talk about the relationship between the usa and latin america
speak professor as you know i come from
Latin America will see the increase in right nationally oriented
governments in latin america negatively affect relations with the usa from the
achievements of the so-called pink tat have not yet been destroyed
for example, there are no us military bases
there is a certain degree of military interference but no direct one
military bases not in ecuador is even more interesting that the iwf the
actually part of the United States Treasury Department was exiled from there
but they can still come back they try to come back just like
the military tries to come back but it differentiates states and
what was once the time when the united states was one
overthrown government is over politician see eg the military
delete and support that but you cannot do that by inserting a
military dictatorship in brazil compare to the largest country in the south
hemisphere you can in case of electoral fraud
help but that can not be compared with the state he
only recently the terror in central america dominated the sea cloud
eighties hosted this horror as the usa date in every country
and support every region and if they don't the army
Then the guerrilla forces that attacked the country were able to control
you can no longer do that so yes there were thunderstorms also social internal
winner there is a regression a lot of problems
but i believe that there were many achievements i have to give them
contradict professor people have changed but
you can still overthrow governments in latin america you used to
example the mass media to destabilize governments governments
by stabilizing but this is very different from the military coup
ruin like it used to go unpunished for years
without wanting to fall back on history for a long time
or let's take, for example, the military
optimal wave of repression since I was early
60s riva latin america is in business and likes to be in the news
arrived in guatemala something like that is no longer in the night of the united
states
how do you rate the politics of the usa in relation to venezuela
in venezuela there are many international players from russia and
china who have important interests there and the neighboring country is colombia
an important military ally of the usa, you can stand up for venezuela
similar scenario to imagine for syria i don't think so
venezuela has very serious problems but the usa is unable to meet one
to initiate military policy there or to attack the country
i think this is highly unlikely the usa has this
just doesn't do anymore you enjoy the support this
The United Kingdom was afraid of another subject, Professor
Julian Assange is not allowed to be the Ecuadorian embassy in London
leave it to believe that with the demands
the usa after its delivery, the usa has no connection
explicitly asked for the design of the delivery but I think
it is generally believed that he will end up panama someday if he does
I'm pretty sure I'm leaving the embassy now
professor let's continue talking about latin america
that is the unbalanced government of the world there alongside both extremely rich
as well as extremely poor people this is of course a distribution problem
there is no shortage of resources we have many resources that are bad
and technically we have solutions for it and
more progressive tax system e.g.
or at least tax recovery or tax recovery funding from
starts initiatives to create equal opportunities for everyone
state schools for everyone, for example a state health system and such
further control of market power observance of freedom rights
better distribution of national resources
the problem is not technical but politics, that would be the elite
damage that has always ruled us these elites own like factories and
The mass media sees every government will try to solve this problem
attacked
but these attacks can be returned
and there have actually been advances in preserving educational opportunities
eg that has changed so much in brazil for example where my wife
coming from under lula, large population groups had access to education
and where is lula now that is his fight you know what is happening there for
changes are not easy this is an ongoing struggle it is
striking that he is by far the most popular politician in the country
tried not to admit him to the elections but 30 years ago they had
usa simply introduced a military dictatorship, so a lot has happened
changed
we come to my last question professor how would you solve this problem
approach if you were an honest latin american president like that
like you did in ecuador mother like julia in brazil or
morales in bolivia there were many defects everything far from
perfection for what a lot was wrong let us take that alone brazil
most important country lula never succeeded
basic economic countries who hasn't really tried it
raw material export internal development which is very different from the east asian
makes a difference but they did the opposite
corruption was enormously widespread and that can be overcome and that
is also the task thanks a lot professor it was a pleasure for me
thank you for accepting our invitation
I hope to see you again soon
many thanks many thanks to all viewers that you
have watched the show in conversation with korea until next time
Goodbye
0
5
10
16
20
24
29
33
38
44
47
54
58
63
67
75
80
85
90
95
100
104
109
113
118
122
132
137
142
144
153
157
164
172
177
185
190
196
202
207
214
219
222
229
235
241
247
255
260
267
271
275
282
287
293
298
304
309
314
319
325
331
335
341
347
354
357
363
370
374
379
382
385
390
394
400
405
411
416
421
427
431
436
441
448
452
458
464
470
475
479
485
490
493
498
503
507
512
516
524
530
537
543
549
554
560
565
569
574
579
583
591
597
601
607
613
620
628
632
640
645
650
654
662
667
672
677
682
685
691
697
704
709
713
718
723
729
738
745
751
757
763
769
775
781
786
791
796
800
804
809
813
817
821
827
833
837
842
845
850
858
862
868
873
878
884
890
897
902
907
913
919
924
928
933
939
943
950
957
963
969
974
980
986
992
996
1002
1010
1013
1018
1022
1027
1032
1036
1040
1045
1049
1056
1061
1065
1069
1072
1076
1080
1085
1089
1094
1099
1103
1106
1109
1113
1120
1125
1129
1134
1142
1150
1156
1161
1167
1172
1178
1183
1185
1191
1196
1202
1206
1210
1215
1219
1223
1228
1234
1240
1245
1249
1253
1258
1262
1267
1273
1275
1280
1284
1289
1294
1302
1307
1311
1316
1319
1328
1333
1337
1345
1350
1355
1360
1365
1371
1376
1382
1386
1391
1400
1405
1411
1416
1419
1426
1433
1442
1444
1448
1453
1459
1467
1474
1478
1482
1486
1490
1493
1498
1503
1509
1515
1521
1525
1530
1535
1539
1545
1551
1554
1557
1563
1567

View file

@ -0,0 +1,892 @@
Hello, and welcome to our expert interview for the third module.
Today we are honored to have a linguist with us who needs no introduction,
Professor Noam Chomsky.
Thank you and nice that you could schedule us.
>> I am happy to talk to you.
>> Shall we start right away if that's okay?
>> Sure, of course, yes.
>> So first of all, and I am sure you have answered this question many times before,
But I think it is something that certainly interests the participants of this course
and that is the original reason that you have immersed yourself in linguistics.
[LAUGH] >> The real reasons?
>> Well.
[LAUGH] >> I was 16 years old
and student at the University of Pennsylvania, and
I had gone to college with great expectations.
The study offer seemed very exciting.
>> [LAUGH] >> The high school was very boring,
and this seemed like a way out, but pretty much every college I attended offered
just more boring high school material and I lost interest.
There was one college I was very interested in, Arabic.
With a good professor.
A learned scholar, an Italian anti-Fascist immigrant, it was 1945.
Giorgio Levi Della Vida
I was about to quit my studies, it was so boring.
When I happened to meet Zellig Harris through separate relationships.
Political, common political interest.
And he was a very impressive person, and
I always enjoyed talking to him.
And he asked me a book from his hand that
would appear soon to correct.
It later appeared as 'Methods in structural linguistics'.
It was my introduction to the field.
Then he suggested that I attend his lectures, which I did, and
then he suggested other lectures to other members of the faculty.
Philosophy, mathematics, and I started this.
I ended up with a very strange university education,
which consisted of a mixed bag of lectures.
[LAUGH] Without professional certificates, but
I became more and more interested in the field.
I had some background, my father was a Hebrew scholar.
>> Yes. His dissertation covered
Kimhi and Medieval Hebrew Grammar
And when I was maybe 12 or 13, I read being
dissertation and some works on the history of Semitic.
I was interested in this and all this was taken into this common interest.
>> Yes.
So it all came together at some point?
>> Yes. >> It felt-
>> Real certificates and linguistics or
anything like that would never be allowed into a respectable department.
>> [LAUGH].
>> [LAUGH] Okay, so
I think you have studied linguistics all your life and
What is the language like
fascinating that you continued to study it?
>> Well, language has been recognized for centuries by philosophers,
by scientists: Descartes, Darwin the whole list,
>> Yes. >> as the essential human gift,
the impressive ability that distinguishes people from other organisms.
That is the traditional view, and I think there is extensive evidence for it.
And it is an essential characteristic of man.
It is the source of creativity or
originality or mind and what not,
the ability to plan something in a way that is unique in the animal world.
And when we do, it also has some very strange features when you get there
looks at it carefully.
So language is one, what is considered a digital infinite system.
It is infinite.
There is no limit to the amount of expressions you can produce and
mountain pipes.
Which is always interesting because how do you obtain infinite capacity
from a finite amount of data?
>> Yep.
>> And it is also digital, it is not continuous,
as for example the communication system of bees is a continuous system.
>> yes. >> Language is a digital system;
sentences with five words, sentences with six words, but not sentences with five and a half words.
And digital infinity is an interesting feature.
This was fairly well established in the mid-20th century.
The theory of computation, the mathematical theory of computation and so on.
And it became possible, then, really for the first time to try
accurately determine the nature of this property.
And it is, there are many interesting,
It is quite unusual in the organic world.
You don't find such systems.
And according to tradition, it was very difficult
because the concept of digital infinity, computability,
theoretically was not really clearly understood until
about the middle of the 20th century,
within mathematics and beyond it was-.
>> So-.
>> Yes-.
>> So would it be appropriate to summarize it as follows
that it is both the mathematician
elements of the system and how,
by studying language, you can study how we are put together.
>> Yes, the essence of human beings. >> Yes, the essence of humanity.
>> What kind of creature we are.
This is our kind.
It's not the whole story, but it's a ...
But that combination of accessibility to formal issues,
is carefully formal questions and human significance, I think,
an irresistible combination.
>> Yes, yes.
Well, of course we totally agree.
>> Yeah. [LAUGH] >> If, you know, beginning linguists.
Yes, another question we have is what is most surprising
what you know now, but what you did not know when you started linguistics?
>> Well, in the very beginning ...
First, I have to say the following, in connection with what you said before,
that this was not the way language was viewed at the time.
>> Yes.
>> In fact, the general view was that languages
may vary arbitrarily, and that each language was different from all others.
You should not approach a specific copy with any presuppositions and that
language simply ... A good example of how language was understood was actually
Harris' book 'Methods in structural linguistics'.
It was a collection of procedures,
that a linguist can use in the field
to organize the materials he collects from an informant.
That's what linguistics was about.
There was theoretically not much to say,
and maybe some things about, you know, the structure of phonology,
what characteristics there are.
But beyond that, not very much.
And that was because it was not possible at the time,
it is not intended as a criticism to establish what a generative procedure is.
What is an infinite generative procedure?
>> Mm-hm.
>> But most of all, it was pretty clear in the beginning,
say around 1950, anything, any language
had some sort of basic property that she should share with all languages.
That is a generative procedure that
produces an infinite collection of hierarchically structured expressions.
>> Mm-hm.
>> Each of them has a fixed interpretation of two,
on the interface of two other biological systems.
The sensory motor system for externalization and the internal,
conceptual, planning thinking system that sometimes leads to a conceptual,
intentional system.
So there are two external conditions to which the generative
procedure must comply.
And this system had to evolve somehow.
There was a time when it wasn't there.
Now it is here.
it is apparently uniform among men.
There are no known differences in linguistic capacity within the human species.
So for example if you take someone from an Amazon-
tribe that has not had contact with other people
in the last 20,000 years and you bring him to say, Boston.
Then he will be like my grandchildren.
Conversely, there is no known linguistic or other coginitive difference.
>> Yes. >> So somehow something came up,
that is certain.
And it seems quite recent, but we didn't know it at the time.
But now it is quite clear, fairly clear, that it is not
has evolved in the last 50 or 60,000 years since man left Africa.
And if you go back further, not long before in evolutionary time,
there is no evidence that this existed, that would be anachronistic.
What I say is now reasonably known, when it was not known.
What was known was that it somehow evolved and
that it seems the same to all people.
Now that raises a very serious question.
It suggests that when you try a linguistic, a grammar,
to write a grammar of a certain language, it seems extremely difficult.
>> [LAUGH] >> Each seems very different
than the last one you tried.
And that's why the mechanisms that you have to put forward are for
this principle is extremely complicated.
If you look at early generative grammars from the 1950s, 1960s,
then the theoretical frame of reference
very complex actions, mutual guidelines of actions.
And that seemed necessary to be adequate at least in the description.
to try to capture the data.
But it was obvious that this could not be correct.
For example, there is no way they could be taught.
And for another reason, they couldn't ...
it could not have evolved, the system, this complex.
So the correct answer must somehow be that,
there is an extremely simple system that somehow generates this diversity and
this complexity, only for the interaction of extremely simple principles and
general laws of nature, which are probably laws of computation.
But that seemed like an idle dream at the time.
>> [LAUGH] >> The most interesting discovery is that
it doesn't seem like a vain dream.
>> Hm. >> There is reason today, I think,
to take seriously a thesis that can demonstrate,
but I think we are close, that language is an almost perfect system.
This means a perfect system would be a system that conforms to universal and
linguistic conditions of arithmetic effectiveness.
>> Hm.
>> These are essentially natural laws that use the simplest possible
generative action, combinatorial action.
We know what it is.
And then, by the way it works, it produces the visible diversity
a complexity of languages due to minor adjustments here and there.
>> Hm. >> That sometimes leads to a strong,
minimalistic assumption.
And it would have seemed crazy 20 years ago, hopelessly
impossible 50 years ago, but now more or less plausible.
>> So, what you are saying is that it is actually all surprisingly simple.
Or is it surprisingly orderly, perhaps?
>> It's almost, it's a possible assumption, that maybe
your generation proves that language approaches a perfect system.
>> [LAUGH] >> It's close, at the core,
it approaches the optimal way to meet the conditions of the interface.
And there is more. At this time,
I think this is, I'm not talking about consensus in the field at all.
This is my personal opinion, and from a few other people.
I think at this time, there is growing evidence that the relationship to the interfaces
is asymmetrical.
That is that in particular the relationship of the sensory motor system, the
externalization, is secondary.
It is a secondary property.
The core system of the teaching of synthetic language and
semantics and so on,
is independent of the properties of externalization.
So in particular, for example, it is independent of a linear word order.
We need to speak.
The words should come out in a linear order.
>> Yes.
>> But I think this is only a property of the articular system.
But it is not a language, it is a filter through which language must pass.
And if you look at other systems of externalization, like gestures,
we now know, 40 to 50 years ago this was still unknown, but
now it is known that gestures are essentially the same as spoken language.
>> Right.
>> Right.
>> It has remarkable similar properties, however
externalization differs because it is a different modality.
So you can use simultaneity in gestures or
spatial orientation, for example anaphors for a reference
and so on, in ways you cannot use in spoken language.
And if you have other modalities, different circumstances,
but if this is correct, and I think there is a good reason to believe it is,
then almost all current linguistic work is a peripheral system.
>> It works on a system of externalization.
And that makes sense in a practical sense.
So for example if you want to, say, learn Dutch,
they don't have to, they can't learn the fundamental principles.
Nobody knows these so they cannot be taught.
What you learn is the pronunciation, vocabulary, word order facts or
such things that seem particularly superficial.
>> Yes. >> Very complicated, but
extremely superficial.
And apparently
this has no consequences for the core of syntax and semantics,
which is independent of this.
And so for example, the relationship between a verb and a direct object,
a transitive verb and a direct object are semantically the same
whether the verb precedes or follows the direct object, it doesn't matter, you know.
And that seems to apply in general
for some interesting properties of language.
>> So if that's right,
as I suspect, then the core principle,
the basic principle that I mentioned at the beginning,
an infinite collection of hierarchical structures continues
the link to the interfaces should actually be link to one interface - the idea
>> Yes, conceptual >> interface.
Furthermore, there is another system that has to do with externalization,
reveal what is going on internally in your mind.
Which probably takes place mainly unconsciously.
Well there is another option, I think,
which seems to me increasingly plausible that many of the
mental processes that work when you interpret something,
understands, creates, expresses, not only unconsciously,
but beyond the level of consciousness.
>> Yes. Actually we had,
this has something to do with another question we had.
because you are currently also involved in bio-linguistics.
And what is the focus of that field, we would like to know.
And can you perhaps explain something about this topic?
About bio-linguistics?
>> Well, this also brings us back about 65 years.
Around 1950 when this kind of work started,
there was some sort of what you can call party policy.
A widely supported >> [LAUGH]
>> consensus in the field, it was,
it was essentially behavioral science.
you studied behavior, organized behavior.
Within linguistics you study the organization and organization,
and the patterns of data you collect ...
and things, language learned through training,
by habit, this development may not have been
natural selection or something, but ...
Only a few people and I had a different vision,
actually three students.
One of them is in the office next to me, Morris Halle,
the other is Eric Lenneberg, the founder of the biology of language.
The three of us were students at Harvard in the late 1950s.
And we strongly disagreed with the prevailing view.
Part of the disagreement was the acknowledgment of what
a truth to me seems like a cow, but what is widely contested.
And that is that language, your language is an internal property of you,
that is within you,
it is not in the world.
It's in your brain, somehow rendered.
nowadays sometimes described as "I-language" and internal language.
>> Yes. >> As an internal language
property of a person.
Then it is a biological system.
And you wonder what kind of biological system it is.
It is bio-linguistics, and there was not much to say about it at the time.
But over the years it has become a bigger topic.
Eric Lenneberg's book
Foundations of biology of language, or something like that.
Released in 1967, and is still best in many ways.
I think he offers the best treatise on the evolution of language,
one of the best...
out there, but on all these topics
thought about it, but there was not much to say about it.
So let's say the evolution of language,
these were subjects that were simply discussed.
It had to be recognized that the system evolved in some way, and
that it had to be simple enough to evolve.
It is a condition, sort of an overarching condition
in the construction of linguistic theories.
And it showed that they must all be incorrect.
Because they are far too complex to possibly have evolved.
That's actually the motivation to look for something,
like what I call the Minimalist Program.
>> Yes.
>> It could have evolved, the question is whether it is possible.
But there was not much literature about it.
There were many meetings, conferences, symposia ...
For many years I gave a lecture together with a
laureate in Biology at MIT, however
very little came out because there was not much to say about it.
Linguistic theories were too complex
to approach wisely, both in the area of acquisition and
evolvability. In the 1980s,
1990 started to change that, there were things to say about it.
A significant change came about 1980 when the so-called
principles and parameters approach crystallized.
That was an opening to many possibilities.
The earlier approach to linguistic theory within this general
The framework was that linguistic theory provided a kind of format for grammar.
Every grammar of every special language had to fit in that format.
And you chose that grammar based on an evaluation of measured data.
The idea is that a child has data, there is a fixed format in his head,
that is genetically determined.
And then it picks the simplest grammar in terms of
the technique of measuring, given the data.
That basically produces an answer on how to acquire a language,
but it doesn't work because it requires astronomical calculations.
So it is totally impracticable.
As it is understood, it is basically
possible, but it may not be correct.
The principles and parameters approach that
crystallized in the early 1980s offered a different view.
The principles are fixed, they are part of the genetic legacy,
and we hope to make them simple enough.
So that they can have evolved, that's what we have come to call the Minimalist Program,
it's just the continuation of the effort since the early 1950s,
which hopefully leads to the Minimalist Program or
something like that as a possible answer.
The parameters are the options available for the tests to determine the data given and
there is quite interesting work in the field of parameter setting and
the choices and arrangement of parameters and so on.
Another interesting evolutionary problem has been added.
Where did the parameters come from?
And there are a few interesting ideas about this.
One possibility that is being investigated is that there are actually no parameters.
It is just that the principles
are under-specified
in some ways.
>> And that specification of what
underspecified gives the various options.
If that turns out to be true,
then that solves the evolvability problem.
But it is very hard work.
To show in detail that the hits,
the superficial diversity and complexity you see are actually misleading.
And that they can be reduced to a few basic, simple principles.
And this is fairly well known in science.
And I think in every science you look at, the data seems hopelessly complex.
This was the case in physics when Galileo and
his associates tried to find the basics of movement,
they were mainly ridiculed
because it is clear that it is hopelessly complex.
Just look at the leaves blowing in the wind and so on.
>> Yes. >> And it took a long time before
they understood you
can explain various and complex phenomena in terms of simple principles
if you can find out what they are and how they function.
>> The same goes for biology.
In fact, at the time, when it was widely adopted in linguistics that
languages are arbitrarily different from each other and there is no limit to diversity,
about the same was assumed for biological organisms.
That the diversity and complexity of organisms is so
great was that each had to be studied separately.
It has been discovered over the years that this is not true.
That there are striking similarities, preservation of fundamental forms,
limited possibilities for organisms etc.
In fact there is
even a premise that is taken seriously, although not accepted,
that there is a universal genome, a genome for everything.
With only a few variations.
It is no longer a strange assumption,
it is like the Minimalist Program.
>> Yes.
So, I'm afraid we'll run out of time.
And I am sure you have many other obligations today.
So, [LAUGH] to wrap up the conversation, of course,
there are people watching this video who are already interested in linguistics,
they participate in this online introductory lecture.
So, they will know a little bit more about linguistics after this course.
What would you recommend to them?
Do they have to read your work?
>> [LAUGH].
>> Or is that still a bridge too far at the moment?
>> They should do that, all I have said is the position of a minority.
I do not represent a consensus in it
the field and that should be understood.
>> Yes.
>> All my life, I've actually been part of a small minority of linguists who
go against the flow.
So that must be taken into account.
>> Yes. >> It's the way I view it,
it is not the way the field views it.
But it is up to you, students, to find out for yourself.
>> Yes. >> [LAUGH].
>> There are many different opinions about the right ways about this
to think things through
>> But that is -.
>> But that's >> That's good, I guess.
Okay? >> Sorry to interrupt you.
That's good, I mean-.
Disagreements lead to interesting new ones.
>> Indeed, that makes the field exciting.
>> Yes.
>> And, which is very exciting, both because of the meaning of
the study of language, as we said, at the core of human nature.
>> Yes.
>> The apparent contradiction and
I think it is clear, between the diversity and complexity of the data ...
and the recognition that for this
should be a basic simple explanation.
>> Because of
the conditions of learnability-
>> vulnerability, and so on.
And that kind of superficial contradiction,
makes it an extremely interesting field.
>> Yes.
>> Good.
Yes. Thank you very much.
6
12
17
20
21
24
26
28
32
37
41
46
47
52
56
59
61
64
70
76
81
84
91
94
99
104
107
111
115
120
122
126
128
134
141
144
148
151
155
159
163
169
171
176
181
187
188
190
192
195
200
201
202
206
209
214
220
225
229
238
242
246
252
257
263
267
269
274
276
281
282
287
288
289
294
298
301
307
310
316
321
326
332
335
337
340
345
351
356
360
363
363
364
367
370
376
379
382
383
385
389
394
399
402
403
406
409
414
420
421
425
428
430
435
441
447
454
457
460
465
470
472
475
478
480
483
488
495
497
498
504
509
517
522
527
528
534
538
543
548
550
555
557
564
567
568
571
578
582
587
591
593
599
601
603
608
614
621
624
629
635
638
641
646
649
652
655
660
665
669
674
679
684
689
690
694
697
699
703
707
712
718
724
727
731
733
735
740
747
752
756
757
763
766
769
775
781
782
783
788
793
797
799
807
812
815
821
822
827
830
836
838
843
845
849
851
854
859
863
865
867
868
873
877
880
885
890
891
892
894
898
901
907
912
917
924
931
934
936
940
944
948
953
956
958
960
964
968
970
973
980
983
986
989
990
993
1000
1004
1007
1012
1018
1022
1025
1030
1035
1039
1044
1046
1047
1050
1055
1058
1061
1063
1067
1070
1077
1081
1083
1085
1087
1091
1094
1100
1105
1110
1112
1115
1119
1124
1128
1137
1143
1146
1153
1154
1156
1158
1164
1167
1169
1172
1175
1182
1186
1189
1194
1199
1203
1204
1210
1213
1215
1218
1222
1224
1231
1233
1236
1239
1243
1246
1247
1251
1256
1260
1263
1265
1271
1275
1280
1284
1290
1295
1300
1304
1311
1318
1323
1330
1335
1338
1342
1345
1351
1356
1358
1361
1364
1368
1373
1378
1382
1388
1393
1397
1401
1406
1411
1415
1420
1422
1425
1430
1433
1434
1436
1438
1441
1444
1446
1448
1452
1459
1464
1466
1471
1476
1481
1484
1487
1490
1493
1497
1503
1507
1509
1515
1520
1525
1529
1533
1536
1544
1549
1551
1556
1560
1563
1566
1569
1570
1577
1580
1585
1591
1594
1599
1600
1603
1603
1606
1612
1614
1616
1617
1623
1626
1628
1630
1631
1636
1638
1642
1643
1643
1645
1648
1650
1652
1655
1656
1661
1666
1666
1669
1675
1679
1684
1685
1687
1689
1693
1695
1696
1697

View file

@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
Hello and welcome to Motmakt's event here at Litteraturhuset:
Noam Chomsky - Beyond State Socialism.
We are fortunate to have Professor Noam Chomsky with us for a session -
- with the theme of libertarian socialism and libertarian organization.
Many of you who are familiar with Noam Chomsky are aware that he in addition to being -
- a professor of linguistics also is a libertarian socialist; just like us in Motmakt.
We are therefore naturally delighted and proud to have him here tonight.
Tonight Chomsky will participate in a conversation with Adrien Wilkins from Motmakt.
They will have a conversation for about an hour and a half -
- and we will have time for three questions from the audience.
Everyone here have been offered to put questions to Chomsky -
- and we have picked three people who get to do that when the conversation is over.
We have a very strict schedule and delays so there will not be time for any more questions.
And finally: After the event you should go check out our book stand -
- where we sell a lot of exciting Chomsky titles and other cool books.
Now it only remains for me to wish a warm welcome to Professor Noam Chomsky!
As I said, there are three people here tonight who have been selected to ask questions to Chomsky.
We start with a question from Johannes Bennetzen.
Next question is from Sveinung Legard. It is you.
I am coming back there so you get the microphone.
Say your name.
8
11
15
22
26
31
39
44
54
58
62
66
71
76
81
86
3859
3873
4062
4387
4396

View file

@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
Nazarov, if I teach this to someone once all how you can achieve
I know whose term we are from the virus and making aleppo and canvas
poster of ukraine on the situation in the very center is easy
comments 2 sighting talking about of course super on
it is too
edge of a kind must be saved already there is something new
state drive before dawn facts of sport in squirrels states started by felix
you will find out
bill what were good
0
28
34
40
47
57
63
71
74

View file

@ -0,0 +1,10 @@
the u.s. supports democracy if and only
the u.s. supports democracy if and only
the u.s. supports democracy if and only if it accords with strategic and
if it accords with strategic and
if it accords with strategic and economic objective
0
4
4
6
6

View file

@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
the feeling is declared i'm afraid here it is for you she does not
one of which are you looking against the background of Mikhail weighs
and you want to challenge the hit recipes
what data types are the fastest
furniture for the bar so it is necessary here gary7 trains from the lobby i
ask and life carousel
an exercise
offers worth that these are the best
these products for come on at least until the flagship site is still what to do
what can I say postcard ate 12 units are going and the quality was relay you
larin stage infections. She's blonde
him with ragnarok fantasies he expresses and take I see nothing until
get now and Sarah, take the building outfit from your target
from that it was from a person so I go there micro advertising on the table and videos
please lola the sum of a series of sand and it was for the fact that the pilot
it is easier for us than lines so we will not repent in the clare club search speed say minus
Belarus size what
I want it with amnesics and say the product how are you today
2
9
31
36
40
48
52
56
60
68
77
83
94
98
105
110
116
120

View file

@ -0,0 +1,896 @@
Hi everybody, this is DAI Heidelberg online channel daiHOME, free of charge.
Donations are welcome. We are very happy today to have a special guest, the famous
linguist laureate professor who taught at MIT half a century and is now
teaching at Arizona the renowned political dissident Noam Chomsky who
joins us for a conversation from his home in Tucson Arizona, where he is
sheltering with his wife Valeria. Hi Noam!" "Hi. How are you?" "Fine. Today the United
Nations celebrate the humanity of the human rights day while we face the
erosion and the Doomsday Clock shows about a hundreds seconds before 12, so
all data seem to say "rebellion or apocalypse".. What is your advice for us?"
"We're in a very unusual moment, a unique moment in human history. The Doomsday
Clock, which you mentioned, illustrates it. I'm sure you all know every January The
Bulletin of Atomic Scientists brings together distinguished scientists and
political analysts try to give an assessment of the security situation in
the world. They've been doing it since 1947. It's encapsulated in the Doomsday
Clock, certain number of certain the minute hand is a certain distance from
midnight. Ever since Trump was elected the minute
hand has been moving closer to midnight. Two years ago it reached the closest
point it had ever been since 1947, when it was initiated. This last January they
abandoned minutes and moved to seconds. As you say it's now a hundred seconds to
midnight. Midnight means terminal disaster. Since January Trump has been
acting in ways which moved the second hand even closer to midnight. Recall that
there are three issues that the analysts focused on: One is the increasing threat
of nuclear war. Trump has since escalated the threat, he had already
abandoned the INF treaty, has now abandoned the Open Skies treaty, which
goes back to Eisenhower. The last treaty is the New START treaty. The Trump
administration has imposed frivolous conditions on any negotiation to ensure
that it will not be settled. I mean they're
developing new nuclear weapons. The Trump administration is calling for new
nuclear tests for the first time in 28 years violating the treaty. Second issue
is the enormous risk of growing environmental catastrophe that Trump has
been escalating that, they're perfectly openly incidentally in his February 2020
budget proposal for the next year he called for - this is while the pandemic is
raging - he called for continuing to
reduce funding, as he's been doing for the last four years to continue to
reduce funding for the Center for Disease Control and all health related
elements of the government. And to increase subsidies for the fossil fuel
industries and of course for the military.
Meanwhile his administration is making use of the pandemic cover to eliminate
regulations, which somehow mitigate somewhat mitigate the effects
of global warming and protect Americans from the lethal effects of pollution. So
that's increasing. The third issue that they raised was the deterioration of
democracy. At first that sounds as if it doesn't belong with the two existential
threats but it in fact does, because they vibrant functioning participatory
democracy is the only possible hope for escaping from the two major threatening
disasters. Well what's Trump been doing on that tearing to shreds the remnants
of American functioning democracy. He has already eliminated from the
executive branch, any independent voice all that is left is cowardly psycho fans
there are inspectors general established by Congress to monitor executive branch
the corruption and malfeasance. They were beginning to look into the swamp that
Trump has created in Washington. He fired them or eliminated them, they're purged.
Today's news, look at the newspaper ,he wants to purge the Pentagon of anyone
who is not sufficiently loyal to him. This goes step by step trying to
eliminate the formal aspects of functioning democracy. That democracy
doesn't rely on laws. British democracy is 350 years old.The
Constitution is maybe a dozen words. It relies on trust and good faith. If you don't
have those, you can have beautiful Constitution the way Stalin did it,
doesn't make any difference. This is dismantling every component of
functioning democracy to try to turn the country not towards fascism. Fascism is
well above Trump's comprehension level. That was an
ideology couldn't understand that . This is turning the country into a small
tin-pot dictatorship of the kind you find in the neo-colonial societies where
there's a coup of a couple of years, and it's run by a megalomaniac whose only
interest is himself. Now that's the objective and it's being carried forward,
so if the Doomsday Clock were set now, second hand would move closer to
midnight. What can we do about it? Almost everything. Europe does not
have to capitulate to this. Europe has so far been so cowardly that it capitulates
to every move made by the Trump administration: the tortoise shreds, the
Iran nuclear deal, which was working very well,
raising growing threat of war in the Middle East, the severe threat.
Europe doesn't like it, but they go along, they don't do anything to objective it
and this is the case. The same is true of everything else." "Noam, it it's so
shocking in a way. You mention nuclear power, but in fact in none of the
newspapers we read, we ever see that kind of headline. We see another
headline, that's racism at the moment. We see black lives matter, we see
the argument of full prisons, we see many other signs of riots, we see police force
questioned. Why is the nuclear threat so invisible?" "It's invisible here, too - I mean you
can find discussion of it and the arms control journals. Occasionally you see a
report but basically nothing. In fact it's rather striking that in the
campaign that is underway in the United States which of course has
enormous publicity, there is almost no mention of any of the
three things that the Doomsday Clock registered. Most no talk
about the growing threat of nuclear war. Even very little commentary on the
growing environmental catastrophe that which is quite serious. On the racism
issue: it's not a small point and what is happening is very significant. The
demonstrations around the country, overwhelmingly peaceful demonstrations with
enormous public support are completely unprecedented. There's been nothing like
them: scale solidarity, black solidarity popular support. And it's a very belated
beginning of a recognition of 400 years of vicious repression, which
has left a very bitter legacy, not just police violence. So I mentioned that
Trump is eliminating regulations on emissions like carbon dioxide and other
emissions. Well they happen to poison the atmosphere.
We're in the middle of a respiratory lung pandemic. Pollution in the
atmosphere increases that significantly. So the regulation says not only "Let's
destroy the environment." but "Let's poison Americans in the middle of it by making
the respiratory disease worse." Who suffers from this?The people who live
near the polluting plants. Of course they can't afford to live anywhere else. Who
are they? Mostly black, because of the legacy of racism. So this everywhere you
look, you find this. Again, this aspect of it is not being discussed but
should be. But as for why the European press is not focusing on the main issues,
you'll have to tell me. They're very serious. I mean the pandemic is
a very serious affair. We should be asking why it came at all. If we don't
get to the roots of the reason why it's here, it will recur in a harsher form.
Scientists are telling us right now exactly what they did in 2003, after the
SARS epidemic. That another pandemic is coming probably a corona virus, could be
worse than this one, exacerbated by global warming. And they are telling us
exactly what we have to do about it. We didn't do it in 2003, we have to do it
now. And that is barely being discussed. Meanwhile of the Arctic ice sheets are
melting, that's inexorable. There's undermining of
the huge glaciers in the West Antarctic. We're on a course, which within a
generation will make most of the habitable world
almost unlivable: large parts of South Asia, the Middle East, Africa. All of
this is taking place. That means, well most countries are
doing at least something about it, not enough.
That's something the Trump administration alone among the developed
societies is racing toward the abyss as rapidly and enthusiastically as we can:
more use of fossil fuels including the most polluting of them, eliminating
regulations on automotive emissions. Some of what's going on is almost
indescribable. I give you one example: one of the Trump administration
bureaucracies, national transformation transportation administration, years ago
published a detailed environmental assessment. A couple hundred pages
detailed analysis of what's happening to the environment.They predicted, that if
we continue on our current course, by the end of the century the global
temperatures will have risen four degrees centigrade over pre-industrial
levels. That's Cataclysm and they make a
recommendation that we eliminate emissions controls on automobiles.
Understand? We're heading for total catastrophe so
therefore let's eliminate the controls that are mitigating it to some extent. If
there's a document like this in human history,
I'd like to see it. The only thing that comes to mind to me is the Wahnsee
declaration, but that doesn't compare in evil to this. Hitler was saying "Let's
kill all the Jews, the 30 million Slavs, Roma and others." He didn't say "Let's
destroy organized human society." But that's what they're saying. Do you have a
headline about that?" "So 2020 that is a probably the most crucial election
in human history. Do you think we can actually make a change, will that be a
change?" "It's very incertain. If you look at
polls, it seems that the Trump is far behind. But that's quite misleading. First of
all, polls are not voter. Voters are skewed segments of the polls. We don't
know what they'll do. Also we have to remember the electoral college in
the United States. In 2016 Trump lost the popular vote by about 3
million, but won the electoral college. All that's necessary is a few selected
counties and a few states might swing the electoral college. There's also a
serious question being raised at the highest level, that's weather if
Trump loses the electoral college he will leave office.
That's a question not out of the fringe, it's being raised right at the
highest level. This is a not a normal person. This is not a person of the kind
who has ever been seen in Western parliamentary systems,
maybe Hitler was one. If he loses the electoral college is perfectly capable
of saying, that the vote was faked, that there were illegal immigrants voting, we're
going to stay here, I'm calling out my armed militias to protect the White
House. Then what happens depends on the military and that's why what happened
this morning is not insignificant. He's purging the military, trying to at
least of all but Trmup loyalists. I think there's a reason for that, they're
thinking of these possibilities. This may sound exotic, unfortunately it's not. Even
the Democratic presidential candidate said "If we have to take him
out of the White House we'll do it by force." We're not talking about something
out of the fringe." "Do you think that the Bernie Sanders movement will
probably influence this? It's a broad, a youthful movement in a way. Will they
be capable of making a contribution to the outcome of this election?" "That's
happening. Sanders and his associates have begun to engage in the Democratic
National Committee program and they have shifted the program quite far to the
left. In fact, if you take a look at Biden's program it's the most
progressive of any Democratic candidate probably since FDR. So they're
influencing the program. The activists are making a difference. If they continue,
that's crucial - they don't go home, if they continue that
can have an effec. The public opinion can't be disregarded even in a
dictatorship and we're very far from the dictators. So yes, they are having an
effect and can have a greater effect. But we're coming to a very severe problem. I
should say in the background is something different. If none
of this was happening, if there was no Trump if the country was continuing on
the normal parliamentary course it would still be facing a serious constitutional
crisis a very serious one. The US Constitution in the 18th century was a
progressive document even the phrase "We the people"
was a very impressive move. The continuous what was called a
revolution terrified European statesman. King George, the third of England said
he heard the whole British Empire bizarre and marinate warned about the
rise of this threat of republicanism, which will destroy all civilized society.
Well that was the 18th century to adhere to an 18th century constitution today
it's very regressive. If the United States were to try to enter the European
Union with its current constitutional structure, it would be turned down by the
European Court of Justice almost certainly. The Senate which is the
most powerful part of the formerly is radically undemocratic.
The state of Wyoming with 500,000 people has two senators. California with
40 million people has two senators. This affects the electoral colleges, will
excuse the electoral college towards the smaller states. Beyond that there are
demographic changes so eternity the votes there's an increasing urbanization
but that's not affected by the voting. It means that rural air enough
plenty of gerrymandering in the most the Republican parties working overtime to
try to prevent voting. They're very much afraid of voting because what they're
hoping for and what the constitutional crisis is leading to is that a small
part of the population maybe 15 or 20 percent that's mostly rural, conservative,
the Christian, white supremacist, elderly, now that sector
could actually govern the country, the way the constitutional system is set up.
And there's nothing that can be done about it. The only way to change it would be
by constitutional amendments and the smaller states will never have enough
votes to prevent that. So there's quite a serious constitutional crisis coming."
"What about the GOP, the grand old party, the republicans.
They're considered dead, you considered them the most dangerous organization of
the world." "The Republican Party ceased to be a normal parliamentary party quite
a few years ago, not my opinion two of some of the leading political analysts
from the conservative American Enterprise instead
Norman Ornstein and Thomas Mann wrote years ago that the Republican Party has
become in their words "A radical insurgency, which does not observe
parliamentary programs" we saw that very clearly when Obama was elected. The
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell not at the moment,
two years late, Mitch McConnell the Senate the Republican majority leader of
the Senate announced openly that the sole goal of the Senate will be to
prevent Obama from doing anything. That's the end of the kind of trust and
good faith on which democracy rests. The Republicans have profits through
probably 30 or so efforts to try to overthrow the Affordable Care Act. Right
now, in the midst of a pandemic, they are supporting a suit in the courts to
eliminate the health system. I mean this is not a normal political party. This is
a group of extreme reactionaries who know that there are minority but are
doing everything they can to hold on to power. You take a look at the Senate
under McConnell the last couple of years. It blocks all legislative
proposals that come from the house. The way the system works legislative
proposals come from themselves in house considered by the Senate and joint
meetings. They all block. What the Senate is doing is two things:
passing legislation to enrich the very rich and the corporate sector like
the tax bill and the new bills that are passing right now. And stuffing the
judiciary from top to bottom with young ultra-right
lawyers who will be able to block any legislation for a generation that
departs from their ultra reactionary position. They are trying to destroy the
functioning democratic system, because if they try to survive within it,
they will never win another election.
Radames note said openly, if we allow a voting, Republicans will
never be elected, because too many people who vote." What about the role of
the media? You once said Trump and Murdock cooperate in this destruction of
the United States as well as the world." "The Murdock system includes primarily
for Fox News major television channel now plus lots of others so the talk
radio the radio that people listen to when they're at home or driving has
been totally taken over by extreme far right groups which are even righter than
Fox News. There's a major temp but Fox News itself has a very interesting
relationship with President Trump. Fox is the new source the main news source, almost
the only news source for most Republicans, there are studies on this. Fox News is an
echo chamber for the White House. If Trump says of the coronaviruses is just
a flu, Fox News announces "corona virus is just a flu, don't worry about it." If
Trump was to announced tomorrow that the world is flat, they will say
"greatest discovery in human history". But that's only half of it.
Trump doesn't pay attention to the news. He doesn't pay attention to intelligence
reports. In the morning he turnes on Fox News and that tells him what to
say. What's on Fox News. So there's a dyad, a kind of a mutual echo chamber
which is what the Republican constituency watches and that's why you
have the results that you have. Say global warming is the most serious
challenge that humans have ever faced, except for a nuclear war. 22% of
Republicans think that humans have some role in global warming, 22%.
The same percentage think that's a problem that is important to deal with.
What's happening in the most important
country in the world is shocking and Europe is just as bad. They're doing
nothing about it just cowtowering to the power in Washington. I mentioned one
thing that's true and everything else. They don't have too. Europe could be
a force in world affairs." "So in this terrible arena,
what actually gives you hope? Is that there is an attempt for Green Deal, new
deal, there are youngsters on the move, they are even gangsters in Brazil
who do what the president is obviously not capable for doing for his
citizens. Cuban doctors go to Italy. So there are obviously signs of
encouraging aspects. What do you see as a hope in in a kind of sustainable sense
of the word?" "Exactly that and it's very substantial. The black
lives movement protests in the United States, they can reach very far
to the social groups of racism, the institutional structures, that lie behind
the racism. The D crisis over the last several hundred years and they're very
broad. They affect the whole community the whole society. I'll take the green
new deal which you mentioned. A couple of years ago nobody was discussing. A group
of young activists sunries movement were pressing very hard for it
they finally occupied congressional offices, they got some support from the
new young Congress women who came in on the Trump wave also from a Democratic
senator in Massachusetts Ed Markey. Now it's in the center of the legislative
program. Some form of green New Deal, well another form is essential for survival.
Now that shows what can be done. As I mentioned the Sanders movement
has been oppressing and succeeding and moving the Democratic Party programs, the
will, towards the Social Democratic side. We should recognize, that what's called
the Sanders revolution in Europe would be considered mild social democracy.
Let's take a look at Sanders as two major programs which are considered
revolutionary in the United States. The radical programs universal health care
You heard of a country that hasn't? You heard of a country that doesn't have it? A free
higher education. Ever hear of a country that hasn't? Now those are considered so
radical, that we don't know if the American people can tolerate.
Sanders is moving with a lot of the population behind him, he is probably the
most popular political figure in the country, towards a kind of social justice,
social democracy, extension of the New Deal, the programs that Eisenhower
wouldn't have been surprised by. It's a sign of the sharp shift to the right of
the political issue on not the public during the neoliberal period and now
that's being reversed. That's a sign of real hope. Similar things are
happening in Europe. Well the Progressive International which was just announced a
couple of weeks ago at its first major meeting in September in Iceland with
the prime ministers. Remeber, this is initiated by the Sanders campaign in the
United States by Yanis Varoufakis and the diem25 movement in Europe,
transnational movement, bringing in voices from the global South. If that can
get off the ground could be a major counter force to the developments that
are taking place, to the efforts by those who created the system to try to
perpetuate it. Now that's a conflict which is very significant at the moment.
How it turns it's kind of almost you could almost call it a class conflict on
the international scale. How that turns out will determine whether organized
human society can survive." "Now the virus was considered the great or is sometimes
presented as the great equalizer between rich and poor. In fact the poor pay a
terrible price in it. Now we see the governments around the world trying to
have programs in trillions of dollars. What will that make in this process,
that is ahead of us?" "First of all it may be called a great equalizer but it is
the opposite. If you take a look at the impact on I don't know the European
figures. But in the United States take a look at the figures on inequality,
they've risen. The people who are gaining from the crisis are billionaires, private
equity firms, hedge funds, Amazon.They are gaining tens of billions of dollars.
In fact there was just a study, during the pandemic some tax revisions were
taking place, that presumably have to deal with the pandemic. It turns out that 80% of
the gains from the tax changes go to people who make a salary an income of
more than a million dollars a year. That's the great equalizer. Meanwhile as
I mentioned pollution controls are being eliminated which will rate increase the
pandemic, the respiratory crisis, among people living near polluting plants,
black and poor. That's the great equalizer. People in power know what
they're doing. They're not in favor of providing the poor and vulnerable people
with gifts. They're in favor of providing gifts for themselves. Well if they can
get away with it gonna be a great equalizer. So the question is: how the
public will respond to these developments? And we're back to where we
were. But there are steps towards it, but it's gonna be." "Noam, now just two
final little questions. A crucial point will be or is considered here
the choice of the running mate for Biden, whom do you have in mind?
There are several black women that are suggested. Do you have one guess
for us?" "My guess doesn't mean much but off the cuff I would yes it's very likely he
will pick Kamala Harris, my guess doesn't mean anything so don't pay attention to it." "May I add a very
personal question: four years ago we sat together and against the two of us
Valeria, your wife predicted the success of Donald Trump in this presidential. Does
Valeria have an idea for the outcome this year?" "Valeria is the the only
person I know who predicted the Trump victory in 2016. She's not here but I have to call to her,
current prediction is that Trump will lose the election. So since
she has a perfect record so far, maybe she's right.
However bear in mind what I said before and what people in high places up to the
Democratic Party candidate are saying. If he loses the election that's not
necessarily the end." "Now we had a few questions of people coming in
let me just take one talk about globalization. Do you think the
rapid spread of the corona virus will be regarded as a downside of globalization
and therefore lead to a global counter movement with more nationalized
industrial production what consequences would stem from this?" "First of all
globalization is a fine thing. But the fact that you and I could be
together four years ago that's globalization. The question is what form
of globalization. Now a particular form of globalization has been developed
under the neoliberal model which basically holds that decisions have to
be in the hands of private unaccountable power. That's the major principle of
neoliberalism. Can be dressed up in other terms but that's what it comes down to.
When Ronald Reagan says "government is the problem not the solution" that means
hand decisions, take decisions away from government which has the flaw that it
can be influenced by people, turn it over into the hands of unaccountable private
tyrannies corporations in which people have no influence.
That's how globalization was formed what are called free trade agreements or in
fact investor rights agreements. They have almost nothing to do with free
trade. The form of globalization that was established was to try to maximize
profit and you maximize profit if you have no spare capacity. If you're running
an automobile plant and you want to maximize profit you make sure that you
have no waste capacity meaning no security. If anything goes wrong well you
can fix up the assembly line. When you run a world like that it's a disaster.
The globalized system that was set up is extremely fragile. If anything goes wrong
it collapses. In fact we even see that in the health system not compared Germany
in the United States. Germany delayed on dealing with pandemic but it finally did
it. Germany had spare capacity diagnostic
capacities, spirit health capacities. Another health
system was able to reduce the number of deaths. The United States had the same
basically the same number of cases, still does, because the health system is run on
a business model, a strict neoliberal business model: no spare beds no spare
capacity, almost totally privatized health system, huge salaries.
You're after profit. Same with the
globalized system. One thing that is very likely to happen is that there will be a
shift towards less fragility and more security. I felt if the corporate
managers who run the world under the neoliberal system, if they
prevail, nothing much different is going to change.
Just less fragility more more security." "There's a special attention given to
a very American issue that's weapon lobbyists. Can you imagine how these
militant and violent actions enter the campaign of the election?"
"It's already entering. I don't know how much the news reaches you but was the
report of what happened in Bethel, small village in Ohio about two
weeks ago. Well I tell you in case it wasn't. It's now happening all over the
Midwes. This is a small village, couple thousand people, six
policemen nothing ever happens. A few people decided to have a small peaceful
march to support the protest the nationwide protests on racism. The
village was assaulted by about seven or eight hundred militia troops armed
militias, smashing the place up overwhelming the police force, driving
people back to their homes, calling for denouncing the protest and so on. Now
this is happening all over the country. In the state of Wisconsin are these
armed militia. Demonstrators actually took over this the legislature. It's a
serious phenomena and Trump is supporting them all the way. I
should mention some statistics who were recently released. Take a look at
terrorism in the United States and threats of terrorism. There is
a huge amount but it's substantial. In 2016, 20 percent of the
terrorism and terrorism threats was connected to white supremacy and 2018
it's 98 percent and it increased in 2019. Now it's almost all.
That's related to the tweets that you see coming out of the White House, which
stimulate this. When the legislature was occupied in Wisconsin, Trump tweeted
"These are good people very good people." You know about Charlotteswill, it's always
there and you notice, what he's doing. That's part of his constituency and he's
got a voting constituency. His actual constituency is the super-rich and the
corporate sector. All the legislation goes to serve them, but you have to have
a voting constituency. You can't go to ask people to vote for you by telling
them I'm tryna undermine you and support the very rich. No I don't vote for you
that way. So you have to appeal on what are called cultural issues,
religious extremism, 25 percent of the country's evangelical vote for them.
White racism, white supremacy. The second amendment, which is a force. I could go into
that but no it's holding rid. You have to have your assault rifle with you, when
you go into a coffee shop. So will appeal to them on tha,t and this is part
of the support of the militia. And it's a serious phenomenal." "Yeah, we have seen them in Tulsa
at his campaign, that people were standing there with guns at the
entrance to this place and they can actually openly wear." "The law says
you can carry guns openl. I teach at the University of Arizona, when you come to
the gate of the University there's a sign saying no weapons allowe. Now
that's a constant battle between the University and the state legislation,
which wants to open the university too to open carry of guns. In the state of Texas
that's already permitted. I have a friend, a hundred years old,
assisted living place way out in the suburbs. You go to visit him, nice house
with elderly people - there's a sign on the door saying "no weapons allowed." I mean, there's not much time but
I'll be brief - the whole history is a con job. In the late 19th century the gun
manufacturers realized that they don't have a market for their fancy weapons. The
Civil War was a great market. European Wars were a great market. There was
declining. Nobody wanted the fancy weapons they produced. But it was an
agricultural society every farmer had a weapon. But it was like a shovel.
You wanted the old rifle the scary coyotes away. They wouldn't buy the fancy
weapons, so they started the first huge public relations effort in history.
A huge campaign to try to concoct fables about the Wild West which never existed.
You know nowadays everybody sees them on cowboy movies nor existed the sheriff
who's fast on the draw. I mean I
believed, when I was a kid, we used to play this game it was all invented and the
subtext was "You have to buy your son a Winchester rifle or else he's not a real
man." So they started buying this. That was bad enough. Then came 2008 the most
reactionary Supreme Court in his modern history.
She changed the meaning of the Second Amendment. She read the Second Amendment
it says "In order to establish a well or militia the right to hold guns shall not
be infringed." That was the 18th century
and they had reasons for it. One is they were afraid the British were coming for
good reasons. They were the big power and there was almost no standing army so you
needed minutemen and the other was they were invading the Indian country, that was
part of the reasons for the Revolutionary War. To be able to invade
the West, you needed guns. Thirdly it was slavery. There were slave revolutions, you
needed guns. Those are the reasons why the founders wanted guns and a militia.
And that's for a hundred years the court decision was having guns
was connected to a militia right. That was reversed in 2008, the Scalia decision
said it's an individual right, nothing to do with militias. That turned the
Second Amendment in the Holy Writ and now it's to ask most people what's in
the Constitution the only thing they'll know is the second aendment, which is that
right to carry an assault rifl, when we go into a coffee shop. The judgment is
astonishing. It mentions none of the reasons why the founders established the
Second Amendment. These are supposed to be originalists, you know people who
observe the original text and meaning of the terms for the founders, not in this
case. Jjust let's make individual rights to guns the Holy Writ
and you'll notice that every time Trump issues a tweet supporting some
action, he says "you have to defend your second Amendment rights" even if it has
absolutely nothing to do with it. Why? Because that's the rallying cry. That's
the way you get your voters together to vote for you, even when you're
stabbing them in the back. It's a very effective trick. And
I'm afraid I have to leave." "Yes thank you very much, and thanks also to Valeria for
keeping a strict regime on your health. We are all very grateful for you sort of
participating in this and thank you very much for your generous time." "Good to see
you, we might make it anytime in person on these." "Yes, hopefully"
"Thank you."
6
13
23
31
38
46
56
63
72
82
92
101
107
113
119
124
130
136
145
152
159
165
174
181
187
194
201
206
213
220
228
236
242
247
253
258
264
268
276
283
290
296
303
309
318
326
333
342
350
357
364
372
379
387
394
402
407
413
420
426
432
439
444
449
455
462
470
476
480
489
495
502
509
516
523
535
548
554
560
565
570
577
583
589
596
602
608
618
627
634
642
646
653
660
667
672
678
685
692
698
705
713
720
726
733
739
745
753
758
767
772
779
784
787
792
799
806
818
826
833
838
846
851
857
861
870
875
882
885
892
900
907
913
923
933
939
947
954
961
970
977
983
990
995
1002
1008
1013
1024
1031
1036
1042
1048
1055
1063
1068
1072
1082
1093
1106
1117
1125
1130
1137
1144
1148
1154
1159
1166
1172
1178
1184
1194
1199
1207
1214
1220
1227
1233
1239
1245
1251
1256
1266
1272
1279
1286
1293
1298
1303
1309
1317
1323
1328
1335
1340
1346
1354
1359
1368
1374
1379
1385
1392
1401
1407
1412
1419
1427
1433
1446
1454
1462
1469
1474
1482
1488
1493
1501
1509
1516
1522
1530
1537
1543
1548
1555
1560
1570
1579
1588
1593
1600
1607
1614
1622
1628
1636
1641
1646
1652
1657
1665
1672
1677
1683
1693
1699
1707
1714
1721
1727
1736
1745
1756
1763
1773
1783
1791
1799
1809
1816
1822
1828
1834
1840
1847
1852
1859
1868
1875
1881
1888
1894
1900
1906
1913
1917
1922
1927
1934
1940
1947
1954
1960
1967
1974
1981
1989
1993
2000
2005
2010
2016
2024
2031
2039
2048
2055
2063
2067
2077
2084
2091
2098
2106
2112
2121
2128
2134
2145
2150
2156
2162
2171
2180
2188
2199
2208
2217
2226
2235
2242
2251
2258
2262
2271
2276
2283
2290
2297
2303
2309
2316
2320
2326
2333
2340
2345
2352
2359
2366
2370
2376
2381
2388
2396
2403
2411
2415
2423
2429
2437
2441
2445
2450
2455
2462
2470
2477
2482
2493
2498
2501
2513
2524
2538
2546
2553
2559
2566
2575
2584
2592
2600
2609
2615
2624
2629
2636
2642
2651
2659
2669
2674
2682
2688
2694
2700
2705
2711
2716
2721
2728
2736
2740
2745
2753
2761
2766
2773
2780
2784
2791
2799
2806
2822
2830
2836
2841
2846
2852
2858
2867
2875
2881
2888
2894
2899
2908
2912
2918
2925
2928
2933
2938
2944
2948
2954
2960
2969
2976
2981
2987
2991
2997
3004
3009
3016
3023
3030
3035
3041
3045
3051
3063
3070
3076
3080

View file

@ -0,0 +1,84 @@
(sung) Wake Up No time for sleeping
In light of the McCutcheon Case that is being discussed right now by the Supreme Court
(Chomsky: That's serious) Could you talk specifically about the idea of political
spending equating to free speech
well thats Buckley v. Valeo
I think it's a terrible decision spending money is not speech
I think and the ACLU disagrees
but disagree with them on this but the
thinking of granting
the free spending of money
for political campaigns
essentially saying let's forget any pretense of being a democratic society
if your concept the free speech says
okay let's give up democracy and has become a plutocracy
well okay but then say it straight out don't just stand up and say
"I'm defending free speech" because that is the immediate consequent
(There is) already overwhelming
power in the hands over tiny percent and
the population already knows it so
roughly eighty percent of the population in the US
says in the polls and has for thirty years
that the government-run but a few big interests looking out for themselves
Actually in England it's even worse
about 90 percent think the same thing
and with some justice if you look at the academic political science
you know professional political science
the gold standard the best work in the field
concludes the the about seventy percent of the population is unrepresented
that means that they have no influence on policy
no matter what they think the lower seventy percent on the
income scale as you move up the scale you get a little bit more influence
when you get to the very top a people just get what they want
that plutocracy and the more and the primary reason for it is a
free spending that money to buy candidates
to influence legislation to lobby so on
you can't really stop all of this you can' t stop lobbying by
constitutional amendment but the these are
deep pathological problems in society but to
escalate those problems by things like McCutcheon
is shocking I think (sung) circle out X Generation
Superficial are the means of division Deeply rooted at the source we connect
twitter@so!idaritymedia
0
6
10
15
19
22
26
30
33
36
39
43
48
51
55
59
62
67
70
74
78
82
87
90
93
98
102
105
110
114
118
122
126
131
135
139
143
146
150
154
162
168

View file

@ -0,0 +1,122 @@
If you take a look at recent history since the Second World War,
something really remarkable has happened.
First: human intelligence created two huge sledgehammers
Capable of
terminating our existence, or at least organized existence, both from the Second World War
One of them's familiar. In fact both are by now familiar
Second World War ended with the use of nuclear weapons
It was immediately obvious on August 6th 1945,
a day that I remember very well,
it was obvious that
soon technology would develop to the point where it would lead to terminal disaster.
The scientists certainly understood this
In 1947, The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists inaugurated
its famous Doomsday Clock, you know, how close is the minute hand to midnight.
It started seven minutes to midnight
By 1953 it had moved to two minutes to midnight
and that was the year when the United States and Soviet Union exploded hydrogen bombs
But, it turns out, we now understand, that at the end of the Second World War the world
also entered into a new geological epoch. It's called the Anthropocene, the epoch in which
humans have a severe or in fact maybe disastrous impact on the environment
Moved again in 2015, again in 2016
Immediately after the Trump election, late January this year, the clock was moved again
to two and a half minutes to midnight - closest it's been since 53.
So there's the two
existential threats that we've created which might, in the case of a nuclear war, maybe wipe us out,
the case of environmental catastrophe, severe impact
Then a third thing happened. Beginning around the 70s,
human intelligence dedicated itself to
eliminating, or at least weakening, the main barrier against the threats -
it's called neoliberalism.
There was a transition at that period from
the period of what some people call regimented capitalism - 50s and 60s - the great growth period
egalitarian growth, a lot of advances in social justice and so on
That's sometimes called the Golden Age of modern capitalism.
That changed in the 70s and with the onset of the
Neoliberal era that we've been living in since
And if you ask yourself what this era is, it's crucial principle is
undermining mechanisms of social solidarity and mutual support and
popular engagement in determining policy.
It's not called that - what it's called is "freedom."
But "freedom" means subordination to the decisions of concentrated unaccountable private power.
That's what it means -
The institutions of governments or other kinds of association that could allow people to
participate in decision-making, those are systematically weakened.
Margaret Thatcher said it rather nicely in her
aphorism about "there is no society, only individuals"
she was actually, unconsciously no doubt, paraphrasing Marx
who, in his condemnation of the repression in France,
said the repression is turning society into a sack of potatoes -
just individuals, amorphous mass, can't act together, that was a condemnation.
For Thatcher, it's an ideal. And that's neoliberalism.
Well, what does that do?
The one barrier to the threat of destruction is an informed, engaged public
acting together to develop means to confront the threat and respond to it, and that's systematically weakened
Consciously. Back to the 1970s - we've probably talked about this -
there was a lot of elite discussion across the spectrum
about the danger of too much democracy and the need to
have what was called more moderation in democracy
for people to become more passive and apathetic
and not to disturb things too much, and that's what the neoliberal programs do.
So put it all together, and what do you have? A perfect storm.
0
4
8
17
18
25
29
33
39
42
44
50
54
58
64
68
72
79
86
93
100
104
110
116
118
126
130
135
139
145
147
150
158
164
167
173
176
181
189
193
196
205
207
213
217
222
226
231
236
242
247
252
254
261
271
275
279
283
286
291
295

File diff suppressed because it is too large Load diff

View file

@ -0,0 +1,94 @@
Islamic ideas...?
Question about the Islamic ideals in practice?
I mean Islam is like
Christianity, Judaism,
Buddhism
There's no such thing as Islamic ideals
There are lots of different Islamic ideals
Now, just like..the real question
we should be asking, particularly here,
is what about Christianity?
That's something we could do about
so that's the highest priority. So what are
Christian ideals? Well,
They're very all over the place,
people in high places now
claim to be devout Christians,
and on the basis of Christian ideals, they're
saying "let's proceed to destroy the world",
and I don't know anybody in the Islamic world who is doing that.
Now, that's, of course, not all Christian ideals--
there are others too. Martin Luther King
expressed different Christian ideals, and it's the same
with the Islamic world--you can find lots of things,
but the idea that there are
fixed Islamic ideals which are
a problem for the world, that doesn't mean anything,
you have to look at..
take a look at individual cases, so take, say,
Iran in the United States. They're both
states in which the leadership
claims to be
deeply religious and committed to the faith,
and asking what the two of them are doing
with regard to the leading
issue that they're now in conflict over
It turns out that the Iranian leadership
is calling vociferously
for establishing a nuclear-weapons-free zone
in the region which would end any threat,
and the Christian United States with its
deeply Christian leadership is saying "sorry we can't
because we have to preserve Israeli nuclear weapons
from inspections".
Well,
is it a problem about the Islamic faith?
5
8
11
15
22
24
27
29
31
34
37
40
42
46
48
51
53
56
59
61
64
68
70
73
76
79
83
85
88
90
93
96
99
101
104
107
110
114
118
120
124
128
130
134
137
139
140

View file

@ -0,0 +1,166 @@
Suppose I...
Suppose I lend you 100$
and a couple of years later you pay me back 100$
Who lost?
OK.
But, furthermore,
the bailouts are a very small part of the public subsidy.
When the business press uses IMF figures
they estimate 83 billion dollars a year of subsidy
they're not talking about the bailouts.
They're talking about other things... some of which I mentioned
like cheap credit... access to cheap credit
higher credit ratings... inflated credit ratings, which give you all kind of options.
Because the credit agencies understand that there's a "government insurance policy"
These guys are going to be bailed out if they get into trouble
so we can give them higher credit ratings.
It also means many other things...
If you're, say, Goldman Sachs
you can make a risky transaction
risky transactions tend to make high profits, but they also carry the possibility of failure
But you have not to worry about it!
Right?
'Cause you guys are going to pay 'em if they get into trouble
That's the "government insurance policy"
If you had an insurance policy like that you could do all sorts of things
But you do give the banks that insurance policy
As I said, the IMF figures lead to an estimate of 83 billion dollars a year...
you could argue the details, but something on that order.
And they say that's essentially all the profits of the big banks.
That has enormous consequences
like one of the consequences is
what's called 'systemic risk'
There's a risk... if, say, Goldman Sachs makes a risky transaction and it happens to fail
It might bring down the whole system
we saw that a couple of years ago, when Lehman went... it looked like the whole thing was going to collapse
Well, there's a protection against systemic risk. Namely, you!
You pay for it and guarantee is not going to happen
That just increases risky behavior and the likelihood of crashes
like what we're now seeing
These are all pretty serious problems
I mean, they're not at the level of climate catastrophe and nuclear war... those are kind of colossal dangers
But these are pretty serious dangers
I mean, the public really suffered from the latest financial collapse... the financial housing bubble and collapse
A lot of people are still suffering from it
Actually there was congressional legis...
Speaking of bailouts, the bailouts came from congressional legislation
but that congressional legislation had two parts two it:
one was 'bailout the criminals', the other was 'help the people who were their victims'
protect them from foreclosures and so on.
Which part of the bargain was kept?
Well, it's not a secret! The Inspector General of the Justice Department, Neil Barofsky, was cribbing about it.
He wrote a book about it... but, you know, that's really existing capitalist democracy. That's the way it works. That's its logic.
So, yeah, they sort of paid back kind of the actual bailout... but that's a joke.
And in fact what's happening now is just mind-boggling.
The biggest...
The world's biggest insurance company, AIG, was on the verge of collapse
and the... Geithner, you know, the government essentially bought it and bailed it out.
Now it's richer than ever.
That wasn't just going to knock out AIG, so Goldman Sachs, for example, was heavily involved in risky loans guaranteed by AIG.
If AIG went down, Goldman Sachs would go down, and so on across the board.
But you guys stepped in and saved it all.
Right after that, after it was rescued from having virtually brought down the international economy,
AIG gave expanded bonuses to its chief executives. That caused a little bit of controversy.
You know, how come after these guys practically destroyed the economy and we pay 'em off
they decide to give themselves bonuses?
Larry Summers, former Secretary of the Treasury... Obama's... you know, one of his chief advisors
responded to that saying 'Well, we just don't have any choice. It's a contractual obligation and we believe in contractual obligations. So we're just forced to accept it.'
At the very same time, the State of Illinois was refusing to pay pensions to public service workers 'cause they said they didn't have enough money.
Was that a contractual obligation?
Not only that, I mean, the workers had already paid for it!
When you have a pension, it's because you take lower wages. It's a bargain that's made.
But that contractual obligation which workers already paid for, that one didn't have to be honored.
And we're back to the logic of wreck again.
AIG executives -yeah, of course- they have to get a huge bonus after practically destroying us,
but teachers, firemen, and so on, they don't deserve that kind of thing. That's what George Orwell once called 'unpeople', that's distinct from 'people'.
So they... no contractual obligations. There. That's our commitment to capitalist principles.
What's happening now is beyond grotesque.
The former CEO of AIG, Maurice Greenberg, is now principal in a court suit,
Starr International vs. US government, is going to the Supreme Court right now
He's complaining that the bonuses weren't... that the payout to AIG wasn't big enough
and he wants to be reimbursed... for causes to AIG... that's, you know, if anybody asked you for the definition of 'hutzpah', you can mention it.
That's in the Supreme Court right now, and, you know, given the nature of the court, it's so easy to figure out how it will turn out...
even though, I mean, this is like beyond insanity. Except under the logic of really existing capitalist democracy. That's the story of the bailouts.
0
1
4
9
11
11
13
17
21
25
27
31
35
41
47
50
52
54
57
61
67
69
70
73
75
80
85
92
95
100
102
105
109
117
119
125
130
133
139
140
143
151
153
163
165
168
173
177
185
188
191
200
209
216
220
221
227
233
235
246
252
255
264
278
283
286
293
303
314
317
320
326
331
334
340
351
358
361
372
378
385
395
402

View file

@ -0,0 +1,158 @@
I think it's a tragedy and a catastrophe that the left
has accepted the idea of humans as
historical products
Simply reflections of their environment
because what follows from that, of course, is that there's no moral barrier to molding them anyway you like
And that humans have no inner nature.
They don't have an inner instinct for freedom... You know... if it's not
fundamental that their nature to have
free, creative, productive work under their own control... if that's not part of their nature
Then why... you know... there's no moral reason for allowing them that space
You could just mould them into being what you think they ought to be
and you can be the Central Committee, or you can be with the...
you know... the managers of the corporation or the
directors of a fascist state or whatever
And it's quite interesting that the modern intellectuals have mostly moved in one or the other of those directions overwhelmingly
either there... and in fact this was foretold in one of the
maybe the only
prediction of the social sciences that ever came so dramatically true
was Bakunin's discussion of this in the late 19th century... he was arguing with Marx
And it's well before Leninism, but he predicted
very perceptively that the rising class and intellectuals were just kind of becoming identified as a class and modern
modern industrial societies... he predicted that they were essentially going to go in one of two directions
There would be some who would believe that
The struggles of the working class would offer them an opportunity to rise and take state power in their own hands
And at that point he said they would become the red bureaucracy who would create the worst tyranny that
humanity has ever known of course all in the interests of the workers. That's one direction and he said the others
Would recognize that you're never going to get power that way and the way to get power is to associate yourself with
What we would nowadays call state capitalism
And just become the servants of its ruling class
And then you become the managers and the ideologues and so on for the state capitalist system
And as he put it those people will beat the people with the people stick in other words
They'll talk about democracy, but they'll really be beating people with the stick of democracy
Which they'll turn into a mechanism of coercion. There's some who think you can get power by
by exploiting popular struggles
And there are others who
see that you're going to get power by just associating yourself with the people already have economic power and that's largely dominated
And I think there was a very accurate description of the century that followed him
On the one his is fifty years before the Bolshevik Revolution
But he predicted its form very precisely and also its ideological background, and he also predicted
quite accurately what happens in the modern state capitalist industrial societies and looking at it now from the
retrospective a hundred years
We can see I think we can see this development very clearly and it also explains an odd fact about 20th century intellectual life
Namely, how easy it's been for people to shift from one position to another
so the same person who's a
Stalinist apologist one year is a super American patriot the next year is supporting every atrocity and
working and working in the Hoover Institute
And you know associated with most reactionary institutions that transition, which sometimes is called the God that failed
Change which was sort of authentic in the early years like people like Salone and others
You know there was something authentic about it. It became a joke. I mean when people within the... in fact
We're seeing in Russia right now
the the worst commissars are now the ones who are most passionate about the
You know the free market and investing and enriching yourself and so on
They've made the transition very easily and that goes way back, and I think the reason is there's no transition.
It's just a different estimate as to where power lies, but the same ideology.
The ideology is you beat the people with the people stick and we're going to do it in fact if you look at modern acad...
Democratic theory in the West it's remarkably similar to this. It's remarkably Leninist in its character
if you think of modern Democrat the leading
tendencies in the modern democratic theory in the West
so in in
academic world it would be the
Strands of political science that developed from the thinking of people like Harold Lasswell and others one of the founders of modern
contemporary political science and in the general sphere the Wilsonian
Intellectuals the so-called progressive intellectuals of whom maybe Walter Lippmann was the most
striking example in the United States
progressive intellectual in the 1920s
..all of these people developed theories of democracy and they're quite interesting they're very Leninist in their character
The conception is that in a democracy there's two classes of citizens
There's the general public who Lippmann calls
ignorant and meddlesome outsiders and
Lasswell says they're too stupid to... We should not be overcome by dogmatism
About the common man, who's too stupid to be able to do anything
That's the standard view so there's these people the ignorant and meddlesome outsiders
Which is maybe 90% of the population and then there are the responsible men the wise men... you know... the smart people
the
People with integrity and honor or the intellectual aristocracy whatever you call them
and they have to rule they're the ones who make the decisions who do the thinking and so on and the role of the
Masses the ignorant and meddlesome
Outsiders is just to show up every couple of years
Decide which of the smart guys is going to be their leader and then go home
0
3
9
11
14
19
21
25
27
33
39
43
47
51
53
60
64
65
70
77
81
90
97
101
108
116
123
129
132
136
142
147
153
157
160
162
169
174
179
186
194
196
204
209
212
220
223
230
235
242
243
249
253
260
264
270
277
280
283
285
287
294
300
306
309
311
318
322
326
329
336
339
344
351
352
356
363
366
369

View file

@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
Bill Moyers: Do you believe that by nature, human beings yearn for freedom?
Or do we settle in the interests of safety and security and conformity?
Do we settle for order?
Noam Chomsky: These are really matters of faith rather than knowledge.
On the one hand, you have the grand inquisitor who tells you what people - what humans crave - is submission.
And, therefore, Christ is a criminal, we have to vanquish freedom.
That's one view.
You have the other view of, say, Rousseau and some of his moments that people are born to be free
and that their basic instinct is the desire to free themselves from coercion, authority, and oppression.
The answer to which you believe is more or less where you stake your hopes.
I'd like to believe that people are born to be free.
But if you asked for proof, I couldn't give it to you.
0
3
9
11
14
20
24
25
30
37
43
47

View file

@ -0,0 +1,166 @@
computers were being developed actual
working computers and it was widely
believed and still is that sooner or
later they'll be massive computers with
very rapid processing and they can deal
with huge amounts of data carry out some
statistical procedure on the data and
something miraculous will come out it's
still very widely believed that people
are very misled by it
in fact there's there's something called
the
Turing test which is probably heard
about which, every year there's a
competition if you win it you get a
hundred-thousand dollars to pass something
called the Turing test, a totally
meaningless task it's is it supposed to
show it can you show that machine's
think it's all based on a paper of Alan
Turing's it was a great position and one
sounds of computational science and as
an eight-page paper that he wrote in
1950 on whether machines can think he
starts off the paper by saying the
question whether machines can think is
too meaningless deserve discussion that
sentence has somehow been ignored and
the entire literature and there's a good
reason for it because to ask whether
machines think is basically asking
what kind of metaphor you like that's
like asking do submarine swim, well
from a certain point you can say so
from another point of view not but it's
not a meaningful question he
proposed this imitation game which is now called
the Turing Test for a different
reason he said it'll be interesting to,
the idea is to see if you can construct a
program that'll
delude a blind observer you know and
then see what's going on but not be
able to distinguish the program to a
person
ok he says it will be useful for trying
to as a challenge to create bigger
machines better machines
ok maybe so that probably was but it
doesn't tell you anything about whether machines can
think in fact the whole idea of machines
thinking is posed in a way which is
almost designed to cause confusion I
should say that the people who are
confused by this are some of the most of
the leading philosophers most
influential philosophers and scientists
and others not a trivial thing won't
mention names with many of you know for
one thing machine the computer itself is
maybe useful as a paperweight
it doesn't do anything what is doing
anything is the program that you put
into it
ok so the real quick if you want to pose
the meaningless question it should be
can programs think? well what's a program
a program's just a theory written in a
crazy notation so that a machine can,
a computer can implement it, so the question
really is well, can this theory think in other
words is this a theory of thinking? Well I
know the answer is not unless you
understand something about thinking
nothing the theory of X just cause it
passes some meaningless test you know the
theory of X if it gives you insight and
understanding of the nature of X so the
real question is are the theories that
are written in these programs giving
us some insight into the nature of thinking?
And as soon as you pose that question you don't even
bother with the prize, because of course they're not.
0
2
4
8
12
16
20
22
25
27
30
33
34
36
38
40
44
46
52
55
58
61
64
66
72
76
78
82
84
86
91
93
95
98
100
103
106
109
111
115
117
118
122
125
126
127
130
132
134
138
139
142
145
148
150
152
154
157
160
163
167
170
173
175
176
179
181
184
188
191
194
197
200
202
204
208
210
213
216
219
223
225
228

View file

@ -0,0 +1,130 @@
I think there are good grounds for changing the nature of the political system pretty radically. I mean in a system of
organization of production let's say just keeping to that, which is geared towards
a profit maximization, not use is
inherently destructive.
[a] system of
institutional organization in which
the basic functioning
Institutions are totalitarian
like a business
Top-Down control
Fits somewhere and it take orders from above given below at the bottom you rent yourself. That's inherently I think
humanly and
socially destructive
So there's plenty of changes that could be made and we can think about them and in fact you can try to build
within the existing
Society
Pieces of what might be a more
democratic and humane future society it's even being done,
but you can't change the political system radically unless the great mass of the population
comes to a recognition
That we're in a situation where the changes that have to be made
can't be made and will be resisted within the current system. We're nowhere near that.
So I don't think the question arises as
a practical question. It does arise as a question to have in mind and choosing tactics and strategies.
I think any of us could sit down at
You know [a] coffee shop, and think of much better ways to run a world. You know, better institutions where
[democratic] ones were just ones and so on. But thinking of that doesn't really help. You have to get
the great mass of the population to be committed to creating and
You can only do that incrementally. You have to work within the system that exists.
you can do a lot of things within it. You can have
a vision of the future which people can take us a guideline for
further action and maybe leading
As I mentioned before, you can construct
institutions of a future society within this one, like cooperatives, for example, like
workaround enterprises. If they would extend they would be they would change the society enormously. And those are things that arise
constantly, if you're willing to grasp the opportunity. So take, let's say, the 2008 crash.
One of the things that happened, then which was pretty interesting
was that the government essentially nationalized the auto industry.
Basically just bailed it out it was going to disappear.
So the government meaning the taxpayer bought out the auto industry. And then there were a couple of choices that could have been made
That one choice is the one that was made without discussion,
namely turn it back to the former owners (may be new faces
but pretty much same town same banks
And so on). So essentially turn it back to the former owners and have it go on doing exactly what it was doing:
producing cars.
There was another possibility:
Turn it over to the workforce, let them run it democratically, and have it produced with the society needs,
which is not more cars, but rational mass transportation.
That was another possibility.
But in order for it to be implemented you had to have mass popular support for it. There was essentially none,
so it didn't happen. And things like that happened even right locally in this neighborhood. So a couple of years ago, there was a
small plant and
Taunton, suburb of Boston, which was quite successful: a plant making
sophisticated parts for aircraft.
It wasn't making enough profit for the multinational who owned that could keep it going. So, they decided to put it out of business.
the
progressive union, offered to buy the plant, and have it run by the workforce.
Which probably would have been profitable for the multinational, but for class reasons, they don't like that kind of thing.
If there had been popular support,
they could have won.
There wasn't any so they didn't win.
Things like that are happening all the time.
These could lead to major changes in the society. Are they incremental? in a sense.
but they're their long-term consequences, they could be very great. And
that's true of all kinds of things.
0
9
15
19
20
23
26
28
31
33
36
45
46
47
54
56
58
61
65
72
75
81
87
90
97
100
109
118
123
129
132
137
141
146
152
161
169
173
178
181
189
194
199
202
208
210
212
218
223
225
233
241
244
251
254
262
263
270
278
280
282
285
287
293
299

View file

@ -0,0 +1,122 @@
Recovery of counterattack Full name What to look at Soindo 2 It's a recent job, but it's a Huh Life album.
I like sitting in the spring, but don't put it up and look for it again
It's okay and it will be all right. Uh 1 I like to say in the email.
There was a time when I was able to tie the Bravo main to good, so why didn't I tell the prisoner that I should have been given a strong blow?
nl As if not from the west, when I was in the B-L era, I wanted to be from Chukyung-an on the top of the prime lens.
Did you sign up for anything? When the four of us didn't do anything, that's what we said.
It's rumored that there was no Cho Eun-yu and no network delivery.
The dermis is also a bit of a drive.
I can't tell you what the examinees are doing.
Once the Chuno was in Prague, it was reported that the rice wine was very good to meet in July.
If you don't look at the baby, it's funny that you're not wearing underwear.
After dropping in the value security at 2 pieces in Vista, come on and lend it and Le Map ate the face wash
That's why there are uvex knife trends, so this year, Lee acts come to know the pearl eyeshadow
Kiman Shrinking Out of Sleep How the sleep was the main of the forest The lost courtyard Sejun Jobin Mae published these editions
1 yaen In Excel, I can be strong like this.
Even if you feel like the church is not going to mean heavy pressure, this creative earth will give you a space to go out.
As a monk, the nor shank sprig rack at the bottom is q8.
Yeah xun from duo on copying 5% sct
I can play web sound hattu for the first time.
I put a little bit and the application has seen a strike.
Crack distance n2 What can give you something?
When the fire is a little bit, when the hooker d2 age comes up, the story f5 that floats is prepared and spread by countless outside prisoners
It's inconvenient to get rid of it.
Well nss and suspicions When counting children, Marie Black has a lot of real lover's suits, the mother is Platy Wool. 2
I'm going to do it. I want to eve the stents line.
And you can make a super elk in fpu horses mind de sharm
Chloe wants to pay a price for a deca locker, then polite 3 than this scalpel
In the future, the graph is about 20 pills of Wesley's side.
Even if I did a drink, I came to the router for 50 nights. Shane Demi, this habit is more superberry shipment.
Red Hill House 2
I think it's the deer's job. Even if it's a horse, Loewe Intern Let's ask Stahl, who wrote it in July. Time Rush 2 1 3
Other than that, it can be like a spoiled yet crooked crocodile with one drink, but I have read it.
But this knife is hot, so I just paste 50 more on the horse. The blue one is the decal.
Maybe it's probably 1 1 Ciao Oh so 50 to close the company to write 58
yaen I'm famous and I want to use Nam Won-ju 8 weeks ago.
The sensation is the fire, and we use you. We put the fetus in front of the wm cut-in.
Kershaw 5 January Sui One time I know how to lose I would have slept a little
2 om combination would dawn more ah
out on sep 2 or 50 dot four seoul tower um none
Yes, when those rs are a bit sad, when I give a temper between oo want has spoken
Que 3 yo service that represents 8 hours co2 clot
Others should be under the hood rd ste an open a site 3
wicker opera Why was this erotic sex tm 2
Oh, ah, oh why did this rule give me a little polite pop up
Ender fleets once n 4 4 5 5 Wenser Easy Tek demand will also own cube
Ah this source was a white candle lamp e5 trident user to Fist into Jewelry Shop or when it seems is related
video Dwarf serve as we paste term 4 Kerom, what is it?
9 ji do mo You didn't have it at all. I have 3 sweets all the time.
I wanted to make the weather harder Hold this bed Oh yeah but what takes office What is 3 notes 3
Hyundai lf love spell 4 escape into a too much to say 34km wafer rab 4 c less than 50% 4
Give me 559 Then what then why?
Ah the tankers are wolves themselves, even when they are given openflow m
Ah, the main boat shoots 10 shots 40% from the inside.
If you do, you will be treated by courier El.
I'm sure it's gonna be ah ah a why spravel israel a lot of rides and de singer's pants have gone blessed so cow absorbed say red
Go ahead and write it and you can make a rs flop. You can do this like this.
But turn chef Schul late only 7 degrees technical data cell black l5 legislators can pay their salary free kml while drinking kml soup
Don't get the bridge or Fraze Holden from the xl got string site
After class, when I broke the brand, I used his son frn
Wait, it's been a week since I liked one thing. I know how to get caught. It's almost anything.
You need to know how to separate the bra by scratching
0
9
14
23
34
44
53
63
71
82
94
101
108
117
125
136
146
154
162
168
175
183
192
197
205
211
219
227
237
248
252
261
269
280
289
297
307
313
320
331
342
355
364
372
379
391
406
424
434
443
456
465
472
478
485
497
509
519
528
535
543

File diff suppressed because it is too large Load diff

File diff suppressed because it is too large Load diff

View file

@ -0,0 +1,510 @@
I think that the libertarian socialist concepts, and by that I mean a range of thinking that extends from
Left-Wing Marxism through Anarchism; I think that these are fundamentally correct and that they are the proper and natural
extension of classical liberalism into the era of Advanced industrial Society in
contrast it seems to me that the ideology of state socialism, that is what has become of bolshevism and
of state Capitalism, the Modern Welfare state.
These of course are dominant in
the Industrial countries and industrial societies
but I believe that they are regressive and
highly inadequate social theories and that a large number of our really fundamental problems stem from A
kind of incompatibility and
inappropriateness of these social forms to a modern industrial society
a French writer rather sympathetic to Anarchism once wrote that Anarchism has a broad back like paper it endures anything and
There are many shades of anarchism
And I'm concerned here only with one namely the anarchism of Bakunin who wrote in his anarchist
Manifesto of 1865 that to be an anarchist one must first be a socialist
I'm concerned with the anarchism of Adolph Fischer one of the martyrs of the
Haymarket affair in 1886 who said that every anarchist is a socialist, but not every socialist is necessarily an anarchist a
Consistent anarchist must oppose private ownership of the means of production
such property is indeed, as
Proudhon, his famous remark asserted, a form of theft
But a consistent anarchist will also oppose
the organization of production by government
I'm quoting, it means state socialism, the command of the state officials over production and the command of
managers, scientists, shop officials in the shop the goal of the working class is liberation from
Exploitation and this goal is not reached and cannot be reached by a new directing and governing class
Substituting itself for the bourgeoisie it is only realized by the workers themselves being master over production by some form of workers councils
These remarks, it happens, are quoted from the Left-wing Marxist Anton Pannekoek and in fact radical Marxism
What Lenin once called infantile ultra leftism
merges with anarchist currents
There's an important point. I think and let me give one further illustration of this convergence between Left-wing Marxism and
socialist anarchism
Considering the following
characterization of
revolutionary Socialism
The revolutionary socialist Denies that state ownership can end in anything other than a bureaucratic despotism
We have seen why the state cannot democratically control industry
Industry can only be democratically owned and controlled by the workers electing directly from Their own ranks
Industrial administrative committees
Socialism will be fundamentally an industrial system its constituencies will be of an industrial character
Thus those carrying on the social activity and industries of society will be directly represented in the local and central councils of social administration
In this way the powers of such delegates will flow upwards from those carrying on the work and conversant with the needs of the community
When the Central administrative industrial committee meets it will represent every phase of Social activity
Hence the capitalist political or geographical state will be replaced by the industrial administrative committee of socialism
The transition from One social system to the other will be the social revolution
The political state throughout history has meant the government of men by ruling classes
The Republic of Socialism will be the government of industry
administered on behalf of the whole community
the former meant the economic and political
Subjection of the many the latter will mean the economic freedom of all it will be therefore a true democracy
These remarks are taken from a book called the state its origins and function written by William Paul in early
1917 just prior to Lenin's State and Revolution, which is his most libertarian work
William Paul was one founders of the British Communist party later the Editor the British Communist party journal
And it's interesting that his critique of state socialism
Resembles very closely I think the libertarian doctrine of the anarchists in
particular in its principle that the state must disappear
To be replaced by the industrial organization of society in the course of the social revolution itself
Proudhon in 1851 wrote that what we put in place of the government is industrial
organization and many many similar comments can be cited that in a sense is the
fundamental idea of
Anarchist revolutionaries
What's more important than the fact that many such statements can be cited is that these ideas have been realized in Spontaneous revolutionary action
several times for example in Germany and Italy after the first world war in Catalonia in 1936
One might argue at least I would argue that
Council Communism in this sense in the sense of the long quotation that I read is
the natural form of Revolutionary Socialism in an industrial society
It reflects the intuitive understanding that democracy is largely a sham when the industrial system is controlled by any form of autocratic elite
whether of owners managers
technocrats a vanguard party a state bureaucracy or whatever
under these conditions of Authoritarian domination the classical liberal ideals
Which are expressed also by Marx and Bakunin and all true revolutionaries
Cannot be realized man will in other words not be free to inquire and create to develop his own
potentialities to their fullest the worker will remain a fragment of a human being
Degraded a tool in the productive process directed from above
the ideas of Revolutionary Libertarian Socialism in this sense they've been
submerged in the industrial societies of the past half century the
dominant ideologies have been those of state Socialism and state capitalism
But there's been an interesting resurgence in the last couple of years
fact the theses that I quoted from Anton Pannekoek they were taken from a recent pamphlet of a radical French workers group and
the quotation that I read from William Paul on revolutionary Socialism was taken from a paper by
Walter Kendall at the National Conference on workers control in Sheffield, England Last March
both of these groups the French and the English one represents something significant the workers control movement in England in particular
Has developed into a I think remarkably significant force in the last few years it includes some of the largest trade unions for example
the amalgamated engineering federation which I think is the second largest trade unit in England and
which has taken these principles as its
fundamental ideas
It's had a series of successful conferences putting out an interesting Pamphlet literature and on the continent there are parallel developments May
1968 in France of course accelerated the growing interest in
Council Communism and similar ideas other forms of Libertarian Socialism in France and Germany as it did in England
given the general
Conservative cast of our highly ideological Society it not too surprising that the united states is relatively untouched by these currents
but that too may change
the erosion of the Cold War mythology
At least makes it possible to discuss some of these questions
And if the present wave of repression [can] be beaten back
if the left can overcome its more suicidal tendencies and build on the achievements of the past decade the
[problem] of how to organize industrial society on truly democratic lines with democratic control in the workplace as [well] as in the [community]
this should become the dominant intellectual issue for those who are alive [for] the problems of contemporary Society and
and as a mass movement for revolutionary Libertarian Socialism develops as I hope it will
speculation should proceed to action
Now [it] may seem
quixotic to group left Marxism and Anarchism under the same rubric as I've done given the antagonism throughout the past century between
marxists and anarchists beginning with the
Antagonism between
Marx and Angles on the one hand and for example Proudhon and Bakunin on the other in the 19th century at least their differences
with regard to the question of the state was
significant but in a sense it was tactical the
Anarchists were convinced that capitalism and the state must be destroyed together
Angles in a letter of 1883 Expressed his opposition to this idea as follows
The anarchists put the thing upside down they declare that the proletarian revolution must begin by doing away with the political organization of the state
But to destroy it at [such] a moment [would] be to destroy the only organism by means of which the victorious
Proletariat can assert its newly conquered power
Hold down its adversaries and carry out that economic revolution of society without which the whole victory must end in a new
defeat and a mass slaughter of the workers similar to those after the Paris commune
the Paris commune I think it's fair to [say] did represent the ideas [of] Libertarian socialism of anarchism if you like and
Marx of course wrote about it with great enthusiasm
He in fact the experience of the commune led him to modify his concept for the role of the state
As you can see for example by looking at the introduction to the Communist Manifesto the the addition of it was published in 1872
And to take on something like a more anarchist
perspective of the Nature of Social revolution
well the commune was of course drowned in blood as the anarchist communes of Spain were destroyed by Fascist and Communist armies and
It might be argued that more dictatorial structures would have defended the revolution against such forces
But I doubt this very much
at least in the case of Spain
Seems to me that a more consistent libertarian policy might have provided the [only] possible defense of the revolution
Of course this can be contested, and it's a long story which I don't [wanna] go into here, but [at] the very least
It's clear [that] one would have to be rather naive after the events of the past half century
To fail to see the truth in Bakunin's repeated warnings that the red bureaucracy would prove the most vile and terrible lie of the century
He once said take the most radical revolutionary and place him on the throne of all the Russia's, to all Russia,
He said in 1870 or give him a dictatorial power and before a year has passed he will become worse than the Tsar himself
I'm afraid in this respect [Bakunin] was all too perceptive and this kind of warning was repeatedly voiced from the from the left
For example the anarcho-syndicalist Fernand Pelloutier asked
1890s must even the transitory state to which we have to submit
Necessarily and fatally be the collectivist
Jail? Can't it assist in a free organization limited exclusively by the needs of production and consumption all political institutions having disappeared?
I don't pretend to know the answer to that question
But I think it's tolerably clear that unless the answer is positive
The chances for a truly democratic revolution that will achieve the humanistic ideals of the left are perhaps rather slight
I think Martin Buber put problem quite succinctly when he said
One cannot in the nature of things expect a little tree that has been turned into a club to put forth leaves
for just this reason
It's essential that a powerful revolutionary movement exists in the united states if there are to be any reasonable
possibilities for democratic social change of a radical Sort any within a capitalist world and
Comparable remarks, I think undoubtedly hold for the Russian Empire
Lenin till the end of his life stressed the idea
I quote that it is an elementary truth of Marxism
that the victory of Socialism requires the joint effort of workers in a number of Advanced countries at
the very least it requires that the great centers of world imperialism be impeded by
Domestic pressures from Counter Revolutionary intervention only such possibilities will permit any revolution to overthrow
its own
Coercive state institutions as it tries to bring the economy under direct democratic control
I've mentioned so far two reference points for a discussion of the state classical liberalism and libertarian socialism
They're in agreement that the functions of the state are repressive and that state action must be limited
The Libertarian socialist goes on to insist that the state power must be eliminated in favor of the democratic organization of industrial society
With direct popular control over all institutions by those who
Participate in as well as those who are directly affected by the workings of these institutions
So one might imagine then a system of workers' councils, consumers' Councils, Commune assemblies, regional Federation's, and so on
With the kind of representation that's direct and revocable in the sense that
Representatives are directly answerable to and returned directly to the well-defined and integrated social group
for which they speak in some higher-order
organization something obviously very different than our system of representation
Now it might very well be asked whether such a social structure is feasible in a complex highly technological society
There are counter arguments
and I think they fall into two [main] categories first category is that such an organization is contrary to human Nature and
The second category says roughly that it's incompatible with the demands of efficiency, and I'd like to briefly consider each of these
Consider the first that a free society is contrary to human nature
It's often ask do men really want freedom? Do they want the responsibility [that] goes with it?
Or would they prefer to be ruled by a benevolent master?
Consistently apologists for the existing [distribution] of power have held to one or another version of the idea of the happy slave
200 Years ago Rousseau denounced the sophistic politicians and intellectuals
Who searched for ways to obscure the fact, so he maintained, that the essential and defining property of man is freedom
They attribute to man a natural inclination to servitude without thinking that it is the same for freedom as for innocence and virtue
Their value is felt only as long as one enjoys them oneself and the taste for them is lost
As soon as one has lost them
As proof of this doctrine he refers to the marvels done by all free peoples to guard themselves from oppression
True, he says, those who have abandoned the life of a free man
Do nothing but boast incessantly of the peace and repose they enjoy in their chains
But when I see the other sacrifice pleasures repose wealth power and life itself for the preservation of this soul good
Which is so disdained by those who have lost it when I see multitudes of entirely naked Savages scorn European voluptuousness
and endure hunger fire the sword and death to preserve only their independence
[I] feel it does not behoove slaves to reason about freedom a
comment which
To which we can perhaps give a contemporary interpretation
Rather similar thoughts were expressed by [Immanuel] Kant 40 years later
He cannot he says accept the proposition that
certain people are not right [for] freedom for example the serfs of some landlord if
one accepts this assumption he writes freedom will never be achieved
For one cannot arrive at the maturity for freedom without having already acquired it
One must be free to learn how to make use of one's powers freely and usefully
The first attempts will surely be brutal and will lead to a state of affairs more painful and dangerous than the former condition
under the dominance
but also the protection of an external authority
However one can achieve reason only through one's own experiences and one must be free to be able to undertake them
To accept the principle that freedom is worthless for those under one's control and that one has the right to refuse it to them forever
Is an infringement on the right of God himself who has created man to be free
this particular remark is
Interesting because of its context as well. Kant, in this occasion, was defending French revolution during terror
against those who claimed that it showed the masses to be unready for the privilege of freedom and
His remarks to I think have obvious contemporary Relevance
No rational person will approve of violence and terror and in particular the terror of the post-revolutionary state
Which is fallen into the hands of a grim autocracy has more than once reached indescribable levels of savagery
at the same time no person of
Understanding or humanity will too quickly condemn the violence that often occurs when long subdued masses
Rise against their oppressors or take their first steps towards liberty and social reconstruction
Humboldt just a Few years before Kant had expressed the view very similar to that he also said that freedom and variety are the
preconditions for human self-realization
Nothing promotes this ripeness for freedom so much as freedom itself
This truth perhaps may not be acknowledged by those who have so often used this unripeness as an excuse for continuing repression
But it seems to me to follow unquestionably from the very nature of man
The incapacity for freedom can only arise from a want of Moral and intellectual power
to heighten this power is the only way to supply the want but to do so
presupposes the freedom which awakens spontaneous activity and those who do not comprehend this he says may justly be suspected of
Misunderstanding Human Nature and wishing to make men into machines
Rosa Luxemburg's
fraternal sympathetic Critique of Bolshevik ideology and practice was given in very similar terms
Only the active participation of the masses [in] self-government [and] social reconstruction
Could bring about what she described as the complete spiritual transformation
in the masses degraded by centuries of bourgeois class rule
just as only their creative experience and spontaneous action can Solve the myriad problems of creating a
Libertarian Socialist Society
she went on to
Say that historically the [errors] committed by a truly revolutionary movement are infinitely more fruitful than the infallibility of the Cleverest central
committee and
[I] think that these remarks
Can be translated immediately for the somewhat parallel ideology of the soulful corporation
Which is now fairly popular among American academics for example Carl Kaysen who writes
No longer the agent of proprietorship seeking to maximize return on investment
Management sees itself as responsible to stockholders, employees, customers, the general public, and perhaps most important, the firm itself as an institution
There is no display of Greed or grasping this
There's no attempt to push off on the workers of the community at least part of the social costs of the enterprise
The Modern Corporation is a Soulful corporation
Similarly the [vanguard] party is a soulful party and in both cases those who urge [that] men submit to the rule of these benevolent
Autocracies may I think justly be accused of wishing to make men into machines
Now the correctness of the view which is expressed by rousseau and Kant and Humboldt and luxembourg and innumerable others
I don't think that the correctness of this is at the moment
Susceptible to scientific proof -- one can only evaluate it in terms of experience and intuition
But one can also point out the social consequences of adopting the view that men are born to be free
Or that they are born to be ruled by Benevolent Autocrats
[what] of the second question the question of efficiency is democratic control of the industrial system down to its smallest functional units
Incompatible with efficiency? This is very frequently argued on several grounds some say for example that centralized management is a technological
imperative
But I think the argument is exceedingly weak when one looks into it
The very same technology that brings relevant information to the board of managers
Can bring it at the time that it is needed to everyone in the Workforce
The technology that's now capable of eliminating the stupefying labor that turns men into specialized tools of production
this technology permits in Principle leisure and the educational opportunities that make them able to use this information in a rational way and
Furthermore even an
Economic elite which is dripping with soulfulness to use Ralph Miliband's phrase
Is constrained by the system in which it functions to organize production for certain ends: power, growth, profit
But not in the nature of the case human needs, needs that to an evermore critical degree can be expressed only in collective terms
It's surely conceivable and perhaps It's even likely that
Decisions made by the collective itself will reflect these needs and interests as well as those made [by] various Soulful elites in
Any event it's a bit difficult to take seriously
Arguments about efficiency in a society that devotes such enormous resources to waste and destruction
As everyone knows the very concept of efficiency is dripping with ideology
Maximum maximization of commodities is hardly the only measure of a decent existence the point is familiar and no elaboration is necessary
0
6
14
19
25
29
31
34
37
43
45
50
58
60
66
71
75
83
87
89
93
96
99
105
110
116
125
131
135
139
146
148
149
151
153
159
163
169
171
177
185
193
198
205
209
214
218
220
222
229
237
243
247
251
255
258
263
268
273
275
278
286
293
296
300
304
312
314
318
324
328
334
338
343
348
353
357
360
367
373
379
386
395
400
403
405
412
416
423
426
434
436
439
442
446
452
460
466
472
475
477
484
487
488
495
498
501
506
511
518
523
526
532
538
544
547
553
560
564
567
574
579
582
584
590
594
599
607
614
622
631
635
640
642
651
653
657
665
668
676
677
683
689
694
697
699
705
710
717
718
726
733
738
746
750
755
763
767
774
776
782
789
790
798
806
810
814
819
826
830
837
844
849
853
860
863
868
875
883
887
892
893
898
902
906
911
914
919
924
929
930
933
939
946
951
954
961
966
969
976
982
985
991
999
1005
1007
1011
1018
1021
1026
1031
1038
1043
1044
1049
1055
1059
1063
1070
1072
1073
1081
1082
1084
1090
1096
1101
1109
1111
1117
1121
1129
1134
1140
1142
1147
1152
1157
1164
1172
1173
1176
1180
1184
1191
1199
1200
1205
1212
1220
1224
1231
1234
1240
1245

View file

@ -0,0 +1,70 @@
The term intellectual as used in the West is a very curious one; it actually comes,
mostly it begins around the time of the Dreyfus trial, before that you just don't find the
word in "dissent". And, if you take a look at the Dreyfus trial, there were a group of critics,
Emile Zola and others, we could call them dissident intellectuals, and there were the respected
admired intellectuals, the immortals of the French Academy and so on, and they fulfilled
their typical role. The critics were denounced and condemned as Zola himself found out -he
had to flee the country- the immortals the grand-intellectuals that condemned them for
daring to, "what is this writer who knows nothing, how is he daring to condemn the majesty
of the French State and the French military" and so on. That's the typical division. The
term came to be used at the time but the creation goes way back. So you can carry it back to
Classical Greece for example; who was condemned to drink the hemlock? The guy who was corrupting
the youth of Athens by asking too many questions. Take the biblical stories, folk-tales, but
roughly the same period. And they were people who were critical of power who were doing
geopolitical analysis condemning the crimes of the kings and calling for mercy to widows
and orphans and so on. They didn't have the term intellectuals, they called them with
an obscure Hebrew term which is translated as "prophets" and what happened to them? They
were imprisoned, driven to the desert, denounced. At the same time there were the flatterers
of the Court, later called "false prophets", who were the respected ones -centuries later
that changed, but not at the time- and that distinction goes right to the present. In
the West there is a very intriguing tradition. So in the West there is the word "dissident"
but it's only used for critics in enemy countries. So Sakharov, Havel, Ai WeiWei, Shirin Ebadi,
they are dissidents. But people like the ones I'm looking up on that photograph [San Salvador
Bishop Oscar Romero] they are leading Latin American intellectual Jesuit priests who had
their brains blown out by security forces who had been trained by the United States,
they are not dissidents; in fact they are unknown. But the fact is that the term should
be generalised and the pattern remains. If you take a look at the people called intellectuals,
typically in almost every society, there is, the large majority of them are supportive
of power and admired and respected and well treated. But typically there is a small margin
who are critical, often take courageous acts to confront power, often, sometimes write
and speak, and one or another way they are marginalised, condemned, just how, it depends
on the nature of the society. So if it's an American-run colony like El
Salvador as in the painting I'm looking at, they get their brains blown out. If it's
Eastern Europe maybe they are jailed. If it's Western Europe or the United States maybe
they are just marginalised and condemned; but it's a pretty typical pattern.
0
1
7
12
21
33
40
48
54
62
68
77
84
92
99
107
111
118
125
131
136
144
153
159
163
169
176
183
188
196
204
212
217
224
230

File diff suppressed because it is too large Load diff

View file

@ -0,0 +1,124 @@
Okay, your political ideas,
they have a foundation on ethics, yeah?..ethics, morality and then I want to ask you:
How is morality compatible with..
limited mind, determined human as you put it, if I understood you well
because in
limited mind and determined human, I don't see a place for the free will, which is the base of
morality in the human world, so what you think about it? About free will?
And morality, which is of course the base of politics and social ideas
Yeah, human moral principles we can study,
like the kind of work that I mentioned, John Mikhail and others
are carrying out the beginnings of experimental work which sheds light on, and may ultimately shed a lot of light on
what our innate moral principles are, what Hume was looking for, for example,
and Adam Smith and others. That could shed some light on it
I don't think it's going to tell you much about freedom of the will
Freedom of the will I think we're stuck pretty much where Descartes was
We just can't
abandon believing it, it's our most immediate
phenomenologically obvious impression,
but we can't explain it, and as he said, if there's something which we just know to be true, and we don't have any
explanation for it, well too bad for our explanatory
possibilities, but I don't see any way of getting around that
There's a lot of arguments that we don't have freedom of the will, and those arguments are..there's a ton of literature on that, and
the literature is kind of interesting, actually for reasons that William James discussed
He said: if you believe that there's no freedom of the will,
why bother presenting an argument?
You're just
You're forced to do it, the person you're talking to can't be convinced, because there's no such thing as reasons
So why not watch a baseball game - that wasn't his example.
But you know, anybody who denies freedom the will actually believes that it's there, otherwise they wouldn't bother presenting reasons
I mean unless they say "look, I'm just forced to present the..I can't do anything else but to present these reasons."
Yeah, they're very very odd these discussions many of them. Actually you may have seen some experimental work
which caused the big flurry a couple of years ago.
Some neurophysiologists discovered that
if a person's going to carry an act of willed action, let's say, you know, pick this up, say
you can find
activity in the motor centers of the brain
before there's a decision to pick it up,
and that was held to show, okay
we've undermined freedom of the will. It didn't say anything. All it
says is what we ought to know anyway, decisions are mostly made unconsciously
By the time they reach the level of consciousness, they've probably already been made. But that doesn't tell anything about how decisions are made
My question relates to the previous question actually um,
free well, I'd like to ask you as a philosopher, I'd like to ask you this question
You know studies have shown that
decisions made in the brain actually appear some moments before an individual
makes them
well, how can you then say that
there is such a thing as free will, I mean
Thus
wiring determinism, you know, it proves that free will basically doesn't exist
Those are the experiments I was just referring to
There are some experiments which show that in a willed action, simple willed motor action, you know picking something up,
there is
activity and the Relevant parts of the Motor Cortex
Before the decision to pick it up is conscious
Okay, that tells us absolutely nothing about freedom of the will
accept that
choices are probably unconscious, but I think we know that without the experiments
What?
It's complicated
Complicated? Oh yeah, anything in this area is very..when we understand nothing everything's complicated. Yeah,
that's another truism.
1
6
15
22
29
31
39
46
50
55
59
67
72
76
79
84
85
89
91
97
102
106
114
118
123
127
128
134
138
145
151
159
164
167
174
177
180
184
187
191
196
205
209
217
220
225
227
229
232
233
238
241
249
250
255
259
263
265
272
273
276
283

View file

@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
it's interesting to see what is happening in France and these days elsewhere
except that a bicross grid there is a lot of all celebration and
satisfaction because the charlie weekly newspaper published caricatures
racist Muslims made Nazi caricatures of Jews so they
published it makes me benge because if he had done that he would be imprisoned
what makes us rub is really a fraudulent debate
2
6
12
15
25
29

View file

@ -0,0 +1,64 @@
- [Interviewer] You've said that evil in society
arises from institutions, not inherently from our nature.
Do you think most human beings are good,
they have good intent, or do most have the capacity
for intentional evil that depends on their upbringing,
depends on their environment, on context?
- [Noam Chomsky] I wouldn't say
that they don't arise from our nature.
Anything we do arises from our nature,
and the fact that we have certain institutions
and not others is one mode in which
human nature has expressed itself,
but as far as we know, human nature could yield
many different kinds of institutions.
The particular ones that have developed
have to do with historical contingency,
who conquered whom and that sort of thing.
They're not rooted in our nature in the sense
that they're essential to our nature,
so it's commonly argued these days
that something like market systems
is just part of our nature, but we know
from a huge amount of evidence that that's not true.
There's all kinds of other structures.
It's a particular fact about a moment of modern history.
Others have argued that the roots of classical liberalism,
actually argue that what's called sometimes
an instinct for freedom, the instinct to be free
of domination by illegitimate authorities
is the core of our nature.
That would be the opposite of this, and we don't know.
We just know that human nature can accommodate both kinds.
1
5
9
11
14
18
20
21
24
27
30
34
37
40
43
46
50
53
57
60
63
66
69
73
75
79
84
88
91
95
97
101

View file

@ -0,0 +1,404 @@
I think it's extremely dangerous in many
ways like the ones I mentioned and
others that you're quite familiar with
on the other hand there's plenty of
opportunities that we should bear in mind
that the country has become much more
civilized in the past 50 or 60 years
a meeting like this could not have been
conceivable in 1969-70 the kinds of
commitment and engagement that you and
many others like you are apart committed
to is something quite new and there have
been many advances and achievement
women's rights civil rights generally
rights of gays opposition to aggressions
wave of environmental concerns that even
exist at that time there's been
tremendous progress that means that
struggles today start from a much
higher plane than they did not many years
ago at the time when Harry was marching
in Selma it was a much harsher world than it
is today
the reason is that plenty of people did
commit themselves to constant
dedicated struggle and there were plenty
of achievements and that goes back in
American history
no need to review it but the earlier
period is one of total horror after all the
country was founded on two incredible
crimes
unbelievable crimes that one ex..
virtual extermination of the indigenous
population, its kind of migrant crisis in
the kind we don't think about today and
form of slavery which is the most
vicious in history and is in fact the
basis for a large part of the wealth
and economic development of the
United States, England, France and others
that's history when Donald Trump talks
about making the country great again for
many people it wasn't that great
quite the opposite [Applause]
But the point is there has been plenty of
progress because people facing
much harsher conditions than we do
didn't give up
that's an important lesson. Furthermore
even the election itself suggests major
opportunities. For one thing as you know
the Democrats actually had a
considerable majority of the vote and if you
look at the younger voters, the people
who will shape the future they were
overwhelmingly anti Trump and even more
overwhelmingly pro Sanders [applause]
you should also bear in mind
what a remarkable phenomenon the Sanders
campaign [applause] there's somebody unknown came from
nowhere practically no one in the country
knew who he was, he was using words like
socialism which used to be a real curse word
No corporate support, no media support,
no support from the wealthy
everything that has always been crucial
to winning elections,
mostly we have bought elections, had none of it
and practically took over one of
the two major parties, that could have taken it over
if it hadn't been for shenanigans [applause]
It was primarily driven by young people all
of these are very hopeful signs, means there are plenty of
things that can be done there are
opportunities that can be grasped and no
time to run through them but there are
plenty of them and its really very much
in our hands and among the younger of
you in your hands to carry us forward in
this long long arduous path towards
trying to create a civilized society and a decent world.
A lot of dicussion in recent weeks about
the role of workers, of the
working class in this election of
Trump's supposed appeal to white workers
and, Harry you know that the civil rights
movement, as it was growing
and developing needed and was fueled
as well by progressive unions like 11 99
and the auto workers and others that
give it strength and organization and
resources I'm wondering how you're looking at
this issue, cause Noam as you mentioned all
the young people the problem is that the
young people of the so-called creative
classes are increasingly concentrating
in the big cities they're in Seattle and
they're in Chicago and New York and
and the issue then is what happens
in the rest of the country. You know back in the
sixties and seventies we used to say you
gotta go back out and organize
organize in the communities from which
you came from
How do you see this whole analysis of
quote: "loss of the working class", to sort of
progressive politics that we're
hearing in the commercial when the
corporate breast.. Well take a look again
at the last few elections. In.. Many
of the Trump voters
among the white working class voted for
Obama. They were deluded by the slogans
of the campaign, you may recall that the 2008
campaign was based on the slogan hope
and change
well many people voted rightly for hope
and change. The working class has
suffered not disastrously but severely
from the neoliberal policies of the past
generation pretty much from 1979
so if you look, say, just take the 2007 the
peak of what economists were calling the
economic miracle right before the crash
2007 American workers had real wages
lower considerably lower than in 1979
before these policies were instituted
they lost it
listen to Alan Greenspan who during the
height of the euphoria over the economy
he was called St Alan, the greatest
economist of all time he testified to
Congress explaining the basis for the
success of the economy that he was
running. He said it was based on growing
worker insecurity, growing worker
insecurity, meaning if workers are
beaten down enough and intimidated
enough and if their organizations
their unions are sufficiently destroyed
that they can't ask for higher wages and
for decent benefits
then it's good for the economy, creates a
healthy economy by some measures we know
the measure well all of this has
happened and the working class has
suffered from it they had a real need
for hope and change
well they didn't get hope they didn't
get change.
I don't usually agree with sarah palin
but I think she she nailed it when she
asked at one point that where's all this
hopey changey business number wasn't it
so no hope no change already it shows
very quickly in mid term future elections
this election a comment came along and
offering hope and change and they're
going for it
suppose that people like you
the people who formed the Sanders
movement would present an authentic
constructive program for real
hope and change it would win these
people back
I think many of the Trump voters
many of the trump voters could have voted for
Sanders if there had been the right
kind of activism organization and
those are possibilities
it's been done in the past under much
harsher circumstances organizing white
working people in Indiana is a lot
easier than what the Freedom Riders
tried to do in the South six years ago
much is it takes work that can be done
my feeling is that a core part of the
progressive program is to rebuild the
organized structure of the labor
movement which all throughout modern
history has been in the forefront of
progressive change and that's not
possible either been beaten down pretty
severely in the first generation has
been worse before they go back to the
nineteen-twenties a period which is not
unlike today in many ways the the guild
today's you know the the labor movement
was virtually destroyed Wilson Woodrow
Wilson's Red Scare practically wiped it
out there had been a militant activist
labor movement there's nothing left of
it in nineteen twenties by the
nineteen-thirties it provides the
militant labor action organization of
the CIO overcame racist conflict laid
the basis for the New Deal
programs which were highly beneficial to
the extent that they remain they remain
beneficial that can happen again
no reason why it can't
0
2
4
6
10
13
17
22
24
30
33
38
41
43
47
52
55
58
63
65
68
71
75
76
79
83
85
88
89
92
96
100
101
108
110
114
117
120
123
127
130
133
137
141
144
153
156
160
163
164
167
172
175
179
182
185
188
192
207
210
213
222
224
226
230
234
237
241
243
246
249
251
262
267
270
272
277
279
281
284
288
292
296
301
306
308
312
314
317
321
324
326
328
330
333
335
338
341
344
346
349
350
352
353
356
358
361
363
366
367
370
374
376
379
385
390
394
395
401
405
410
413
418
422
425
428
434
439
441
444
448
452
455
458
462
464
467
471
474
477
480
483
486
488
490
494
496
501
504
507
509
511
514
518
520
524
529
532
536
539
540
543
546
549
555
558
559
563
570
576
580
582
585
590
592
596
600
604
609
613
615
618
620
623
626
629
631
634
638
641
644
646
649
651
654
656
659
664
667
671
674
676

View file

@ -0,0 +1,128 @@
This contrast between
inductivism and
deductivism seems to me strongly influenced by
Karl Popper, right. So my question is..
Yes, the philosopher Karl Popper, and so my question is
this: Has there been any influence by Popper on your work?
Popper was just describing. What's
common-sense science since the 17th century
In fact I would question your first statement
It's true that I've been involved in a methodological critique since the late 40s, but it's a methodological pratik of non science
non science this starts with just
Collecting data and trying to make inductive generalizations from it and it gets absolutely nowhere
No, you just can't do it. It's been understood, in fact one of the parts of the
Modern scientific revolution, you know so-called Galilean revolution is you don't even try that
You search
That's why scientists do experiments
In fact in Galileo's case kind of thought
Experiments like he didn't drop two balls off the top of the Tower of Pisa that would never have worked
He just had a very elegant
argument thought argument that explained why
rate of fall wasn't going to
Be affected by mass
Sometimes he may have done experiments a lot of who didn't but the point is ever since the 17th century in fact even before
The scientists inquire of the world they don't just observe it the inquire of the world
That's called experiments they concoct
situations that might give you some insight and
From them. They make some guesses about what the theories might be and then they try other experiments to test the theories and
Ultimately they get sort of back to phenomena
But they really don't care very much if they get back to this phenomenon because in fact the phenomena themselves are so
Complex, and so involve so many variables that you just don't try to approximate them
Take the examples that I mentioned that be scientists. Don't try to approximate
Bees swarming. It's just too complicated the wind's blowing you know one of them changed his mind
whatever and
physicists certainly don't
You know take a look at what's going on outside the window and try to draw inductive generalizations from it
I mean you go back far enough
maybe and you know
free
Classical Greece, maybe science looked like that, but this is just mythology that doesn't happen, and it couldn't happen
scientists are inquiring
they're
Inquiring about nature and the same is true in linguistics if you're a field worker, so you're working you know some
Unstudied language in the Amazon. I mean if all you can do is take recordings okay you take recordings
But you're not going to find much if you're really doing serious field work
That you use the techniques that you learned in your field methods course in college
And then will you try to figure out the kinds of questions that will elicit data that might be significant and relevant
You just take a look at masses of data. You basically get nothing there
Just the noise you know so I know it's true that it's a methodological critique
But it's a methodological critique of something that dominates in the human sciences, but has absolutely nothing to do with science
That's true of the whole behaviorist tradition. I mean the the idea of what was called behavioral science that
1950s all the human sciences were called behavioral science and that makes about as much sense as calling
Physics meter reading science I mean it's true that you know take Eddington and others you can
Regard the physics is in principle
Just the study of meter readings
But it's not meter reading science you're using the meter reading grease try and discover something about the world well behavior is data
Not all the data incidentally just some of the data
And selected parts of that data
if you aren't smart enough to figure out, which ones it may tell you something about the human capacities and
The nature of the mind, but just to collect data, and you know
Organize it somehow is
Gonna get you nowhere
if you can't think of anything else to do you have no ideas, and then maybe you do that but
It's not the way science is done
0
1
2
6
13
22
38
41
44
48
56
60
66
72
78
80
83
86
92
95
99
101
103
110
116
117
120
124
132
135
141
148
154
161
163
165
170
173
175
177
185
187
188
195
202
206
212
219
223
227
235
245
251
258
259
261
270
273
275
283
290
292
293
299

View file

@ -0,0 +1,176 @@
Hello, first of all, thank you very much for your presence. I learned a lot by listening to what you said to us.
My question is precisely about Iran and nuclear weapons
And the discussion I raised about Iran and the international community
I certainly understand the idea of a state
Possessing or developing a nuclear weapon to protect itself
Or to be on an equal footing with other countries as is the case with the great powers
Or at the same level as the super powers because they are countries that possess nuclear weapons in any case
However, what do you do when a country tries to develop or acquire a Moai weapon?
Quite frankly, it threatens to destroy another country and remove it from existence
I mean, the two situations we're dealing with are completely different
I am interested in what you put forward, but I do not think you touched on this topic
This is true, but what do we do if a country has already developed a nuclear weapon?
Outside the NPT?
On a daily basis, it burns the resolutions of the UN Security Council and the IAEA
This is a more serious problem
This is another issue, because these countries do not publicly threaten to destroy another country
Neither does Iran
Let's take a look at the statements, those that I do not think belonged - as it is said - to Khomeini
In the period of the alliance between the United States and Iran, I mean between Israel and Iran. And Israel did not give it any attention (Khomeini's remarks)
(These statements) are still being repeated. These statements - as you know - mean that Israel will, with the passage of time, disappear
Well, I really agree with that, too
In fact, many in Israel also believe this, and believe that one democratic country must be established
This is not an announcement to destroy anyone
In fact, Iran supports international efforts to solve the two states (Palestine and Israel).
In fact, there are two countries that not only declare that another country should be destroyed, but in reality they do so
They are Israel and the United States
This is their position regarding the Palestinians. They are not satisfied with saying that
clap
I confirm, they not only say it, but they practice it on a daily basis
This is what Israeli policies in the West Bank and Gaza Strip mean before our eyes
This is what we support and pay for
Of course, you should not call for the destruction of another country
You should not do that either
It is the official position of Israel, and is backed by the United States
They modified it a little, but considering the official position declared twenty years ago
And issued by the coalition that arose between the Conservative (Likud) and Labor parties. And here I quote "There is no room" "I quote" "
An additional Palestinian state between Israel and Jordan
In other words, they are declaring, with the support of the United States, that there is an existing Palestinian state, Jordan
And the Palestinians object, you know
They say "Wait, no, this is not our country," but those who worry about them
We (Israel and America) say it is your country, and there will be no other country
Well, we have gone further than destroying another country
I mean, this is just like a person would come
Suppose Ahmadinejad (former President of Iran) said that the Jews do not need the State of Israel, because they have a state in New York
Well, I mean, you know, we'll say he's a Nazi. But this is the official position
The official position of Israel and the United States. So there is a lot about Iran's positions
Of course, no one wants Iran to have a nuclear weapon, and of course any other country
It is (the Iranian regime) undoubtedly a lost regime. In any case, there are worse regimes, but they are our allies
I am not talking about Israel, but rather about other Arab countries
For example, Iran is a paradise of rights compared to Saudi Arabia
But of course, there is no doubt that it (the Iranian regime) is terrible
There is a way to deal with it. For example, creating a nuclear-weapon-free zone
But the strategists, among them Israelis
They do not disagree about Iran's attempt to acquire the ability to acquire nuclear weapons
Which is completely different from acquiring a nuclear weapon
It is the situation that makes you able to possess a nuclear weapon (without obtaining it), as in the case of most developed countries
Like Japan, Italy and others
It is very simple. In fact it is described
An Israeli military expert
Martin Van Krefeld several years ago, after the invasion of Iraq
He wrote an article in which he said he did not know if Iran was developing a nuclear weapon and he hoped it would not
But he said that if they do not develop one, they are free
This is what he said if they do not develop, then they are free. The United States has just announced
I will attack whoever you like, and we will attack you if we can and with us immunity
So it is better to develop a deterrent
OK
Maybe they develop a deterrent
No serious expert expects (Iran) to use nuclear weapons
Even if Iran possesses nuclear weapons, which no one wants
I mean even if they possess and release nuclear weapons, their country will evaporate
A moment and without a doubt
The clerics in Iran as you know are terrible, but they do not appear
Desire for devastating suicide, for everything they own and appreciate
This applies to their diversion of nuclear weapons
If there are real suspicions that Iran is doing so, with the safety of Iran
The probability that he will use it, is equal to the probability that he will hit the Earth meteorite or something similar
It is a serious problem, in fact, the Israeli writers are clear about that
Iranian nuclear weapons are a threat to Zionism, not to Israel
This is what they fear, if the area becomes very dangerous
The residents of Israel will leave
People who have money, education, etc. will leave
Because they do not want to live in a place under threat
In fact, migration is a serious problem
Immigration of learners and trainers
They will leave because they do not want to face danger
But I don't think there is a strategist, at least I haven't seen one
It is believed that Iran will use a nuclear weapon
If they do, it is a complete regression
3
8
9
14
18
23
28
31
36
43
47
49
54
57
63
66
72
73
81
88
97
100
104
107
114
122
124
129
138
142
149
152
155
158
162
168
174
179
186
188
191
196
199
204
210
217
222
228
234
239
245
248
253
261
268
271
279
284
287
292
297
303
308
313
317
320
322
324
328
333
339
342
347
354
359
365
372
379
388
395
398
402
406
409
415
419
425
430

View file

@ -0,0 +1,4 @@
just rodrigo to google the mother of genius today to breads and will i am
sure that we are filling the tank and the intricacies and today in note
1
133

View file

@ -0,0 +1,310 @@
You write in Manufacturing Consent
that is the primary function
of the mass media in the US
to mobilize public support for the special interests
that dominate the government
and the private sector
what are those interests?
Well, if you want to understand the way any
society works, ours or any other
the first place to look is
who's in a position to make the decissions
that determine the way the society functions?
societies differ but in ours
the major decisions over what happens in this society
the decisions over investment, and production
and distribution and so on
are in the hands of a relatively concentrated network
of major corporations
and conglomerates and investment firms
and so on
they are also the ones who staff
the major executive positions
in the government
and they are the ones who
own the media
and they are the ones who have to be in a possition
to make the decisions
they have an overwhelming with donor role
in the way life happens, you know
what's done in the society
within the economic system by law and in principle
they dominate
their control of the resources in the need to satisfy
their interests
imposes very sharp constrains on
the political system and the ideological system
When you talk about manufacturing of consent
Whose consent is being manufactured?
We can start with, there are two different groups
we can get into more detail, but at the first level
of approximation there's two targets for propaganda
One is what's sometimes called the political class
There is, maybe, 20% of the population
which is relatively educated
more or less articulated
They play some kind of role in decision making
they're supposed to sort of participate in social life
either as managers or cultural managers
like, say, teachers, writers, and so on
they're supposed to vote, they're supposed to play some role
in the way economic and political and cultural life goes on
now their consent is crucial. One group that has to be deeply indoctrinated.
Then there's, maybe, 80% of the population whose main function is to
follow orders and not to think, you know, and not to pay attention, anything...
and the other ones are usually pay the cost
all right
professor Chomsky, Noam. You've outlined a model, with filters, and propaganda is central
that's way too public you'd briefly out on those
it's basically an institutional analysis of the major media
what we call a propaganda model we're talking primarily about the national
media, those media that sort of set a general agenda that others more or less
adhere to, to the extent that they even pay much attention to national or
international affairs
now the elite media are the sort of the agenda-setting media, that means the
New York Times, The Washington Post the major television channels and so on
They set the general framework local media more or less adapt to their structure
World News!
And they do this in all sorts of ways
by selection of topics,
by distribution of concerns,
by emphasis,
framing of issues,
by filtering of information
by bounding of debate within certain limits
they determine, they select, they shape,
they control, they restrict, in order to serve the interests of the dominant
elite groups in society.
there is an unusual a lot of attention focus today
on the five nations of Central America
This is Democracy's Diary. Here for our instruction our triumphs and disasters
the pattern of life's changing fabric. Here is great journalism a revelation of
the past,
a guide to the present, and a clue to the future.
New York Times is certainly the most important newspaper in the United States
and one could argue the most important newspaper in the world. The New York Times
plays an enormous role in shaping the perception of the current world on
the part of the politically active educated classes. Also the New York Times
has a special role, and i believe its editors probably feel that they bear a
heavy burden in the sense that the New York Times creates History.
What happened years ago may have a bearing on what happens tomorrow.
Millions of clippings are preserved in The Times library, all indexed for instant use.
A priceless archive of events and the men who made them.
That is: History is what appears in The New York Times archives,
The place where people will go to
find out what happened is New York Times,
therefore it's extremely important that History is going to be shaped in an
appropriate way, that certain things appear, certain things not appear,
certain questions be asked, other questions be ignored, and that issues be framed in a particular fashion.
Now in whose interests is that History being so shaped?
Well, I think that's not very difficult to answer.
Now, to eliminate confusion,
all of this has nothing to do with liberal or conservative bias.
According to the propaganda model both liberal and conservative wings of the
media, whatever those terms are supposed to mean,
fall within the same framework of assumptions.
In fact, if the system functions well it ought to have a liberal bias, or at least
appear to, because if it appears to have a liberal bias, that will serve
to bound thought even more effectively. In other words, if the press is indeed
adversarial, and liberal, and all these bad things,
then how can I go beyond there? they're already so extreme in their opposition to power
that to go beyond there will be a takeoff from a planet
so therefore it must be that the presuppositions that are accepted in the
liberal media are sacrosanct, can't go beyond them. And a well functioning
system would in fact have a bias of that kind: the media will then serve to say,
in effect, "thus far and no further".
And we ask what would you expect of those media?
just relatively uncontroversial guided free market assumptions, and when
you look at them you found a number of major factors entering into determining
what their products are. These are what we call the filters, so one of them,
for example, is ownership.
Who owns them?
The major agenda-setting media, after all, what are they?
As institutions in the society, what are they?
Well, in the first place they are major corporations, in fact huge corporations.
Furthermore, they are integrated with, and sometimes owned, by even larger
corporations conglomerates. So, for example, by Westinghouse and GE, and so on
What I wanted to know was how specifically the elites control the media?
What I mean is... I guess...
How do the elites control General Motors?
Why isn't that a question?
I mean, General Motors is an institution of the
elites, they don't have to control that they own it.
so what we have in first place is major corporations which are parts of even
bigger conglomerates. Now, like any other corporation they have a product
which they sell to a market. The market is advertisers, that is, other businesses.
What keeps the media functioning is not the audience, they make money from their
advertisers, and remember we're talking about the elite media, so they're trying
to sell a good product, a product which raises advertising rates, and ask your
friends in the advertising industry that means that they want to adjust their
audience to the more elite and affluent audience, that raises advertising rates.
So what you have is institutions, corporations, big corporations that are
selling relatively privileged audiences to other businesses.
Well, what point of view would you expect to come out of this. Without any further
assumptions
what you predict is that what comes out is a picture of the world,
a perception of the world,
that satisfies the needs, and the interests, and the perceptions of
the sellers, the buyers, and the product.
Now, there are many other factors that press in the same direction.
If people try to enter in the system, who don't have that point of view, they're likely to be
excluded somewhere along the way.
After all, no institution is going to happily design a mechanism to self-destruct.
It's not the way institutions function. So they all work to exclude, or marginalize,
or eliminate dissenting voices or alternative perspectives and so on
because they're dysfunctional. They're dysfunction of the institution itself.
0
2
4
6
8
10
11
13
15
17
19
22
24
26
30
32
34
37
39
41
41
43
45
46
47
48
50
52
54
56
58
61
63
66
67
69
76
79
82
84
86
89
97
99
101
102
105
109
112
115
118
123
128
133
138
141
142
150
153
156
161
165
170
172
176
180
189
207
209
210
212
213
214
216
225
229
234
235
237
239
245
251
252
255
261
266
271
275
280
284
289
293
298
301
303
305
308
312
318
322
325
327
331
336
338
341
346
351
355
359
364
367
371
376
382
385
388
395
399
403
404
406
410
412
417
421
431
437
438
441
443
445
451
455
460
467
471
475
481
485
489
494
498
503
504
507
508
513
518
521
525
527
532
537
540

View file

@ -0,0 +1,60 @@
Marr: Politicians I come across are deeply irritated, ranging on furious,
about attacks on them in the press day after day on issues, which have come to be known as sleaze
They feel that they are harassed, that they are misunderstood,
and that the press has gone above itself - is uppity and is destructive
That's the message that they are giving.
Are you saying that that whole process doesn't matter?
Chomsky: I mean, when the press - the same thing is true here -
When the press focuses on the sex lives of politicians,
reach for your pocket and see who's pulling out your wallet.
I mean, because those are not the issues that matter to people
I mean, they're a very marginal interest. The issues that matter to people are somewhere else.
So as soon as you hear, you know, the press and
presidential candidates and so on talking about values,
as I say, put your hand on your wallet, you know that something else is happening
Marr: But it's certainly been much more than bed-hopping
It's also been about taking money from corporations --
Chomsky: corruption, corrupt judges, fine topic --
-- big business is not in favor of corruption, you know
And if the press focuses on corruption, Fortune Magazine will be quite happy.
They don't care about that.
They don't want the society to be corrupt. They want it to be run in their interest. That's a different thing
Corruption interferes with that.
So for example when I was -- I just happen to come back from India -- the Bank of India released
an estimate, economists there told me it's low,
that a third of the economy is black - meaning mostly rich businessmen not paying their taxes.
Well that makes the press because in fact certainly transnationals don't like it.
They want the system to be run
without corruption, robbery, bribes, and so on, just pouring money into their pockets
So yes that's a fine topic for the press
on the other hand the topics I've talked about are not fine topics because they're much too significant
0
6
13
16
20
22
26
30
34
37
40
44
48
50
55
59
63
67
71
75
76
82
84
90
93
99
103
106
111
114

View file

@ -0,0 +1,590 @@
Can you hear us
Yes.
Prof. Chomsky, welcome to acTVism Munich.
Thank you.
Let's get straight to the interview.
In your 1988 book, entitled
"Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media",
talk about five institutional filters that control and change the flow of information.
These serve certain interests in our society.
Can you tell us something about these institutional filters?
Have they become stronger or weaker in our time?
So, first, there was a later edition of this book in which
my co-author Edward Herman and I wrote a new introduction.
And Wwr indicated that one of the five filters was too narrow: the fifth.
When we wrote the book in the eighties, we called the fifth filter the anti-communism filter.
But it should have been called much more general.
There's always some fake enemy that's about to
to destroy ourselves, against which we have to defend ourselves.
Comments, analyzes and the selection of messages are geared towards
to support state propaganda.
and the course of action against this real or imaginary enemy.
For a long time this was the Soviet Union.
It's very interesting to see what happened - you learn a lot about
Propaganda and research if you look at what happened
when the Soviet Union collapsed.
This is the best way to learn about the Cold War.
What happened?
In 1990 there was no longer a Soviet Union. What happened then?
First of all, you should ask yourself what happened to NATO.
NATO was founded to protect Western Europe from the Russian hordes.
Theoretically.
And what happened to NATO when there were no Russian hordes left?
Has it been dissolved? No, it was removed. It expanded eastwards
and is right on the Russian border today.
A threat arises, and another world war threatens because of what is happening in Ukraine.
In the meantime, NATO's mission has been officially changed.
Now it should protect the international energy system: the waterways and pipelines.
NATO is a global system, a global force,
which is controlled by the United States.
This shows what NATO has always been
and you learn about anti-communism as a propaganda technique.
What happened next
A few weeks after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the United States invaded Panama
Killed hundreds, maybe thousands, of people when the slums were bombed.
all to kidnap someone the United States didn't like
and brought to justice for crimes
most of which he had committed on behalf of the CIA.
. Well, that's almost normal with one difference:
You couldn't invoke the Russian threat here,
because there is no Russian threat.
So it was the Hispanic drug dealers who were about to destroy us.
It went on for a while, it didn't work very well,
so you had to come up with new pretexts.
The Middle East is a very interesting case.
The Bush administration - the first president in the Bush family - had to do after the fall of the Russians
immediately introduce a new national security strategy.
In principle, it said that we would continue as before, but with new pretexts.
For the Middle East, intervention forces intended for the Middle East applied
to stick wherever - and now comes a really interesting wording
the serious threat to US interests
could not be put in the shoes of the Kremlin.
In other words, we lied to you for 50 years. It is not the Russians at all.
That is what is called radical nationalism, independent nationalism.
And finally, in order to stamp it out, you need the intervention forces.
So everything takes its course, but with new pretexts.
This shows us that our fifth filter was inadequate. It's not about anti-communism.
It's about whatever pretext needs to be invented,
the continuing worldwide interference, overthrow, armed forces or
to justify international agreements for the protection of large domestic capital.
This is the fifth filter. To come back to your question: they are all used today.
Since you just mentioned the Middle East issue,
I would like to talk to you about the current situation in the Middle East,
where a radical fighting force called ISIS is raging, which among other things is decapitating journalists.
I would like to refer to your book "Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media",
in which you speak of unworthy and worthy victims.
Can you briefly explain what this means
and how does this apply to the current atrocities there?
Well, ISIS, of course, are the unworthy victims.
Are you a pretty hideous force?
But the US is strangely opposed to it.
Take a look at US ISIS policy:
there are some forces in the region that are really fighting ISIS, mainly Iran.
Iran is fighting ISIS. Do the US support Iran against ISIS?
No. Iran is an enemy, we have to undermine it.
On the ground is the main armed force against ISIS - in the area around Kobane, Syria - is the PKK,
the guerrilla force based in Turkey, which is on the US terrorist list
The United States does not support them.
Of course, this also applies to the Assad regime, which ISIS is also fighting.
So what is US policy regarding ISIS?
One of the main rapporteurs on the region, one of the best
and the most accurately informed, Patrick Cockburn, calls it an "Alice in Wonderland" policy.
A policy that is senseless and mixed up.
The Obama administration is somehow trying to fight ISIS
while also fighting everyone who is already fighting ISIS.
So who are the worthy and unworthy victims?
It all depends on who the United States is fighting.
Let's talk about some economic issues.
We know that the European Union and the United States are just behind closed doors
negotiating a free trade agreement known as
Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, or TTIP for short.
Our Chancellor Angela Merkel and President Obama praise how this agreement
Job creation, economic growth and trade.
You completely rejected the term free trade agreement and found
that there is no free trade, that they do not favor global trade
have anything in common with an agreement.
Could you do this a little?
First of all, we should remember the five filters.
It is not a free trade agreement.
It has practically nothing to do with free trade.
Practically nothing.
There are tariffs, but they are very low.
And changes in customs agreements change practically nothing.
It is protectionism.
It is against free trade.
First of all, consider that everything is decided in secret.
It is fundamentally secret, the population must not know anything about it.
However, it is not secret for everyone.
The corporate lawyers and lobbyists who write the agreement know what it says.
So it's not a secret for corporations and government leaders.
Only the population is not allowed to know about it.
That should already make you think.
Parts of it have leaked, some of it through Wikileaks. A part that leaked
was the section on intellectual property rights, one of the central elements of the agreement.
And what are intellectual property rights?
Well it's a complicated word that describes high protectionist measures
for the profits - the exorbitant profits - more American
and international pharmaceutical and media groups.
This is anti-free trade.
This is extreme protectionism in the interests of very wealthy
and more powerful parts of the economic system.
Other parts of the agreement - and don't forget
that because of the confidentiality we don't know any details,
however, we can get an idea of other agreements
include a number of regulations related to investor rights
to protect against the population.
Take NAFTA (North American Free Trade agreement) for example, we know that.
NAFTA was also negotiated in secret, and is now open to the public.
Large parts of it guarantee US investors in Mexico to be treated like domestic.
So should General Motors invest in Mexico,
it has to be treated like a mexican company.
When a person from Mexico comes to New York
he does not get the same rights as an American citizen, on the contrary:
He could end up in prison for the rest of his life.
But US companies should have the same rights as Mexican companies.
US agricultural companies, heavily subsidized agricultural companies
which completely contradicts the free trade concept
to get the right to flood the Mexican market with fruits and vegetables,
with which Mexican campesinos can of course not compete.
This leads to a so-called immigration crisis,
because they are driven from their country and have to flee.
That is NAFTA.
Another regulation allows corporations, not people, not you or me,
but corporations to sue a state
should take measures that could reduce profits.
So, for example, if Mexico decides to go to an environmental protection zone there,
where any US corporation wants to invest,
this corporation can sue Mexico for thwarting its profits
- future profits in the area,
in the area that Mexico is trying to protect.
Again, people cannot. But corporations do.
These types of provisions can be found in trade agreements.
They are not free trade agreements.
It's not about free trade, in fact it's mostly not about trade,
and they are definitely not agreements, at least
when people live in one of the negotiating countries.
Most of the people are against the agreements,
that's why they work in secret.
Every word in the term free trade agreement is simply wrong.
In Germany there is a lot of encouragement from the people in the form of
independent organizations for the concept of unconditional basic income,
according to which citizens receive a sum of money without reservation,
to meet their basic needs like rent, food, electricity etc.
Can you give your assessment of unconditional basic income?
Unconditional basic income?
In Germany and elsewhere?
It is an interesting concept indeed.
It originally comes from the right camp.
Clock jumping.
Milton Friedman, for example, suggested it.
In his view, this could have prevented the measures taken by a welfare state.
But it doesn't have to have a reactionary component.
It can also be interpreted as a progressive measure that people have rights.
Take a look at Article 25 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
It states that people have a right to adequate nutrition,
Have health, employment, security, etc. These are minimum rights.
Every society should guarantee it.
Well, one way to guarantee this would be a socially acceptable form
an unconditional basic income.
In principle, so-called welfare states try to provide this.
So yes, that's something you could show.
I don't think it goes far enough, but as a short-term solution,
it is suitable to alleviate central problems.
And there are already elements in various societies,
that actually provide such things.
Let's get to my last question:
Could you list some of the dangers that humanity faces
or will face in the 21st century?
And what mechanisms are available to the public to prevent these disasters?
So what dangers do we have to face in the 21st century?
There are two enormous dangers, huge shadows that hang menacingly above everything.
The first of these is an environmental disaster that is definitely imminent.
We can debate how long it will take, but it will come.
And it could get really serious.
There are things you can do about it, and something is done in some countries.
Denmark, for example, is moving towards sustainable energies.
Germany increasingly has plans to focus on sustainable energies.
But the majority of us are just racing towards the cliff that we're going to plunge down.
One thing is almost certain, if we continue to live or want to survive properly,
the fossil fuels from the earth may no longer be extracted.
But the opposite happens: energy companies never miss an opportunity
to suck every drop of oil or gas from the earth and they can't be stopped.
Part of the logic of a capitalist market is to maximize short-term profit,
without paying attention to the consequences for others or the future.
It is a huge problem.
There are things you can do about it, but that happens to a limited extent.
It will be a real disaster for our not too distant future generations.
The other big shadow is nuclear war.
Don't underestimate that.
We have repeatedly come close to a nuclear war.
A nuclear war is basically the final catastrophe. Some survive, but not much.
And we were close to it. There are some serious threats today.
In theory, we would know how to deal with these threats, but we don't.
Instead, the nuclear programs are being expanded.
The U.S. program will be expanded by about a trillion dollars over the next few decades.
There are serious crises in Ukraine, in the Middle East
and other places that could all lead to nuclear war.
These are the biggest problems.
There is another problem in the background.
It's not about survival, it's about minimal decency.
I mean the neoliberal attack on the global population,
which has lasted for several generations.
It has different effects in different places, but it is almost always very damaging.
Some countries have been able to slowly get rid of
some of the most important are in South America.
For the first time in 500 years, South America has started
to free yourself from the imperialist control of the West.
In the past century, that meant control by the United States
The countries united to develop internal organizations
and thus solve the enormous challenges in your own country. Without western dominance.
The US has been driven out of almost the entire hemisphere,
which is tantamount to a remarkable change in world affairs.
In part, they react to the neoliberal attack,
which was particularly devastating in South America.
You followed the rules and suffered for them.
In Europe, austerity measures are extremely destructive to life,
survival and democracy.
Some attempts are being made to resist
especially in the peripheral countries.
In the United States, the neoliberal attack has virtually destroyed democracy.
It hardly works anymore. Take a look at the last November 2014 elections.
Actual turnout statistics have recently been released.
They were identified by some of the leading political scientists:
Walter Dean Burnham and Thomas Ferguson.
They show that turnout in past elections
mostly as high as it was in the early 19th century.
At that time only white male citizens with possessions were allowed to vote.
Today, turnout in a large part of the country has dropped back to this level.
This is a sign that people have hope
have simply given up in the democratic system.
You have every reason:
Detailed studies show what we all basically already know:
the vast majority's opinions and attitudes have no impact on politics.
Today, politics is dominated by an extremely small sector of concentrated wealth.
This is plutocracy, this is not democracy.
Take a look at the economic situation:
Since the neo-liberal attack began largely under Reagan,
actually earlier, but under Reagan it escalated,
it was a period of stagnation or decline for the majority of the population.
Real wages for male workers are back at the level of the sixties.
In the meantime, productivity increased and prosperity increased,
which only benefits a tiny percentage of the population,
actually only a fraction of a percent.
For the majority of the population, this means stagnation, sometimes also decline.
These are serious problems.
You can handle them, they're not the same size as the first two,
that I mentioned, but they are to be taken seriously.
They seriously affect people's lives significantly
Well, there are many more problems to be solved, especially terrorism.
A worldwide terror campaign is taking place that goes far too far, further than anyone else.
It's Obama's drone campaign.
It is a terror campaign of unprecedented magnitude.
This campaign is formally, officially, explicitly aimed at people supported by the government
suspected of wanting to harm us someday.
Maybe one day want to harm us.
You have to be killed, along with everyone else,
he are in their immediate vicinity.
I mean, would Al Qaeda or anyone else launch such a campaign
we would be outraged beyond measure, we would probably destroy them.
But in this case it is official politics that is supported by the western countries.
It is a serious problem. Worldwide terrorism is a serious problem.
It ranks very high up.
So we could go on and talk about many other things.
Noam Chomsky, renowned American linguist and cognitive scientist,
Philosopher, political commentator and activist, it was a pleasure
To have you with us today. Thank you.
16
19
20
24
26
29
32
35
41
44
48
55
59
65
72
78
81
85
90
96
103
106
109
114
117
119
122
124
129
132
138
139
143
148
150
156
160
167
171
173
175
181
183
188
193
198
201
204
207
210
212
217
220
223
226
230
235
241
246
250
254
258
264
269
272
278
284
287
291
303
308
313
316
324
328
331
333
339
343
345
351
354
364
370
373
383
389
392
397
401
406
413
416
421
429
432
437
440
443
446
449
453
457
461
463
466
489
494
496
499
504
508
512
514
517
520
524
526
533
538
540
542
547
554
556
563
567
572
574
580
583
586
589
592
598
603
608
612
623
626
629
634
638
641
646
651
653
658
663
667
670
671
678
682
688
695
698
702
704
709
713
717
719
725
728
730
732
734
744
748
753
756
760
766
770
772
774
776
778
781
786
790
797
806
811
817
820
827
830
839
844
849
852
856
859
861
865
868
875
881
888
893
897
899
905
910
916
922
927
933
938
948
955
960
962
968
975
979
982
986
992
997
1002
1006
1012
1017
1020
1023
1025
1030
1035
1038
1044
1050
1053
1059
1064
1067
1073
1080
1084
1087
1091
1095
1097
1104
1109
1112
1114
1123
1130
1134
1139
1142
1147
1153
1159
1165
1167
1171
1173
1177
1185
1191
1194
1196
1200
1204
1209
1215
1220
1223
1226
1231
1233
1236
1238
1241
1248
1255
1257
1263
1270
1276
1278
1281
1283
1289
1293
1296
1300
1302
1307
1311
1314

View file

@ -0,0 +1,94 @@
Chomsky: I have things that I think I can do and I
think are worth doing. That's what I devote myself to.
If people want to describe it the way they do,
that's there decision.
Bolkestein: In a deeper sense, I think, if I would be able to
convey something like that to you.
Would it be very nice not to be an intellectual
with all the responsibilities that go with it?
Chomsky: Would it be nice to be a human being without
the responsibilities of being a human being?
Well, I can imagine that. For example,
if you're a human being and you're a citizen of a relatively free society,
and you're relatively privileged, you have responsibilities.
Moral responsibilities are basically measured by what you are able to do.
I don't have any responsibility for things that happened in the 16th century
because I can't do anything about them.
I do have responsibility for things I can influence.
In a totalitarian society,
where you've got -- say, extermination camps,
there isn't much you can do.
In a free society, there's a lot you can do.
For people like me who are relatively privileged,
there's even more you can do.
So that assigns you a responsibility that you cannot escape.
You can say "I don't care," you know, you can do that
but you can't say "I don't have the responsibility."
You can say "I refuse to execute the responsibility"
that's a choice.
In some ways its easier and in some ways its harder.
Don't forget you have to look at yourself in the mirror every day too.
And people make the choices.
Nobody's a saint, I'm not, I don't spend 24 hours a day trying to help people.
I do other things.
But I adjust my life in some fashions so that I spend a fair amount of time, in fact a lot of time,
doing things that I think contribute to
meeting a very substantial moral responsibility.
And I think many other people do
also and that's what's led to human progress.
Otherwise, we'd be still, you know, living in slave states.
And I think it's important
Bolkestein: Do you recall what the biggest mistake in moral judgement was you ever made?
Chomsky: The biggest mistake in moral judgement I ever made
was waiting so long to getting involved in protests against the Vietnam War.
I should've started it 19 -- the early 1950s.
Bolkestein: Does it still weigh on you?
Chomsky: Very much. I mean look at the effect on Indochina, which was virtually destroyed.
I don't know if I could've made any difference, but one [himself] could have tried, at least.
0
3
5
8
9
13
15
18
21
23
26
27
32
35
41
45
46
50
53
56
58
60
63
64
68
71
74
77
78
82
84
86
92
93
99
102
106
108
112
116
117
121
124
128
131
132
136

View file

@ -0,0 +1,142 @@
what's called neoliberalism
is an attack on democracy and is an open attack
on democracy. it's not secret.
The goal is to minimize the state
and, if you minimize the state,
you're maximizing something else.
What is the thing that you're maximizing?
Well, private tyranny. The state is the arena
within which the public has some role,
at least in principle, in determining policy.
In the private sector, it has no role.
So, the more that the public arena is minimized,
and private power is maximized,
the less you have democracy.
Now personally,
in my view, the state is an illegitimate institution.
It should be dismantled,
but not as long as private power is there,
because that's much worse.
That's a system which is unaccountable to the public
and the main thrust of neoliberalism
is precisely that: is to restrict the arena
within which the public can make some difference.
[Question: "Then what is your suggestion?"]
My suggestion is to extend the public arena
and in the classic fashion
namely, as I said before, working people
should have control of the places in which they work.
Not private tyrants.
The people of the community should have control
of their communities, and they should interact
with one another; that increases the public sphere.
If the heavy concentration of private power is eliminated,
then, I think, moves toward dismantling
the entire state system are entirely legitimate--proper
But, you face what the world you are in right now.
Incidentally, these neoliberal moves
are not moves towards establishing a market system.
A private corporation is outside the market system.
If you look at world trade, about, say, the United States,
about half of US trade is not trade at all.
It's just transactions internal to a corporation,
run by a very visible hand
of which just happen to cross borders.
So, half of US exports to Mexico
don't even enter the Mexican economy.
They're just -- parts are being assembled
in the United States, transferred to Mexico,
to another branch of, say, the same Ford Motor Company,
it's called exports,
they come back to the United States, it's called imports.
That's not trade, that's mercantilism,
and that's a huge part of world trade
It's kinda corporate mercantilism in which
the market is functioning only at the margins
and functioning mostly to control people.
The ones who are running the world economy have
protected themselves very strongly from market discipline [unlike the poor].
In fact, if you look at the -- There's some good studies,
by good economists,
of transnational corporations and there's one major study
by two British economists of the top 100 transnational corporations
every one of them has benefited from the interventionist
policies of its home government
and 20 of the 100 have been saved from complete
collapse by state takeover and bailout
Over and above that, the corporation itself is out of the
market system - its internal transactions are centrally directed
- these are command economies
so you have -- The neoliberal system is an attack,
in my view, both on the market and on democracy.
0
3
5
8
12
14
16
19
22
26
29
32
37
39
42
43
46
48
50
51
55
58
62
66
72
74
77
81
85
87
90
92
96
100
103
107
110
112
115
119
124
127
131
134
137
140
142
146
148
151
153
155
157
160
163
166
169
173
178
180
182
186
191
194
197
200
203
208
212
214
217

View file

@ -0,0 +1,302 @@
- Take a look at recent history
since the second World War.
Something really remarkable has happened.
First, human intelligence created
two huge sledge hammers capable
of terminating our existence
or at least organized existence.
Both from the second World War.
One of them's familiar.
- A scientific thunderbolt gives
a preview of its destructive force.
One of Japan's arsenal cities was selected
as the first to feel the weight
of atomic power.
- It was immediately obvious
on August 6, 1945,
a day that I remember very well.
It was obvious that soon technology would
develop to the point where it would
lead to terminal disaster.
The scientists certainly understood this.
In 1947,
the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists
inaugurated its famous doomsday clock.
How close is the minute hand to midnight?
And environmental disaster which wasn't
thought about much in 1945,
but it turns out we now understand
that at the end of the second World War
the world also entered into a new
geological epoch.
It's called the anthropocene,
the epoch in which humans have
a severe, in fact, maybe disastrous impact
on the environment.
There was a sharp spike in such activities
and disaster after 1945.
So, geologists pretty much even formally
date the origin of the anthropocene to about
the same time as the nuclear age.
Observing that the Bulletin analysts in 2015
mentioned both
and moved the clock to three minutes to midnight,
the closest it had been since 1984.
Immediately after the Trump election,
late January this year,
the clock was moved again to two
and a half minutes to midnight.
Closest it's been since '53.
So, there's the two existential threats
that we've created.
In the case of nuclear war,
maybe wipe us out.
In case of environmental catastrophe,
severe impact.
Then a third thing happened.
Beginning around the '70s,
human intelligence dedicated itself
to eliminating,
or at least weakening,
the main barrier against
the threats.
It's called neoliberalism.
If you ask yourself,
it was a transition at that period
from the period of what some people call
regimented capitalism, '50s and '60s,
the great growth period,
egalitarian growth.
A lot of advances
and social justice and so on.
That changed in the '70s
with the onset of the neoliberal era
that we've been living in since.
- We deregulated the airlines,
we deregulated the trucking industry,
we deregulated financial institutions,
we decontrolled oil and natural gas prices,
and we negotiated lower trade barriers
throughout the world
to get rid of needless
and burdensome federal regulations
which benefit nobody
and which harm all of us.
- And if you ask yourself what this era is,
it's crucial principle is undermining
mechanisms of social solidarity
and mutual support
and popular engagement
in determining policy.
It's not called that.
What it's called is freedom.
- I'm not in favor of fairness.
I'm in favor of freedom.
And freedom is not fairness.
Fairness means somebody has to decide what's fair.
- But freedom means subordination
to the decisions of concentrated,
unaccountable, private power.
That's what it means.
The institutions of governance
or other kinds of association
that could allow people to participate
in decision making.
Those are systematically weakened.
Margaret Thatcher said it rather nicely
in her aphorism about there is no society
only individuals.
She was actually, unconsciously no doubt,
paraphrasing Marx who in his condemnation
of the repression in France
said the repression is turning society
into a sack of potatoes.
That just individuals amorphous mass
can't act together.
That was a condemnation.
For Thatcher, it's an ideal.
And that's neoliberalism.
We destroy or at least undermine
the governing mechanisms in which people,
at least in principle,
can participate to the extent
the society's democratic.
So, we can then undermine unions
other forms of association,
leave a sack of potatoes,
and meanwhile transfer decisions
to unaccountable private power
all in the rhetoric of freedom.
Well, what does that do?
The one barrier to the threat
of destruction is an engaged public,
an informed, engaged public acting together
to develop means to confront the threat
and respond to it.
And that's systematically weakened
for people to become more passive
and apathetic
and not disturb things too much.
And that's what the neoliberal programs do.
So, put it all together
and what do you have?
A perfect storm.
This is all very simple.
It's all in front of your eyes.
All you have to do is look.
Takes no profound intelligence,
takes no special insight.
Just look at what's in front of your eyes.
It's right there.
In fact, I think a lot of people see it.
1
4
6
10
16
22
24
27
30
32
33
37
39
41
42
44
48
51
54
56
59
61
63
66
69
73
76
79
83
85
88
90
92
95
99
100
104
106
109
113
117
123
124
127
131
133
135
137
140
143
146
148
150
151
153
155
157
159
161
163
165
167
169
171
173
175
179
182
183
185
186
189
191
195
197
199
201
204
207
209
210
212
214
216
219
221
224
231
232
234
237
238
239
241
243
245
248
251
254
256
258
260
263
265
267
270
273
276
279
282
286
288
292
295
297
299
300
302
305
307
312
314
316
317
321
323
326
329
331
333
336
338
341
344
347
350
351
354
355
358
360
361
363
382
384
386
388
391
393
396
399

View file

@ -0,0 +1,434 @@
NOAM CHOMSKY: No one is going to be brought to The Hague.
But recognize that it would be legitimate and justified
is an important way to help people understand the scale
of what is happening before their eyes.
STUART SCOTT: First I want to thank you for coming.
We do these ScientistsWarning.TV programs at COP every day at 3am.
I have been doing this for several years.
My name is Stuart Scott. I am the host of these 'simulated' TV talk shows.
And you come live from COP-24.
There is an email address for you to contact me,
and I can refer your questions to Noam if you have them for him.
And I am the Executive Director of ScientistsWarning.org
and Faculty of the University of Climate I would like to say.
So today's guest, Noam Chomsky.
He is an emeritus professor of MIT.
He is a laureate professor at the University of Arizona.
He is said to be one of the most cited scholars in history.
And I believe he is America's conscience,
which currently has a particular lack of conscience.
And the name we give to this program is
Political Betrayal Turning Into Mobilizing Action.
And I want to congratulate Noam on his birthday,
he turned 90 on December 7.
I turned 70 on December 7. So we share our birthday.
But he has twenty years more wisdom and experience than I do.
And as I said, these are the answers he gave to questions I asked him.
And I will read the questions to you.
How do you look at the current state of humanity in terms of the climate crisis
and our efforts to deal with it in the UN climate negotiations? "
NOAM: Well, we are facing a very serious dilemma. A grim, cruel dilemma.
On the one hand, there is a serious, terrible crisis.
Dealing with it cannot be postponed.
It is the main problem that has arisen in human history.
This generation - in fact today's leaders and people - will make a decision
whether organized human society can survive in any decently livable form.
It is no less than that.
That is a horn of the dilemma.
The other cornerstone of the dilemma is that we must face the reality of the world.
We need to find ways to respond that are not justified,
but also feasible and effective.
For example, it would be perfectly justified
for the most powerful person in the world,
send the President of the United States to The Hague
for trial for serious crimes against humanity.
And much smaller figures as well.
That would be justified. It is not feasible, it is not effective.
Dealing with ... To choose approaches that are feasible and effective,
we must recognize the reality of the situation we are facing
and adjust our approaches accordingly.
STUART: Then I asked him, "What about the atmosphere of denial that is there
at the highest level in the United States, where Donald Trump,
whom I called a 'recognized sociopath' in my conversation with him,
where Donald Trump is president?
NOAM: So when the President of the United States says,
'I do not believe it. Very intelligent people like me are not believers',
that has an impact on a large part of the population.
Especially when it's echoed by the people on the level below.
So, for example, if you look at the Republican Party Primaries in 2016,
each candidate then denied that global warming is taking place
or said, maybe, but we shouldn't do anything about it.
Which is morally worse.
However, they were the ones who were praised in the room as adults.
STUART: Then I asked him,
"What about directors, business and the general population?"
NOAM: I am sure that JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon is well aware
of the effect of the free use of fossil fuels.
So how does he decide to respond to that?
By investing more in fossil fuels.
We know very well about the behavior of large fossil fuel companies
in the past 40 or 50 years.
It is now known that their scientists, The Exxon Mobil Scientists
were leading in discovering the meaning and threat
of catastrophic global environmental change.
And presented piece by piece to their own managers and executives,
explaining the nature of the threat.
And when James Hansen wrote his famous speech in 1988,
warning the world of the threat we face,
Did the Exxon Mobil management respond ...
... by switching to financing denial and skepticism
and increase their use of fossil fuels.
And so we can continue.
When the New York Times a few weeks ago
had a long front page, a thousand-word article on how President Trump
huge new fields are opening up in the western United States
for oil exploration, for fracking,
they talk a little bit about environmental effects,
namely, that it could harm the interests of the ranchers who wish to use those countries.
There was literally one sentence in those thousand words
which stated that by removing the restrictions on methane
it can cause a very dangerous gas to escape.
One sentence in a thousand words.
STUART: Now, when I spoke to Noam - we spoke for over an hour -
he was very critical of the mainstream media
which downplays or under-represents the word 'climate change'
in their reports on this topic.
NOAM: And all this has an effect on the population.
People listen. They see.
They see that no one seems to be taking it seriously.
We see the results in polls.
Among Republicans, half of Republicans literally deny that global warming is taking place.
This also applies to people whose livelihoods are destroyed by long droughts
wiping out their sources of fish, food and so on.
They say, no that is not happening.
That's half of the Republicans. The other half - barely half - say that people are responsible.
After all, if the man in charge says,
"Very intelligent people like me don't believe that," who am I to question?
These are some of the realities we need to face.
STUART: Our governments are simply not telling us the truth.
They don't say how serious the consequences are.
They hide behind ...
It's always 'in 10 years', or 'in 12 years',
or the target is 2050.
And he was generally very critical of governments,
how they don't prepare people for the kinds of changes.
So then I asked him:
"What would be the most effective approach to the task ahead of us,
that of addressing this nasty threat? '
NOAM: The effective approach is not simply by saying,
"Look, there is an emergency. You will have to change everything you do. '
That's not going to work.
What needs to be done is to approach people,
explain that the situation is serious,
is likely to be catastrophic unless we do something.
And then start showing what is actually true:
Those efforts to deal with it are within reach and will actually make your life better.
They are not going to destroy your life.
We would be much better off living in a green economy.
You would do much better not to spend three hours a day in traffic jams
if you had efficient mass transportation.
You would be better off if it was not necessary to take your children to the doctor
because they have asthma, because they cannot breathe the air.
If we had drinkable water, yes, things would be better.
If we had an environment where people could survive and live decently,
then everyone would be better off. And it is within reach.
There are things we can do and there are things that are done.
Those are the kinds of approaches to take.
And it must be done.
It is a difficult choice because on the one hand
you recognize the enormous character of the catastrophe that is imminent.
On the other hand, you have to withhold your answers
to address the reality of the world in which you are trying to make a change.
An often difficult decision that requires a lot of active effort.
These questions arise. And it should be simple ... You should ...
It has to be arranged, and quickly.
That we have ...
Some of the things that happen are almost indescribable.
I will only mention what is perhaps the most evil document ever published in human history.
That was hardly mentioned in the news.
Of course it comes from a bureaucracy.
Trump's National Highway Administration agency released a large study,
a few hundred pages, a few weeks ago.
In conclusion and explaining why all regulations on car emissions should be ended.
No rules. Free emissions.
And they had a very rational argument.
They said, if we extrapolate from what is happening now,
then we will enter the abyss towards the end of the century.
The temperature will have risen by three or four degrees Celsius.
The sea level will be very high - they have greatly underestimated it.
People will flee from coastal areas.
It's all over.
And the emissions don't really contribute that much,
so why not enjoy it while we can?
The underlying assumption, of course, is,
everyone in the world is as criminally insane as we are.
And no one is going to do anything about it.
"That's the human kind. So, fine, let's steal while the planet burns. '
Putting poor Nero in the shadows - he just fumbled while Rome burned.
That is the world we stand for.
And we have to understand it, tackle it, sink our teeth in it,
approach the problems constructively and effectively in a way that is feasible.
Suppress the justified feeling
that we should take extremely nasty actions.
That's not to say we shouldn't be doing those things.
Major dramatic actions are very much on the agenda.
Attempts to create a general strike, regular mass protests,
all these things are important.
They must be shaped and aligned so that they,
instead of offending people, energizing and mobilizing them.
That's the way they should be developed, organized and executed.
There are a variety of activities of interest that can be done.
From talking to your neighbor to install LED lighting
to political action, to demonstrate
for the appalling nature of the existing circumstances
to the general understanding.
All of these things are within reach.
There should be no delay in executing it.
These are the most important questions that the human species has ever seen.
And history shows it can work.
We don't have much time.
This must be done effectively, quickly, with good thought.
Actions like Extinction Rebellion, the teacher strike,
the purpose of the strike for Earth, for a general strike ...
All of these things can be parallel
with efforts to easily introduce legislation
to improve renewable energy,
to sharply reduce the use of fossil fuels,
to end the insane expansion of fossil fuel searches.
And ... bringing up fuels.
All of this must be done at the same time.
Nobody will be taken to The Hague.
But recognize that it would be legitimate and justified,
is an important way to help people understand the scale
of what we are ... what happens before their eyes.
We should always keep in mind the slogan that made Antonio Gramsci famous:
We should have pessimism of the intellect, but optimism of the will.
It has never been more important than it is now.
STUART: Pessimism of the intellect but optimism of the will.
We must act.
Act decisively and quickly.
That is why we are here.
That's not why the parties are here, unfortunately.
They are involved in a continuous ...
ritual, annual process of kicking the can over the street.
Help us organize against this existential threat to life on Earth through ScientistsWarning.org.
And I want to thank you all for coming. My name is Stuart Scott.
And that is the contact address.
Thank you very much.
0
2
6
13
18
21
28
30
38
41
43
53
56
63
67
70
75
80
84
91
94
100
103
107
111
116
122
125
130
136
144
152
156
163
171
179
182
184
191
197
201
206
210
214
219
223
227
234
239
242
245
249
253
256
261
268
273
279
287
295
299
302
306
307
312
319
325
328
331
337
340
346
353
358
365
367
376
381
384
391
395
397
401
408
414
418
422
428
433
438
446
449
453
456
462
467
470
472
476
479
489
496
502
504
512
516
521
525
527
532
534
537
540
545
549
551
554
559
564
569
571
574
579
584
588
595
597
602
609
613
618
622
627
636
639
643
647
649
652
660
665
672
678
682
685
686
691
699
702
705
712
715
722
726
728
733
737
742
747
751
752
755
758
762
766
769
776
781
784
790
797
802
805
809
816
822
824
828
834
840
846
850
853
859
861
864
867
875
879
881
889
894
897
899
906
910
914
921
925
929
931
935
942
950
959
965
969
974
975
978
980
984
987
992
1001
1004
1007

View file

@ -0,0 +1,136 @@
I just read .. about two weeks ago ..
One of the most terrifying books I've read
Written by Douglas Blackman
Entitled: Slavery under another name
It is the first detailed discussion
It is not the general story, but rather the first truly detailed discussion of what happened after the age of reconstruction in America
There is a short period after the Civil War when blacks were allowed to vote to choose their representatives
Things seemed to be going for the better.
But the reconstruction ended in 1877
and then..
In the south ... and in cooperation with the north ...
They re-imposed a new order
It was much worse than slavery
Basically it was
Black prison system
A legal system that criminalizes life for blacks
Prevent loitering .. talking out loud .. looking at a white woman ..
They were arresting people
They take them to prison .. and stay there for life
This is what generated the Industrial Revolution
Steel factories .. And so on ..
In terrible conditions ... much worse than slavery
And for good reasons..for the slave masters they are the capital and they have to take care of them ..
But here it is different, they are nothing .. just shopping them to prisons
The description is terrible ... and it continued until World War II
During WWII and beyond, a short change occurred
Economic growth ... and the need for skilled workers
So there was some kind of space for the black man to go out and work
And maybe get home
Although the book does not mention that ..
But if you think about it
That period ended in 1970
When the country headed towards the economy of "money"
Nothing remains for those like poor immigrants
For example, my father was an immigrant
At the beginning of the twentieth century, the economy was growing. She worked in a candy store.
Then your son enters college ... and so on.
This case is over ..
What is happening instead is that the blacks are thrown back to prison
Prison returned to the scene, and you know what is happening now
Since the 1980s, the number of black prisoners has increased more than any other country
It has absolutely nothing to do with crime
So I looked at all the history
slavery
The post-reconstruction phase is worse than slavery
Then the Second World War
pickup window..
It was not pretty..but at least there was something
Then back to slavery again and hard work in prison
This is the history of blacks in America for centuries
In any case, unfortunately, Professor Harvard was arrested
But .. you have to compare the two cases ...
The book .. by a Wall Street editor
It is not ..
But the whole picture and what it means .. disappeared
Now the picture is different
Today a beer party ..
There is a black head
Everything is over
And we moved to a post-ethnic society
Oh really?! Take a look at the past and the present
It's closing the car industry ... that's what is happening
It is basically ..
Driving upside down .. closing a small window
There is a vacancy .. for ..
Condoleezza Rice
Barack Obama..
Black middle class
0
3
6
8
11
15
22
29
31
34
36
39
42
45
47
50
55
60
62
66
70
75
78
82
87
92
97
104
109
111
113
115
118
125
129
132
136
140
142
146
151
158
160
163
166
169
171
173
176
179
185
192
194
198
199
203
205
208
210
211
214
219
222
225
234
237
238
240

View file

@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
options there are 3
and
s
seventh
[Music] on this front
Mayorga these are the instructions
and
he says of course
6
27
41
47
50
59
65
75

View file

@ -0,0 +1,226 @@
AMY GOODMAN: Here on Democracy Now!, Democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report.
I'm Amy Goodman, as we return to our conversation with the world-renowned political dissident,
professor, linguist Noam Chomsky.
NOAM CHOMSKY: We can't overemphasize the fact that we're in a unique moment of human
history.
In fact, we have been, ever since 1945.
In 1945, human history changed dramatically.
In August 1945, humans demonstrated that their vaunted intelligence had created a means to
destroy life on Earth.
Didn't quite have it yet at that point, but it was obvious that it was going to extend
and expand, as it in fact did.
A couple of years later, 1947, The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists established its famous
Doomsday Clock.
How far are we from midnight, terminal disaster?
It was set at seven minutes to midnight.
It once reached two minutes to midnight, 1953, when the U.S. and then the Soviet Union detonated
thermonuclear weapons, which do have the capacity to essentially destroy life.
Then it has oscillated variously.
It's now back at two minutes to midnight--with an addition.
It was not known in 1945 that we were not only entering the nuclear age, but entering
a new geological epoch, what geologists call the Anthropocene, an epoch in which human
activity is having severe and deleterious effects on the environment in which human
and other life can survive.
We also entered into what's now called the sixth extinction, a rapid extinction of species,
which is comparable to the fifth extinction 65 million years ago when an asteroid, huge
asteroid, hit the Earth, we know.
The World Geological Society finally settled on the end of World War II as the onset of
the Anthropocene--sharp escalation and destruction of the environment, not only global warming,
carbon dioxide, other greenhouse gases, but also such things as plastics in the ocean,
which are predicted to be greater than the weight of fish in the ocean not far in the
future.
So we're destroying the environment for organized human life.
We're threatening a terminal disaster with regular nuclear confrontations.
Anybody who has looked at the record, which is shocking, would have to conclude that it's
a miracle that we've survived this long.
Humans beings, right now, this generation, for the first time in history, have to ask,
"Will human life survive?"
And not in the far future will organized societies--those are the issues we should be concerned with.
Everything else pales in significance in comparison with this.
And going back to NATO, well, what is it doing?
It expanded to the Russian border.
If you take a look at Trump's policies from a geostrategic point of view, they're totally
incoherent.
I mean, on the one hand, he's making nice to Vladimir Putin.
On the other hand, he's escalating the threats against Russia, and hence to ourselves, as
well.
Arms the Ukraine, serious threat to Russia.
Increasing forces at the Russian border.
The Russians are doing the same on the other side.
Military maneuvers.
The new nuclear program which he has instituted, which is a severe threat to Russia, and indeed
the world.
Already under Obama, the modernization programs had reached the level where they were posing
a literal first-strike threat to Russia.
Important work on that has appeared in the scientific journals, Bulletin of the Atomic
Scientists.
Trump is escalating it, even more modernization of extremely dangerous forces, also significantly
lowering the threshold for nuclear war.
Also new weapons, which are supposedly tactical nuclear weapons, which, as any nuclear strategist
can tell you, are just incentives for escalation to final disaster.
These are enormous threats against Russia, ourselves as well, combined with being polite
to Putin at a press conference.
Geostrategically, this makes no sense.
It all makes perfect sense on a different assumption.
AMY GOODMAN: Trump has gone after NATO allies from Britain to Germany, and before that,
Macron in France as well as Justin Trudeau in Canada.
But he also, while questioning NATO, says he's questioning--because he simply wants
them to spend more money--and actually named the weapons manufacturers in the United States--that
he wants them to spend more money on--saying they should spend four percent of their budgets
on weapons.
If you could comment on this?
NOAM CHOMSKY: In other words, if you're looking for a serious strategy behind this,
you're looking in the wrong place.
That's not what lies behind it.
None of this makes sense from a strategic point of view.
None.
It's all contradictory, incoherent and so on.
That should tell us something: Let's look somewhere else.
And it all makes perfect sense on the assumption that he is driven by one overwhelming concern:
himself.
All of this makes sense for a megalomaniac who wants to make sure that he has power,
he has wealth, has to appeal to a number of constituencies to make sure he's supported.
One constituency is the overwhelmingly hawkish establishment--you know, expand NATO, build
up the military system, modernize nuclear weapons and so on.
OK, he's got them in his pocket.
The crucial constituency is--and his actual one--are the corporate sector and the super-rich.
And he's just lavishing gifts on them.
While he's prancing in front of the media, and the media are helping him out by focusing
on him, his minions in Congress are carrying out sheer robbery.
I mean, it's unbelievable, if you take a look at it point by point.
I've mentioned a couple of examples before.
Then he has to maintain a voting base; otherwise, he's out.
And he does that by posturing.
"I'm going to--I'm going to confront NATO, make them pay more, so they won't
be robbing us anymore."
Great.
"I'm going to confront China.
Stop stealing our intellectual property."
Great.
"I'm going to put tariffs on everybody.
I'm defending you guys, workers' rights."
Point by point, it all falls into place.
And I think that's pretty much what's going on.
This searching for some coherent geostrategic strategy behind this is almost hopeless.
There are a few things, of course.
The effort to construct an alliance of the most reactionary Middle Eastern states against
Iran--Saudi Arabia, Israel, United Arab Emirates, Egypt under the dictatorship--that's a
crazy, but coherent, strategy.
I should say that one corollary to the "me first" doctrine, which has been observed
over and over, is that if Obama did something, I've got to do the opposite, no matter what
it is.
Doesn't matter what the consequences are.
Otherwise, I'm not, you know, a transformative president, a significant president.
0
3
10
12
21
22
25
31
43
45
50
54
63
64
67
74
85
90
92
97
105
113
124
126
133
141
144
151
161
169
175
176
179
186
193
196
203
205
217
221
226
229
237
238
244
252
253
256
259
263
267
274
276
284
289
296
297
306
309
318
326
334
337
339
342
350
353
359
365
370
371
373
378
380
383
386
387
391
394
405
407
415
422
435
441
444
452
456
462
468
473
476
482
485
493
494
495
497
500
501
505
510
512
517
525
528
537
547
551
559
564
565
568

View file

@ -0,0 +1,204 @@
Interviewer: The mistakes that you think the Anti-war movement
has made over the years and things that maybe we should have done differently and
different approaches that we make make in the future.... Clearly we have had some successes, even some significant successes.
But on the other hand we've also failed in some sense.
So what what do you think we've done
that wasn't so wise and what things should we have been doing?
Chomsky: A lot of things could have been a lot better.
Sectors of the Anti-War Movement,
you know who they were, very nice people, our friends and so on
undertook tactics.
If you undertaking something.....
Always, if you're any kind of an activist, and pick something you decide to do
you have to make a distinction between two kinds of tactics.
You could call them 'feel good' tactics, that make me feel good about myself, and 'do good' tactics that do good for somebody else.
To a large extent, the Anti-war movement dissolved
into 'feel good tactics' which were harmful. A fact the Vietnamese were aware of.
What they liked was quiet, non-violent demonstrations
like a group of women standing quietly somewhere.
What they didn't like was what was being done?
say ????
These are tactics that are understandable from the point of view of the people; they were frustrated ,they were bitter.
Nothing was working so let's go out smash some windows.
Let's go out and have a fight in a Third Avenue bar. Sure the people were authentic and so on.
You know these are like just gifts to the Ultra Hawks (Pro-War Factions)
They help to build up support for the war
It was obvious they were going to have that effect
As the movement dissolved into sects after '68
A lot of was just self-destructive.
The other BIG error was to stop.
By 1975, end of the war,
around 70% of the population
condemned the war as fundamentally wrong and immoral - not a mistake!
They're kind of unbelievable figures, because nobody ever said that.
Where did they get it from? What did they even mean? Who knows? Nobody checked.
But that meant there was a huge reservoir of
possible support for Anti-war activity. It dissolved, it left. They went away.
You started condemning the Khmer Rouge, or doing some other things.
Then comes the central American massacres and so it goes on.
There are other things. Nobody agrees with me about this. My friends on the left,
many of them don't even understand my own view ,
which goes back to around 1970, that the U.S won the war.
The business world recognized that the US won, you read in the Far Eastern Economic Review.
But the left is committed to the doctrine that we won.
That we stopped the war, the Vietnamese won.The people united and the rest of it. It's not what happened.
We have a rich documentary record, and it's very instructive.
We should think about it and be intellectually honest about it.
The U.S. didn't go to war in order to conquer Vietnam. The U.S. didn't care if Vietnam dropped off the planet.
But the U.S. went to war for good reasons.
Interviewer: You would think people in movement would understand that.
It was always pretty clear but we have a rich documentary record, in fact we've had it since about 19.., since the pentagon papers.
They went to war for the usual reasons - the 'Mafia Principle'. Which is the dominant principle of world affairs?
The Godfather does not accept disobedience. It's dangerous.
If one country gets away with disobedience, doesn't matter how tiny it is, somebody else will get the idea,
then they'll be disobedient. Pretty soon the whole system erodes.
That's the one of the dominant principles of world affairs.
And Vietnam is a case in point.
They were afraid that Vietnamese Nationalism
would be successful and have successful economic development.
It would be, to use Kissinger's terminology, a 'virus' that would spread contagion.
So it would spread to Thailand, Malaysia, go on to
Indonesia, and know you're in real trouble. Indonesia has real resources.
Pretty soon, maybe ultimately Japan.
Which, Asia historian, John Dower, called the Super Domino.
Japan would accommodate, that was the word used,
to an independent East and Southeast Asia. It would become its technological or military center
which would mean that the United States would have lost the specific phase of the First or Second world war.
In 1950 they weren't ready to lose the second world war. So you've got to stop it.
You've got a virus, that's spreading contagion. There's a cure - destroy the virus and
inoculate the potential victims. It was done.
South Vietnam was pretty much destroyed by
1965 and the rest of Indochina not long afterwards.
It would never be a model for independent development. The surrounding countries were
inoculated by vicious dictatorships. The most important was Indonesia. It was really rich.
In 1965 came the Suharto Coup which was greeted with total euphoria in the United States.
It killed maybe a million people and destroy the only mass popular organization,
opened the country up to the West
No more accommodation. No more contagion. In fact, McGeorge Bundy, who is not a total fool.
He was the national security adviser for Kennedy and Johnson. In the later years,
Bundy said, 'In retrospect, we should have stopped the war in 65'.
And he was right.
Vietnam was already essentially destroyed, no virus.
Indonesia, the big prize, has been inoculated.
You've got a vicious military dictatorship. 'Our kind of guy', as Clinton called Suharto.
So, Japan's safe, and it'll be on our side so what's the point destroying the rest of the place.
It was a waste of time.
The Anti-war movement should understand that. It's a pattern that is followed over and over again.
It is a dominant principle of international affairs. It makes perfect sense.
It's kind of interesting. It's sometimes ridiculed like the Domino theory - who believes that ha-ha.
Everybody believes it - because it's true! The world is mostly run like the Mafia.
If you don't understand that you're not going to understand the next thing that happens in the world.
In fact that's part of the reason for the incredible antagonism to Iran.
Why Iran? Terrible government.
There's a lot of terrible governments like Saudi Arabia which is a lot worse. Well, they were disobedient.
They're not going to let them get away with it. It's even sad, they took hostages.
Are we going to let them get away with that?
Disobedience.
Cuba is a striking example.
For decades the majority of the population has been in favor of normalizing relations with Cuba.
Okay so disregarding the population is normal.
The business world is in favor of it - has been for a long time. Big sectors like, energy
agribusiness, pharmaceuticals, really powerful sectors. But we can't do it.
We've got to keep punishing them because they were disobedient, and you don't get away with that.
0
3
8
15
18
21
25
30
33
40
42
45
49
53
61
65
72
76
80
83
85
93
96
101
104
108
112
119
123
128
131
134
139
143
148
152
159
165
170
176
180
186
192
197
204
207
212
218
222
226
232
238
243
249
254
258
260
263
267
273
278
282
285
291
295
303
309
314
319
322
326
329
334
341
347
351
354
361
366
371
374
377
381
387
394
397
404
410
417
422
429
433
435
441
446
448
450
452
458
462
468
473

View file

@ -0,0 +1,462 @@
You said that if the Nuremberg
principles were applied, every post-World
War II president would be indictable.
It's probably true. -Can we run down them real fast?
What did Eisenhower do that would
indict him? -Eisenhower overthrew the
conservative nationalist government of
Iran with a military coup. He overthrew
the first and last democratic government
in Guatemala by military coup and
invasion, leading to years of... In Iran it
led to 25 years of brutal dictatorship,
finally overthrown in 79. In Guatemala it
led to massive atrocities which are
still continuing. That's after almost 50
years. In Indonesia,
this was not known until recently, but he
conducted a major clandestine terror
operation of the post-war period, up
until Cuban and Nicaragua, in an effort to
break up Indonesia and strip off the outer
islands where most of the resources are,
and undermine what was then
considered as the threat of Indonesian
democracy. Indonesia was too free and
open. It was allowing a political party
of the poor to participate. They were
gaining a lot of ground, so
Eisenhower supported and helped
instigate a military rebellion in the
outer islands. This is just for starters.
These are all indictable offenses. -What about Kennedy?
Kennedy was one of the worst.
Kennedy, first of all, invaded South
Vietnam. During the Eisenhower
administration they had blocked a
political settlement in 1954, and
instituted a kind of Latin American-
style terror state which had killed
maybe 60 or 70 thousand people by the
end of the Eisenhower period, and it had
instigated a response, a reaction that
Kennedy recognized couldn't be
controlled internally, so he simply invaded.
In 1962, about a third of the bombing
missions were carried out by the US
Air Force in the South by US planes with
South Vietnamese insignia but US pilots.
He authorized napalm. He began
the use of chemical weapons to destroy
food crops. They began programs which
drove millions of people into what
amounted to concentration camps.
That's aggression. In the case of Cuba it was
just a massive campaign of international
terrorism which almost led to the
destruction of the world, led to the
missile crisis, and we can continue.
Again, these are all indictable offenses.
Johnson? -Well, Johnson expanded the war
in Indochina to the point where he
ended up probably leaving three or four
million people dead. He invaded the
Dominican Republic to block what looked
like a potential democratic revolution there.
He supported the Israeli occupation
in its early stages. Again, we can go
around the world.
Take, let's say Carter. -I'll get there but Nixon's next.
Nixon we don't even have
to talk about. We can skip that one, OK?
Ford then. -Well, Ford was
only there for a short time but long
enough to endorse the Indonesian
invasion of East Timor which became
about as close to genocide as anything
in the modern period. They pretended to
oppose it, but secretly supported it, in fact
not so secretly. Immediately
after the invasion the US did join the
rest of the world in formally condemning
it at the Security Council, but
ambassador Moynihan
was kind enough to explain to us in his
words that his instructions were to
render the United Nations utterly
ineffective in any actions it might take
to counter the Indonesian
invasion and he says proudly that he did
this with considerable success, and his
next sentence says in the next few
months it seems that about sixty
thousand people were killed and then he
goes off to the next topic. That's the
first few months. It went on to probably
hundreds of thousands. Formally the
US announced the boycott of weapons
but secretly it increased the supply of
weapons including counterinsurgency
equipment so that the Indonesians could
consummate the invasion. That's just a
short period in office but that's
indictable, seriously, in fact.
That's a major war crime. -Carter? Carter increased,
as the Indonesian atrocities were
increasing -- they peaked in 1978 -- Carter's
flow of weapons to Indonesia increased.
When Congress imposed human rights
restrictions -- by then there was a human
rights movement in Congress to block the
flow of advanced weaponry to Indonesia
-- Carter arranged through Mondale, the vice
president, to get Israel to send US
Skyhawks to Indonesia to enable
Indonesia to complete what turned out to
be near genocide, killing maybe a quarter
of the population or something.
In the Middle East, Carter had just won the
Nobel Prize. His great achievement was
the Camp David agreements. The Camp David
agreements are presented as a diplomatic
triumph for the United States. In fact,
they were a diplomatic catastrophe.
At Camp David the United States and Israel
accepted finally Egypt's 1971 offer which
the US had rejected at the time except that
now it was worse from the US-Israeli point
of view because it included the
Palestinians. In order get
Israel to accept Egypt'S 1971 offer,
after a major war and atrocities and so
on, Carter raised military and other
aid to Israel to more than fifty percent of
total aid worldwide. Israel used it at
once in exactly the way they said they
were going to do, as every sane person
knew, as an opportunity to attack their
northern neighbor, first in 1978 then in
1982, and to increase integration of the
occupied territories. And that's for
starters. We can continue. -Reagan? -I don't
think we have to talk about that one, either.
I mean Reagan is the first president to
have been condemned by the International
Court of Justice for what they called
the unlawful use of force, meaning
international terrorism, in the war
against Nicaragua. Again, that's just for
starters. The Security Council
endorsed it in two resolutions, both of
which were vetoed by the United States.
[George H.W.] Bush? -Well, we can begin with the
invasion of Panama. The invasion of
Panama, which according to the
Panamanians killed about 3,000 people.
Since it's never investigated, who knows
if that's true or not. This was done
in order to kidnap a disobedient thug
who had been supported by the United
States right through his worst
atrocities. -Noriega. -Noriega, who was
brought to Florida and tried for crimes
that he had committed mostly on the CIA
payroll.
OK, that's aggression. You could go into
the details of the war in Iraq, but there
were plainly opportunities for... they
might not have worked,
but there were opportunities for
diplomatic settlement which the Bush
administration refused to consider, and,
incidentally, the press would not report,
with a single exception: Long Island
Newsday, which did report the whole
story throughout accurately, and it is the
only newspaper in the country to have
done so. The Bush administration then did
attack and the attack was carried out
and in a manner which is criminal under
the laws of war. They attacked
infrastructure. If you attack New
York City and you destroy the electrical
system, the sewage systems and
so on, that amounts to biological warfare,
and that's the nature of the attack.
Then came a sanctions regime, which was
mostly Clinton, but began with Bush,
which by conservative estimates
killed hundreds of thousands of people
while strengthening Saddam Hussein.
That takes us off to Clinton. That's the
beginning. That's by no means the end.
We could run through it.
That one case suffices, but there are
plenty of others. -[GW] Bush?
Let's go on with Clinton. One of Clinton's
very minor escapades
was sending a couple of cruise missiles
to the Sudan to destroy what they knew
to be a pharmaceutical plant. There was
no intelligence failure. According to the
only estimates we have from the German
ambassador and the regional
director of Near East Foundation, which does
field work in Sudan, both of them
estimated several tens of thousands of
deaths from one cruise missile.
Very serious. If somebody did that to us,
we'd regard it as bad news, and again we can
continue. In the Middle East, for
example, Clinton began by declaring
past UN resolutions,
in the words of his administration, "obsolete
and anachronistic" because we're finished
with that. No more international law.
Then comes a period called a peace
process except that during the peace
process Israeli settlement,
which means settlement paid for by the
US taxpayer and supported by US military
aid and diplomacy, continually increased.
The most extreme year was Clinton's last
year: the highest level of settlement, the
highest since 1992.
Meanwhile the territories were cantonized
and broken up into small regions with
infrastructure projects and new
settlement. I don't know what you call
that, but it's under military occupation,
and if anyone else was doing it, we would call
it a crime, and again we can continue.
0
1
3
6
9
11
15
17
21
24
29
34
36
40
43
46
49
53
57
60
63
65
68
72
74
77
80
82
86
88
90
93
97
99
102
104
107
110
112
115
118
121
126
128
132
138
140
146
148
151
155
160
163
165
168
170
173
174
178
181
184
186
190
194
197
199
203
206
209
212
213
216
220
223
226
229
232
235
239
244
248
251
253
256
259
262
265
268
270
274
276
279
281
283
286
288
291
294
298
300
302
306
310
312
316
318
322
325
328
331
334
338
342
345
349
353
356
360
363
365
368
371
374
377
380
386
390
394
395
399
402
405
409
414
417
419
421
424
427
431
434
439
440
443
446
448
450
453
455
459
462
464
471
474
476
478
480
483
488
490
491
494
496
498
499
502
507
509
511
512
514
516
519
522
524
527
529
534
537
540
544
546
549
552
554
558
561
563
566
567
570
574
577
579
582
584
586
589
591
596
598
600
603
607
610
613
615
619
621
624
627
632
636
639
642
645
647
650
655
656
660
663
666
669
671
674
678
680
683
684
688

View file

@ -0,0 +1,212 @@
Chomsky: Faurisson was a professor of French literature at Lyon University
he published a few private pamphlets denying the existence of gas chambers
He was then suspended from teaching on the grounds that he could not be protected from violence
He was then at that point..
He was then brought to trial for falsification of history. The book that you're referring to is entitled
Memoir in Defense Against Those Who Accuse Me of Falsification of History on a matter of gas chambers.
It was in fact submit --
I didn't know if its existence,
But it was submitted to the tribunal, basically, the court for which he was tried for falsification of history and later condemned
How did I get involved in this?
Well, some stage along the line,
I was asked to sign a civil rights petition, as I do thousands of times.
As I do for Salman Rushdie, which no doubt enrages the Ayatollah Khomeini.
[mumbling, talking over eachother]
Here's a case where a price wasn't put on his head, he was actually punished.
There's lots of differences
I do believe in freedom of speech
I realized that's not a popular position around here, but I believe in it.
Bolkestein: I share that opinion, so don't be afraid
Chomsky: Just as I defended people like, say, Henry Kissinger and Walt Rostow,
although I despise what they stand for, when Walt Rostow -- one of the plan --
a real war criminal in my view, when he came back to try to get a position back at MIT in 1969,
I was in fact the spokesman for a group of students, radical students,
who said that if he is being denied this position on political grounds,
we're going to protest and demonstrate about it.
Because we think this war criminal has a right to teach.
Bolkestein: Would you have quit?
Chomsky: If he had been turned down on political grounds, I might have.
Because I don't believe that people should be turned down on political grounds
But my point is -- that's a really controversial position, incidentally, the war was going on,
we were talking about a man who was a war criminal, and was going to continue research, which he'd be using
Let's go back to Faurisson
There's a very clear academic freedom issue -- very clear -- a man is
Prevented from teaching French literature because he wrote a pamphlet about gas chambers.
That is outrageous
It couldn't have happened in the United States, I should say.
He was then brought to trial for falsification of history, which is even more outrageous
He was actually condemned which is even worse
I signed a petition
Calling on the tribunal to defend his civil rights. I was one of the 500 signers
At that point, the French press, which apparently has no conception of freedom of speech,
Concluded that since I had called for his civil rights, I was therefore defending his theses
I was -- which is absurd, of course, anyone who knows anything about civil rights knows that you're defend -
Typically, defending freedom of speech for views you detest there's no other point to it.
I was then asked by the person who organized the petition to write a statement on freedom of speech.
Just banal comments about freedom of speech pointing out the difference between
defending a person's right to express his views and defending the views expressed.
So I did that, I wrote a rather banal statement called Some Elementary Remarks on Freedom of Expression.
And I told him: do what you like with it.
At that point, Faurisson was writing his memoir in defense,
unknown to me, and my statement was added as a [?] as an opinion
It was attached to this
statement in which he defended himself.
Bolkestein: Which was asked from you before?
Chomsky: No, but in fact, see I can't -- really, I told him do what you like with it
I didn't know about the book but
actually, I think it's completely --
like for example, if Henry Kissinger was brought to trial for freedom of -- for falsification of history,
I would have no objection to having something I wrote on freedom of speech attached to a memoir in which he defends himself from the charge.
--- but I'm saying but you know I mean -- freedom of speech issues are important, crucial, in fact.
Some of the most crucial issues. So when I learned -- now those are the facts --
Bolkestein: There's one one simple question:
Didn't you ask yourself afterwards whether it was very wise of you on your part?
To act at least like you were defending him
instead of the right of free speech?
Chomsky: No, because I never acted that way. I never defended him as a person.
I realized as soon as I signed the petition
That this is going to be interpreted by people who have not yet reached the Enlightenment. We're still in the Middle Ages
It's going to be interpreted as a defense of his views of course
I realized that, I understand the world. but freedom of speech issues are important, and I'm perfectly willing to face that
Bolkestein: But why did you try at the last moment to get it back from him?
Chomsky: That's the one thing I'm sorry about ---
In fact I tried to retract it. ---
I wrote a letter, which was then publicized, in which I said, look
Things have reached the point where the French intellectual community
Simply is incapable of understanding the issues at this point, It's just going to confuse matters even more if my
comments on freedom of speech
Happen to be attached to this book which I didn't know existed. So just to clarify things I better separate them
Now in retrospect, I think I probably shouldn't have done that I should have just said fine
then let it appear because it ought to appear, but that's
apart from that I
regard this as not only trivial, but as compared with other positions I've taken on freedom of speech
invisible this doesn't begin to
compare
With defending the rights of American War criminals to do their work while that work is being used to murder and destroy
It doesn't begin to compare with dozens of other cases where I defended freedom of speech
Bolkestein: Why didn't it occur to you that maybe his facts were wrong? ---
Chomsky: Of course they're wrong
I can't even understand this question
Why didn't it occur to me that maybe his views are wrong? Of course it occurred to me.
I knew it. You know if you want to
Read what I said that --- the reason I retracted it was quite different
It was that I realized at some point the French intellectuals cannot make the distinction between -- [who cares?]
I agree and that's why I say I shouldn't have even retracted.
Everything -- as I said -- that's the one thing that I regret
well I regret the fact that I tried to accommodate to the medieval character of the French intellectual
And I should have not done that I should have simply said: look, if you can't understand it, That's your problem
Now, that's a very difficult position to make in Europe
I should say that an issue like this is almost inconceivable in the United States in fact
There are examples very similar to Faurisson. There's a professor of engineering at
Northwestern University, a major university, who writes books denying that the Holocaust took place I mean if he were
Deprived of the right to teach and brought to trial for the falsification of history
there'd be a huge uproar across the country
Because there's a commitment to freedom of speech and that means freedom of speech for views that you detest
That's the only time when the issue arises. Now if a person can fail to
Distinguish between defending rights and defending the theses expressed, they have to go back to the Middle Ages and start all over again
0
3
8
14
16
22
27
28
29
36
38
40
44
49
52
55
57
62
66
69
75
81
87
92
95
97
99
102
105
108
112
118
125
131
136
138
141
145
148
150
155
160
164
170
184
191
195
200
207
209
213
219
221
223
225
228
231
232
237
244
250
259
263
268
271
274
282
285
291
294
298
303
307
312
316
321
329
330
335
339
343
345
350
352
353
360
375
378
384
388
391
392
397
404
408
415
422
427
431
435
440
448
454
457
462
468

View file

@ -0,0 +1,494 @@
The most dangerous organization in human history
I wanted to ask you a statement stating that the Republican Party is
the most dangerous organization
in world history
Can you explain that?
I also said that it was an extremely outrageous statement
But the question is whether this is really true
Has there ever been such an organization in world history,
which would with such zeal
insisted on destruction
organized human
of life on Earth?
I don't know of any.
Is the Republican organization, which I can hardly call a political party, so preoccupied with this destruction?
Absolutely clear.
We don't even have to think about it.
Let's just look back at their latest campaign
lots of advertising. And very few comments on the most important fact
absolutely each of their candidates
either deny that it was happening
what's going on
in particular a serious move towards an environmental disaster,
or found a couple of, say, moderates, like Jeff Bush, who said:
Well, maybe it's happening, we don't really know,
but it doesn't really matter, because mining works well,
so we can continue to mine fossil fuels.
Then there was a man in the hall, whom they called an "adult".
John Cassige
He alone stated that it was true that global warming was taking place,
but that it doesn't matter. He is the governor of Ohio,
and coal will continue to be used to generate energy in Ohio
and we will not apologize to anyone for that.
So we have 100% interest
for the path to disaster.
Then let's also look at what has happened since then.
Elections were held on November 8,
and at the same time, as most of you surely know,
a very important conference took place in Morocco - in Marrakech,
almost 200 countries gathered for the United Nations Conference,
at the United Nations Conference,
to make specific commitments
resulting from oral agreements
which resulted
from a previous meeting in Paris
in December 2015 at the International Conference on Global Warming
The Paris Conference sought to reach a demonstrable agreement,
but she couldn't
because of the most dangerous organization
in human history. The Republican Congress would not accept it
no commitments in this regard
So the world was left to verbal agreements,
but without specific commitments.
At the conference on November 8, they wanted to move this forward,
A report was also published on November 8
world meteorological organization
quite a catastrophic analysis
the state of the environment
and probable prospects also showed
that we are approaching dangerously close
to the edge,
by the Paris Conference
aimed to delay as much as possible,
and other sinister predictions.
At this stage, the conference practically stopped
Because the news came from the election
and it turned out to be the most powerful country in history
the richest, the strongest, the most influential
leader in the free world
she decided not only
not to support these efforts (conferences),
but even actively undermine them.
So we have literally the whole world on one side,
who tries to do something here and there,
although not enough. Still, there are a few countries that have gone
relatively far away, such as Denmark and a few others,
and on the other hand, in spectacular loneliness
stands the earth
run by the most dangerous organization in human history,
which says:
we will not be involved, we will actually undermine these efforts
we will maximize the use of fossil fuels,
which will take us soon through the turning point
we will not financially support developing countries
(as agreed in Paris)
which are trying to improve something about
climate threats
we remove regulations
to delay the devastating impact
production
carbon dioxide
as well as other hazardous gases
such as methane and others.
OK, so the conference stopped at that moment
so she continued
but with a new question:
Can any of this debris be saved?
And quite surprisingly
countries around the world have turned for salvation
to another country: China.
So here we have the world,
which of all possible places
seeks rescue from China,
while the United States
they are a menacing machine
to destroy the planet
With all three branches of government
in the hands of one of the most dangerous
organizations in human history!
And I don't have to discuss what
has happened since then,
but basically they are cabinet meetings
designed to
to go to the hands of people whose commitments are connected with the faith,
that it is necessary
destroy
everything in your department
what could be to the human species
to the benefit.
That they are not led only
desire for profit and power.
And they do this very systematically.
one after another: EPA (Environmental Protection Agency)
was very noticeably reduced in finances
In fact, the main field he deals with
environmental issues,
is an energy department, which is also very sharp
cut finances, especially
environmental programs.
In truth, a ban was even issued
publish and publish information and materials related to this issue.
And we are not just talking about the national scale.
Republican Party
(or whatever we call it)
it does this at all levels.
So a few years ago in North Carolina,
where is the legislation
mainly thanks to Gerrymandering (voter privilege technique),
legislation is in the hands of Republicans,
a study was created,
they actually asked for a study
sea level rise.
She was to find out what its impact would be on the North Carolina coast.
A serious scientific study was created,
which predicted -
I don't know how many years ahead,
but quite a short time -
sea level rise of about one meter
which would have a devastating effect on eastern North Carolina
And the legislation responded by naming
that she enforced by law
prohibit any action,
or even a discussion,
which could address climate change.
Actually the best comment I would have
he should quote literally
is from Stephen Colbert, who said:
"If you have a serious problem,
that's the best way to deal with it,
when you approve by law it does not exist. "
And look, the problem is solved. But this is happening across the country
and it doesn't just go
and simply about climate change -
it's bad enough there
but we have another huge ghost here
under which
we are trying
somehow survive
and that is nuclear war
This is a completely different story. Here are both reports - like Obama
so even more Trump -
they radically increase this danger.
Threat from new developments
is captured very effectively
and can be expressed best and easiest
on the world state monitor,
based on the beginning of the nuclear age
bulletin of atomic scientists
I'm sure you all know about him,
and this bulletin of atomic scientists
regularly associates a group of scientists,
political analysts
and other highly respected personalities,
and they try to calculate a kind of estimate of the situation,
in which the world is currently located.
Their question is: How far are we (or rather close) to the extinction of the species?
They use the "Doomsday Clock" to do this
(Judgment Hours)
When those hours strike midnight, it means we're done. The extinction of the human race and many others.
And every year they ask themselves the question:
How far / close is the minute hand from midnight
Come on in 1947
at the beginning of the Atomic Age
they moved the hand to 7 minutes to midnight
Since then, it has moved forward or backward every year.
The hand came closest to midnight
in 1953
when both the US and Russia powers
which is an extremely serious threat to survival
there is an interesting story behind that, which I will leave aside now
maybe it will be time later
But then the hand reached two in the middle of midnight
and since then it has been moving back and forth
Two years ago
I think in 2014
analysts included for the first time in the calculation something that had been ignored until then:
the fact that along with the beginning of the nuclear age
she started the same way
new geological epoch -
the so-called anthropocene.
There was talk of an epoch,
in which human action
drastically affects the general environment.
The birth of this epoch begins to speak,
but the World Geological Organization
recently determined its beginning
roughly at the same time as the beginning of the nuclear age.
So we are going through these two eras
in which
is the possibility of human survival at great stake
and with us, of course, everything else
all living, mostly all living,
which is already very seriously endangered
so a few years ago, i think in 2014,
he began to include the Bulletin in his calculation
even this fact,
and moved the minute hand
except for: three minutes to midnight,
where she remained for the last year.
One week after Trump's election
the clock shifted again
at two minutes to midnight
it is the closest they have ever been since 1953
and that means,
that the extinction of the human species
is a very open question.
I don't want to say it's exclusively
work of the Republican Party
obviously not
but it is certain that they lead an open defense
and the effects of the extinction of the human species
I agree to such a statement
is very outrageous
for this reason, I simply suggest
look at the facts
and assess whether they have weight,
or whether it deserves to be bitterly condemned. It is up to you.
From my point of view, things are absolutely clear.
0
0
3
5
8
11
15
18
21
25
27
30
33
35
42
44
46
51
57
60
63
65
68
74
78
81
84
87
90
93
96
99
102
106
109
114
117
120
126
130
134
137
142
145
148
154
157
161
163
166
168
172
174
177
180
186
188
190
194
197
200
203
206
209
214
217
222
225
229
232
235
236
239
242
245
248
250
253
255
259
262
265
268
269
276
279
280
283
286
289
292
295
298
300
302
306
309
312
314
317
319
319
322
323
326
329
332
334
337
340
342
345
347
351
353
353
355
356
357
359
362
365
369
373
376
379
382
384
385
388
391
395
398
400
402
405
408
411
415
417
419
422
425
428
429
430
433
436
439
442
445
448
451
453
455
458
461
463
465
469
472
474
477
478
481
482
484
487
490
493
496
498
505
508
511
514
517
520
522
525
528
531
534
537
540
543
546
549
552
555
557
561
564
566
568
571
574
580
595
598
601
603
607
610
614
620
623
626
630
632
635
638
640
643
646
648
652
655
657
661
663
665
668
671
675
677
678
680
683
686
688
691
696
698
702
705
708
711
715
718
721
724
725
728
731
734
738

View file

@ -0,0 +1,104 @@
Hedges: You talk about the nanny state
What do you mean - the nanny state? What do you mean by that?
Chomsky: The nanny state is a state that gives gifts
to sectors that have the power to demand it,
which typically means the rich and the powerful.
I mean there are, you know --
Hedges: So is this like subsidies to the fossil fuel industry?
Chomsky: Hundreds of billions of dollars - I think it's something like
500 billion a year to the fossil fuel industry.
Hedges: Talking about government subsidies?
Chomsky: Plain government subsidies
Take, say, the financial industries,
which are the ones that exploded during the neoliberal period,
there was an interesting IMF study that came out of -
International Monetary Fund - a couple years ago which
tried to determine the source of the profits of the six largest American banks.
Turned out, it's almost entirely public subsidy through the indirect effects of the
implicit government guarantee - it's called informally "too big to fail"
It means that there's an implicit guarantee that they're not going to fail,
which means you get access to cheap credit,
inflated credit ratings,
incentive to carry out risky, hence generally profitable, transactions.
If anything goes wrong, the public will bail you out.
That amounts to, as the business press estimated,
that at about 80 billion dollars a year, just straight subsidy.
In fact, everywhere you look,
there's massive subsidy, and it's more than that.
I mean, take, say, the high-tech economy -
the computers, internet, satellites,
micro electronics, the components of your iPhone, whatever it may be -
almost invariably, they trace back to
public subsidy in the state sector of the economy.
Either actual state sector, like places like this [MIT], which are
fundamentally part of the state sector, or subsidy to IBM or something like that.
And in fact what typically happens -- computers are a striking case --
for decades, the risky and creative work was basically funded by the public
Finally, it's handed over to private corporations for
marketing and profit, and they indeed are protected by monopoly pricing rights.
Hedges: You had an interesting figure here, you said corporations spend about 2.6 billion a year on
lobbying expenditures. That's more than the 2 billion
we spend to fund the House, at 1.18 billion, and the Senate, at 860 million.
What does that say about our democracy?
Chomsky: Well, actually, the huge increase in lobbying
also took place at this transition point between
the regulated capitalism and the neoliberal capitalism.
[In the] early 70s, you start getting a very sharp increase in the number of lobbyists.
In fact, there's probably more lobbyists -- they're basically writing the legislation.
I mean, a congressperson usually relies on the staff
to write the legislation, which maybe he or she tweaks and signs.
What does the staff do?
They consult with lobbyists, who are often experts in the area where they're writing the legislation.
So they produce suggestions - sometimes actual texts of legislation - which then go to the Congress
0
2
6
10
15
19
20
25
28
32
34
36
39
42
46
49
57
65
71
77
80
83
88
91
95
99
100
104
108
112
116
120
125
130
137
142
149
153
159
167
170
177
180
183
187
191
197
203
208
214
216
224

View file

@ -0,0 +1,76 @@
Psychology?
Well...
Actually, I mean, you know, people differ, so you can't really generalize
But I think the general thing is something that we all know from our own experience
I mean, unless you're -- well, take your own personal experience
I mean, unless you happen to be an unusual kind of saint, maybe the first one since Jesus or something
Unless you're that kind of person, you've done some rotten things in your life.
Like maybe when you were eight years old -
you know - you took a toy from your younger brother because nobody was looking.
Well just go back to that circumstance, or something similar to it, and ask yourself honestly
Did you say
"I'm taking the toy from my little brother because I want it, and I'm bigger than he is, and nobody's looking so I'll take it" ?
Or did you say "look, it's really my toy, and besides, he had no right to it, and besides,
"I need it more than he does, and anyhow, it's better for everybody if I have it" ? You know
Well, like I say, unless you're a saint,
you took the second way out, and furthermore anybody in their lifetime has had a thousand experiences like that
Well, I think that's the way things work
You have some --
It's not that you --
You know --
I mean, belief formation is often contingent on the outcomes that you want
You know? You want a certain outcome, you construct the system of beliefs,
which makes that exactly right and just.
I suspect that that's the psychology in most of these cases
If you're an editor or a journalist or you know professor or something or other,
there are some things you want, like prestige and respectability and salary -
you know - invited to the right parties, and all that kind of thing,
and if you want to get that kind of stuff you have to
see things in certain ways.
Okay, so you start seeing things in those ways just like you did with your little brother. You know?
My guess is that's probably
overwhelmingly the psychology
I don't think many people are cynical enough to be just flat, outright liars,
saying "I'm gonna lie because that way they'll pay my salary"
That's, but you know, people differ, so your guess is as good as mine
I have nothing to say about this the only thing we know about these kinds of things are from
introspection you know and I suspect that what I'm describing is pretty close to universal.
I did take it away from my younger brother when nobody was looking
3
5
6
9
15
18
24
28
31
36
43
44
51
57
62
65
72
75
77
79
80
86
89
91
94
100
106
110
113
116
121
123
125
129
134
138
142
151

View file

@ -0,0 +1,86 @@
We should recognize, what I think is true, I've written about it plenty myself,
that the so called Bolshevik "revolution", really a coup, was really a counter revolution
which placed state power in the hands of a highly authoritarian, anti-socialist group,
which within a couple of months had destroyed the factory councils, had destroyed the soviets,
had dismissed the constituent assembly because they knew they were going to lose
and had eliminated every popular movement and had done exactly what Trotsky said,
turn the the country into a labor army under the control of the maximal leader.
That was mid 1918.
Since then there hasn't been a shred of socialism in the Soviet Union.
Now, of course they called it socialism, but they also called it democracy.
They were the peoples democracy, the purest form of democracy and socialism.
The west, the big propaganda system in the world of course laughed at the democracy part,
but it loved the socialism part, because that's a way to defame socialism.
So if you think that the fall of Soviet Union is a blow to socialism,
you ought to also think on the same grounds that it's a blow to democracy.
After all, they called themselves democracies too so why isn't it a blow to democracy?
Makes as much sense.
It's only when it gets filtered through the western propaganda system
that it's not a blow to democracy but it is a blow to socialism.
But there is absolute no reason to play that game,
whether you play it in dissent or in the nation or on the right or anywhere else.
Expose it for the fraud that it is.
What ideology? The ideology of totalitarianism? Yeah it's deeply flawed.
I mean they were the initial modern totalitarians.
It has nothing to do with socialism. They destroyed socialism within weeks.
They didn't wait. By 1918 it was finished.
And they knew it. It was not a secret. They knew it.
In fact Lenin, as soon as got grips of things, he moved to what he called state capitalism.
Which is what it was. Had nothing to do with socialism.
Socialism... I mean you can argue but there is no point arguing what the word means but
what it always meant at the core was that producers take control over the production.
Working people take control of production which sometimes is called industrial democracy.
That was the absolute core of it.
Well there was more socialism in Germany, in western Europe, than there was in Russia.
Russia is about the most anti-socialist place you can imagine since 1918.
Had wage labor, had super exploitation,
had no elements of workers control or involvement or participation.
What has that got to do with socialism? It's the exact opposite on every point.
As I say, the west liked to call that socialism
while laughing at fact that they called themselves democrats
but that's for purely propaganda reasons.
I mean, unless you are committed to being part of the western propaganda system
there's nothing to say about that issue of dissent except to laugh.
0
4
11
18
24
29
33
36
38
42
46
51
56
61
66
69
72
73
77
80
83
87
93
98
102
106
110
114
122
124
128
135
138
141
147
152
155
163
166
169
172
175
178

View file

@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
We have little information about what the thought is
There is no clarity as to how to obtain such information
However, much of our knowledge of thought appears through language, so this leads to considering language and thought as one thing
But you can also look carefully at that if you like
It's the only evidence we have, but it doesn't look as though they are the same
There seem to be many types of thought that cannot be divided and clear. And I see no reason to suspect that some kind of thought occurs without a live structure and has no language
There is a huge project in computational cognitive science, and I think it is a waste of time
Which is due to the wrong reading of a short research paper written by "Allen Turing" in 1950, a mathematician who found modern computational sciences and so on.
He had a research paper called something like Do the Machines Think!
He designed a test, now called the "Turing Test" and called it "a game of imitation".
And there was a lot of effort to try anything he discussed or explain what he said
If the machine was, and here is a god in the sense of a program and not a physical computer, then if the program was able to succeed in that test, then this shows us that he is thinking
If you are an employee of "IBM: a computer manufacturer," you will be paid to build "Watson: a computer that answers questions" or software that is supposed to pass the test.
And, as you know, they defeat humans in chess, or gyardy, or something
With each one of them you can get a hundred thousand dollars if you designed such programs
There is one line in Turing's research paper and it seems neglected
What he said is, "The question of whether machines think is empty and does not deserve controversy."
He is right. Question What do you think or not? Like a question, let's say, if a submarine is swimming! If you want to call that a swim, it does swim and vice versa.
But it is not a real question but rather a human space, I think in Japanese they do it, someone told me, but in English no.
But these are not real questions, they are only questions of how to use the word
Something is happening now which is freely referred to as the thought, but we do not know much about what it is
I will not discover this as long as interest is restricted by the reach of perception
Some of you may know that there are recent experimental results showing that decisions made about the action of a machine, for example "pick this up", the decision was actually made in parts of a second before you were conscious of making a decision
Indeed, this has been misunderstood as a controversy of free will, but has nothing to do with it. What this means is that the decisions were made in a way that is not attainable
I don't think it surprises you, anybody alive and think about what they are doing
But it is contrary to the principle of belief, and I believe that these principles will collapse unless we take note of these things
0
4
9
23
26
30
43
54
70
75
84
93
107
116
121
129
133
140
154
164
170
175
182
201
213
219

Some files were not shown because too many files have changed in this diff Show more