@@ashevillecat You are right that all prizes are to a certain degree politicized, since no prize can be completely neutral, and the Nobel Prize in Literature is probably the best we have, but they are right to be critical with it. I mean, they have had huge mistakes. How on earh didn't Tolstoy, Twain, Orwell, Fitzgerald or more recently maybe Murakami never win the Nobel Prize in Literature?
"every word in political discourse has at least two meanings now (c. 2006?)...the literal meaning and the exact opposite" Kinda like: War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is Strength
Spiderman's uncle couldn't have been more incorrect. With great power comes NO responsibility. That is why nations seek out ultimate power. They realize they can commit any atrocity they want, so long as they have the most power.
"...who are [Democracy's] enemies? It always appears that they are not only those who attack it openly and consciously, but *those who ‘objectively’ endanger it by spreading mistaken doctrines* . In other words, defending democracy involves destroying all independence of thought." - George Orwell, "The Freedom of the Press", his proposed preface to _Animal Farm_
To people like "Moon" in the comments below: It's painfully obvious that you have not read Chomsky. Your arguments rest on assertions that are flatly false. That he's an "ivory tower" intellectual. No one who knows anything about Chomsky would say that. He's probably one of the most accessible public intellectuals in the world, and indeed to the average guy as well. You state the believes in some kind of "utopia". Again, if you even understood a fraction of Chomsky you wouldn't make that assertion. But of course you haven't even read what he says on principles/tactics, have you? See, if you had you'd know that what you said is ridiculous. You simply do not read Chomsky - period! (other than an article or video here and there) - if you actually do, you simply do not understand what he is saying. And no, Chomsky is not a "charismatic" figure like MLK. He knows that. MLK used his strengths, Chomsky uses his. And that is creating work that is useful to activists. Organizations like FAIR I believe base their reporting on Chomsky and Herman's propaganda model - just one example. I could go on. Basically everything you state is either flatly wrong, or built on some kind of argument about him, not his thoughts. If you do have an actual argument, I'd love to hear it. But I think you do not.
May I suggest, anyone who uses a name like Moon is probably a troll or someone deeply disconnected from reality - the moon is a lifeless rock reflecting only the suns rays. The Sun as reality illuminates the moon, the moon however doesn't recognize its reliance on the Sun for its exposure, believing it has its own light to shine upon the world (according to astrology). In other words, this person is full of B.S.
and yet the moon controls the waters of the tides, is the cycle of humanity's fertility cycle (in women), and being exactly positioned that during an eclipse the entire sun is exactly covered. lunacy, eh?
@@Open4991 compared to they way things are now, or have been for most of history, chomsky's anarchism would _seem_ utopian, but I believe it's wrong to think that it is. Just because it would be better won't make it a utopia. Utopia, by definition, is impossible.
Daniel MS That's pretty convenient to just eschew a completely apt label as a mere pejorative and go on fighting for a system with only a minutely greater track record than anything Rand came up with.
Does anyone have a link to that formerly unpublished original introduction to Animal Farm about how unpopular ideas can be suppressed in both totalitarian and free capitalist societies? I would love to read it. How did Chomsky get it?
im re-reading it now, full of good stuff. "The British press is extremely centralised, and most of it is owned by wealthy men who have every motive to be dishonest on certain important topics." "At this moment what is demanded by the prevailing orthodoxy is an uncritical admiration of Soviet Russia. [..] And this nation-wide conspiracy to flatter our ally takes place, curiously enough, against a background of genuine intellectual tolerance. [...] What is disquieting is that where the USSR and its policies are concerned one cannot expect intelligent criticism or even, in many cases, plain honesty from Liberal [sic - and throughout as typescript] writers and journalists who are under no direct pressure to falsify their opinions."
Pike built on Orwell's foundation. So it was published. Correct me if I am wrong, but is absolute certainty, the deeds are protected by law. It is that you just call it international by accidentally Vito it ?
The Freedom of the Press was not published as a preface to Animal Farm as it was not needed. Orwell wrote the piece as he struggled to have the novella published and was ready to publish it himself as a pamphlet, with The Freedom of the Press as the preface. In the end, a publisher went on to take up the work and published it in 1945 at the end of WWII. (Refer to Bernard Crick's - George Orwell: A Life - Chapter 14).
Orwell's best works are not 1984 and Animal Farm. Homage To Catalonia, Down and Out, IN London and Paris, The Road to Wigan Pier, The Clergyman's Daughter and Coming Up For Air are all a lot better in my opinion.
Coming Up For Air is humorous and if not for the references to the coming war could be applied to a modern setting. I think his journalism and essays are some of the best writing ever in those disciplines.
I was waiting for Chomsky to reference one of Orwell’s copious criticisms of intellectuals. He certainly loathed them and considered them fraudulent. Too close to the bone?
Pretty surprised Chomsky in some regards seemed to have been less of a fan of Orwell than I would have initially expected as is common from a lot of other libertarian socialists.
Love Chomsky - one of the last "true" intellectuals - meaning, who knows it's his responsibility to ask questions without a motive to answer them. Rather, they answer themselves. This upload is badly recorded however - can't understand pieces. Please clean it up if possible and upload again.
Dear Moon , If your government has the capacity to end all life on earth , then from an activist perspective you have to be critical , not because it's easy . For it is a moral obligation to speech out about humanitarian crimes , particularly those of your own . That is the only way we can have a dignified future for all , being uncritical of great power will lead to a world of fear and worse . You pay taxes to your government , surely you've got to have the courage to demand ,they don't commit atrocities with your money , in your name . Unless of course your a psychopath , then it's fine .
roman brandle it's ironic that a man whos slogan is "authority should be questioned" has so many followers who just accept everything that he says without question and call all of his critics "apologists for atrocity" or "psychopaths" unbelievable....
+Moon Hi there, fellow human being!. Who are those _critics_ of Chomsky you talk about?. Do you mean serious critics or just people boringly discussing a bunch of nuances they'd like him to keep an account of; or did you mean instead people making character attacks on him (e.g., late Hitchens, Zizak, etc). Can you please recommend some academically sound books discussing substantial topics Chomsky got wrong in his works?. Thanks in advance. I'd really like to know them. *PS*sorry for my poor English.
+No One I meant actual materials of criticism (i.e., scholarly sound books) on the subject. When I think of intellectual analysis I don't think of debates (which are helpful to spread simple ideas to the masses). The classic debate setting is silly and confusing at best. Although Chomsky debated none but the greatest and the heaviest: Foucault, Buckley, Dershowitz, etcetera. People who actually studied, understood and criticized his positions or had some of their own. All of those are posted here in CZcams.... Zizek is not a valid critic as he has stated himself. Harris is a philosophical /political joke: he understands cipher, nix, nada, nichts about politics and his Liberal positions resemble those of fascism. Hitchens used to kiss Chomsky's ass and their FUD was mostly about Hitchens sleeping with power and propagandizing US' middle eastern terror (bombings for freedom and democracy). Skinner on his own account, was not wanting to debate Chomsky because he didn't want to read him and his criticism of him was mostly ceremonious attack on his character. I really want to find *serious, scholarly sound books* on the matter. I'd really appreciate it if you could help me out. Thanks a lot for replying!.
Mario Honestly, I'd say to just look at scholarship from different authors on the same topics that Chomsky tackles. Chomsky isn't good at confronting criticism and tends to ignore it. He simply won't address view points or facts that don't belong to his narrative. My main beef with Chomsky lies in a difference of political philosophy and how his philosophy informs his interpretation of history.
There is a simple test that anyone can do to see if you are thinking clearly. Ask yourself, "What is believing this going to cost me?" Not only in monetary terms (though that's a biggie) but in terms of inner and outer comfort. There are good reasons for questioning things that have little to not evidence to back them up - but climate change is not one of those things. In religious wording it's simply "You reap what you sow." Or "Karma." If you really want a bandwagon to jump off of that is destructive to mankind - try challenging, "Survival of the fittest." And all that it entails.
oh and another thing , great power always wants to be understood , but if your paying for it , should it not be trying to understand what you want . Do you want endless war ?
With great power comes NO responsibility. Meaning, that if no one else has the adequate power to bring charges against you, you can abuse your power. If the US were to now give up some its power it would risk having to face the consequences. At this point, endless war by the establishment is all but guaranteed. We've committed crimes because flexing our might is simply convenient. And while the public at large may not approve, the establishment figures the racket must be maintained. Why risk the status quo? They figure it's easy and efficient to kill more innocent people than needed, and why stop if you can maintain your power? I think the US makes a calculation to take a middle approach (a grotesque middle approach). On the one hand they aren't seeking to kill everyone and stack the body count as high as they can. But on the other hand, they aren't seeking to minimize civilian casualties. A show of overwhelming force and higher than needed civilian casualties makes the case that they are not to be trifled with. Isn't it cute? We get to play Gandhi and Hitler at the same time. I love what Chomsky exposes as The Pentagon and generals continue to play alpha males hiding behind their push button bombings.
Oh just a little quiz for the "Chomsky-supported Pol Pot" crowd. 1. Which of the following countries besides China supported the Khmer Rouge while in power and after it was deposed? a) Russia b) Vietnam c) US 2. Which country rescued Cambodia from Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge? a) US b) Thailand c) Vietnam Support for answer 1 1. Parkinson, Charles; Cuddy, Alice; Pye, Daniel (May 29, 2015). "The Pol Pot dilemma". The Phnom Penh Post. Phnom Penh, Cambodia. Retrieved August 29, 2016. 2. Jump up ^ Becker, Elizabeth (1998-04-17). "Death of Pol Pot: The Diplomacy; Pol Pot's End Won't Stop U.S. Pursuit of His Circle". The New York Times. Retrieved 2017-07-12. cf. Lewis, Daniel (2017-05-26). "Zbigniew Brzezinski, National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter, Dies at 89". The New York Times. Retrieved 2017-07-12. 3. Haas, Michael (1991). Cambodia, Pol Pot, and the United States: The Faustian Pact. ABC-CLIO. Support for answer 2 Any history book!
Deganawidah When did Chomsky support Pol Pot... ? Yeah, he never did ! If you want people to belive your lies, you should make them fit peoples preconseptions and making them borderline realistic also helps. Dumbass !
What cUntry has killed over 20 Million since WINNING WW2 supposedly for 'Free Democracy'? Check, "globalresearch.ca-us-has-killed.." more than 20 million in 37 VICTIM nations..."
I think Chomsky has a tendency to simplify issues in the same way that he accuses most intellectuals of simplifying their own mistakes. If you are resentful of your little brother for having the toy that you want, it's easy to go to your mother and come up with a reason that he's awful and that he actually stole it from someone else. It's easy to criticize the U.S. government (because it's so unbelievably easy to criticize any government), but it's harder to understand why these decisions were made. I don't think Chomsky's interested in actually understanding the actions of the United States as THEY see it (not that that's the only perspective that matters because it's certainly not). And we need genuine critics of U.S. action because any government will commit crimes and consist of corrupt enterprises, but Chomsky's criticisms will always fall short because they stop at "why what you did was unacceptable" and never "what you could've done differently with the problem presented". Idk just food for thought
Moon , firstly - big part of his criticism towards the US is based on hypocrisy of their foreign policy and their own description of it. They set the rules and don't play by them themselves. In these cases you can barely make an excuse on a bases of "they had no other alternative". Secondly - I can't even agree that he tend to oversimplify things (maybe if you've pointed out any of his particular statements it would be easier to discuss). Thirdly - if I am not mistaken, I think Sam Harris made somewhat same idea - that you have to consider what intentions had the US had when discussing their atrocities. And I am not into that idea also - bad outcome but with good intentions maybe matters but not to that extent that it's an excuse. Being stupid is not much better (or maybe worse) than being evil.
Medved4tube Fair enough, there's no arguing that the United States is not a guilty nation, but so are all nations. And Chomsky has no respect for the fallibility of men attempting to create a better world or to protect people. It's a dualistic process. The good comes with the bad like with any person, and Chomsky holds the U.S. up as the arbiter of ultimate evil because of its capabilities without considering the idea of being at the helm himself. Id like to see what kind of world an idealist like him would create. He has no respect for the idea of having to make a "hard descision". One with no morally comfortable outcome. And as far as I'm concerned Sam Harris made an excellent point when attempting to discuss the issue with Chomsky. Chomsky's ivory tower and garden of Eden will always make him a weak critic in my view because he works with utopian ideals and has an adolencant's idea of human nature. He has no respect for the real evils people are capable of and has made the United States the snake in his garden.
Moon, to me, it does not weaken his arguments to say that perhaps we had our reasons for the heinous things we have done. Even if we did them for "freedom," "democracy," or some such thing. Maybe if you provided some specific examples I could wrap my head around this a bit better. Still this analysis would be a different discussion, I think.
Moon , firslty - again, as I said, big part of critisim is towards hypocrisy - when examining the US actions you suggest we should always consider that they, maybe, had no alternatives or they had good intentions, but when the US make their judjment of others (I mean in foreign policy) - it seems like they dont use this kind of logic. Chomsky is judjing them by their own standards poining out their hypocrisy. Secondly - this type of argument can make an excuse for any evil action, so we should use it with extreme caution - only when provided with undoubtable evidence. Thirdly - if one's intentions are mostly good but the outcome is usually the opposite - one still should be held accountable. And finally - I believe that Chomsky is not oversimplyfing - maybe you do it, by saying that there is/were no other alternative for the US foreign policy.
It's kind of underwhelming but also to be expected. 'Don't punch left' - somebody broke a cardinal rule. Thus, we have to say something critical about Orwell's level of insight, and we have to highlight scant remarks about Barcelona that are more favorable, and we have to suggest how 'newspeak' really applies to the right-affecting neoliberals and not the more lefterly ones.
Orwell’s Animal Farm was and still is about Capitalism, not like Noam Chomsky is thinking and saying about Leninizm! The point of the Animal Farm is this is fit quite well for all broken systems such us capitalism/socialism etc. where all humans are show the worst example of human behaviour and how they are treat those people who are poor. About Leninizm, Socialism ( not communism!) Marxism etc or even Fascism all those examples were only created capitalism and by that what in capitalism was the worst.
I think this must be about "Politics and the English Language." Orwell was a brilliant writer.
nominated 7 times for the Nobel Prize in literature and never got the prize. Now tell me it isn't a politicized prize.
Can you name a major prize that _genuinely_ isn't politicized?
@@ashevillecat No bell prize.
@@ashevillecat You are right that all prizes are to a certain degree politicized, since no prize can be completely neutral, and the Nobel Prize in Literature is probably the best we have, but they are right to be critical with it. I mean, they have had huge mistakes. How on earh didn't Tolstoy, Twain, Orwell, Fitzgerald or more recently maybe Murakami never win the Nobel Prize in Literature?
He likely didn't get them because he shared socialist ideas, not very popular during the late 40s and early 50s.
@@ashevillecat Fields Medal
"every word in political discourse has at least two meanings now (c. 2006?)...the literal meaning and the exact opposite"
Kinda like:
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
That's how Chomsky answers every question.
For all governments the atrocities they commit are UNDER THE LAW or mistakes.
They never take responsibility of their actions
Rocío Aguilera too true, too true
Spiderman's uncle couldn't have been more incorrect.
With great power comes NO responsibility. That is why nations seek out ultimate power. They realize they can commit any atrocity they want, so long as they have the most power.
If the law doesn't apply to certain groups means it's going to be applied illegally to other groups.
@@thunderpooch It should be "With great power comes great responsibility, except in the case of psychopaths."
& Queen Elizabeth cannot be prosecuted for a crime. . . as she is the Crown, and would never have a Crown attorney prosecute her.
"...who are [Democracy's] enemies? It always appears that they are not only those who attack it openly and consciously, but *those who ‘objectively’ endanger it by spreading mistaken doctrines* . In other words, defending democracy involves destroying all independence of thought."
- George Orwell, "The Freedom of the Press", his proposed preface to _Animal Farm_
Thanks for posting. One of the most important things to know about this is when it took place. Please add a date. Thank you.
MRS. Hoppe , aunt of my inspiration. You are a hero of mine.
To people like "Moon" in the comments below: It's painfully obvious that you have not read Chomsky. Your arguments rest on assertions that are flatly false. That he's an "ivory tower" intellectual. No one who knows anything about Chomsky would say that. He's probably one of the most accessible public intellectuals in the world, and indeed to the average guy as well. You state the believes in some kind of "utopia". Again, if you even understood a fraction of Chomsky you wouldn't make that assertion. But of course you haven't even read what he says on principles/tactics, have you? See, if you had you'd know that what you said is ridiculous. You simply do not read Chomsky - period! (other than an article or video here and there) - if you actually do, you simply do not understand what he is saying. And no, Chomsky is not a "charismatic" figure like MLK. He knows that. MLK used his strengths, Chomsky uses his. And that is creating work that is useful to activists. Organizations like FAIR I believe base their reporting on Chomsky and Herman's propaganda model - just one example. I could go on. Basically everything you state is either flatly wrong, or built on some kind of argument about him, not his thoughts. If you do have an actual argument, I'd love to hear it. But I think you do not.
May I suggest, anyone who uses a name like Moon is probably a troll or someone deeply disconnected from reality - the moon is a lifeless rock reflecting only the suns rays. The Sun as reality illuminates the moon, the moon however doesn't recognize its reliance on the Sun for its exposure, believing it has its own light to shine upon the world (according to astrology). In other words, this person is full of B.S.
and yet the moon controls the waters of the tides, is the cycle of humanity's fertility cycle (in women), and being exactly positioned that during an eclipse the entire sun is exactly covered. lunacy, eh?
'You state the believes in some kind of "utopia".' So you don't think anarchism is utopian?
@@Open4991 compared to they way things are now, or have been for most of history, chomsky's anarchism would _seem_ utopian, but I believe it's wrong to think that it is. Just because it would be better won't make it a utopia. Utopia, by definition, is impossible.
Daniel MS That's pretty convenient to just eschew a completely apt label as a mere pejorative and go on fighting for a system with only a minutely greater track record than anything Rand came up with.
the audio sound after 1:40 is bad
It gets better by 3:00
Does anyone have a link to that formerly unpublished original introduction to Animal Farm about how unpopular ideas can be suppressed in both totalitarian and free capitalist societies? I would love to read it. How did Chomsky get it?
I believe it's right here: orwell.ru/library/novels/Animal_Farm/english/efp_go
im re-reading it now, full of good stuff.
"The British press is extremely centralised, and most of it is owned by wealthy men who have every motive to be dishonest on certain important topics."
"At this moment what is demanded by the prevailing orthodoxy is an uncritical admiration of Soviet Russia. [..] And this nation-wide conspiracy to flatter our ally takes place, curiously enough, against a background of genuine intellectual tolerance. [...] What is disquieting is that where the USSR and its policies are concerned one cannot expect intelligent criticism or even, in many cases, plain honesty from Liberal [sic - and throughout as typescript] writers and journalists who are under no direct pressure to falsify their opinions."
what happened to the sound quality from approximately 1.35?
Pike built on Orwell's foundation. So it was published. Correct me if I am wrong, but is absolute certainty, the deeds are protected by law. It is that you just call it international by accidentally Vito it ?
can't hear anything after 2 minutes. What a pity. The content is so interesting.
The Freedom of the Press was not published as a preface to Animal Farm as it was not needed. Orwell wrote the piece as he struggled to have the novella published and was ready to publish it himself as a pamphlet, with The Freedom of the Press as the preface. In the end, a publisher went on to take up the work and published it in 1945 at the end of WWII. (Refer to Bernard Crick's - George Orwell: A Life - Chapter 14).
thank you. the piece chomsky talks about is called "the Freedom of the Press"???
@@BuGGyBoBerl
I think what he mentioned is written in Animal Farm penguin edition
@@faresasfary i think so too. i found the name of the essay. the "prevention of literature"
Orwell's best works are not 1984 and Animal Farm. Homage To Catalonia, Down and Out, IN London and Paris, The Road to Wigan Pier, The Clergyman's Daughter and Coming Up For Air are all a lot better in my opinion.
Coming Up For Air is humorous and if not for the references to the coming war could be applied to a modern setting.
I think his journalism and essays are some of the best writing ever in those disciplines.
"Not like Kissinger (just 'servility to the master')."
not2tees haha good one.
I was waiting for Chomsky to reference one of Orwell’s copious criticisms of intellectuals. He certainly loathed them and considered them fraudulent. Too close to the bone?
Double Think
Pretty surprised Chomsky in some regards seemed to have been less of a fan of Orwell than I would have initially expected as is common from a lot of other libertarian socialists.
Audio is bad at some points, please upload a good one.
They may be the best available. Help find better ones instead of complain maybe?
Wauw
Brilliantly explaind ! The west fucking double standards!
Love Chomsky - one of the last "true" intellectuals - meaning, who knows it's his responsibility to ask questions without a motive to answer them. Rather, they answer themselves. This upload is badly recorded however - can't understand pieces. Please clean it up if possible and upload again.
Dear Moon , If your government has the capacity to end all life on earth , then from an activist perspective you have to be critical , not because it's easy . For it is a moral obligation to speech out about humanitarian crimes , particularly those of your own . That is the only way we can have a dignified future for all , being uncritical of great power will lead to a world of fear and worse . You pay taxes to your government , surely you've got to have the courage to demand ,they don't commit atrocities with your money , in your name . Unless of course your a psychopath , then it's fine .
roman brandle it's ironic that a man whos slogan is "authority should be questioned" has so many followers who just accept everything that he says without question and call all of his critics "apologists for atrocity" or "psychopaths" unbelievable....
+Moon Hi there, fellow human being!. Who are those _critics_ of Chomsky you talk about?. Do you mean serious critics or just people boringly discussing a bunch of nuances they'd like him to keep an account of; or did you mean instead people making character attacks on him (e.g., late Hitchens, Zizak, etc). Can you please recommend some academically sound books discussing substantial topics Chomsky got wrong in his works?.
Thanks in advance. I'd really like to know them.
*PS*sorry for my poor English.
+No One I meant actual materials of criticism (i.e., scholarly sound books) on the subject.
When I think of intellectual analysis I don't think of debates (which are helpful to spread simple ideas to the masses). The classic debate setting is silly and confusing at best. Although Chomsky debated none but the greatest and the heaviest: Foucault, Buckley, Dershowitz, etcetera. People who actually studied, understood and criticized his positions or had some of their own. All of those are posted here in CZcams....
Zizek is not a valid critic as he has stated himself. Harris is a philosophical /political joke: he understands cipher, nix, nada, nichts about politics and his Liberal positions resemble those of fascism. Hitchens used to kiss Chomsky's ass and their FUD was mostly about Hitchens sleeping with power and propagandizing US' middle eastern terror (bombings for freedom and democracy). Skinner on his own account, was not wanting to debate Chomsky because he didn't want to read him and his criticism of him was mostly ceremonious attack on his character.
I really want to find *serious, scholarly sound books* on the matter. I'd really appreciate it if you could help me out.
Thanks a lot for replying!.
Mario Honestly, I'd say to just look at scholarship from different authors on the same topics that Chomsky tackles. Chomsky isn't good at confronting criticism and tends to ignore it. He simply won't address view points or facts that don't belong to his narrative. My main beef with Chomsky lies in a difference of political philosophy and how his philosophy informs his interpretation of history.
Mario and don't worry about your English! xD it's better than most Americans lol
I'm a mid80s kid, reading is obsolete I always sy. But I always add if u really want to get your arse kicked read 1984
There is a simple test that anyone can do to see if you are thinking clearly. Ask yourself, "What is believing this going to cost me?" Not only in monetary terms (though that's a biggie) but in terms of inner and outer comfort.
There are good reasons for questioning things that have little to not evidence to back them up - but climate change is not one of those things. In religious wording it's simply "You reap what you sow." Or "Karma." If you really want a bandwagon to jump off of that is destructive to mankind - try challenging, "Survival of the fittest." And all that it entails.
N y
oh and another thing , great power always wants to be understood , but if your paying for it , should it not be trying to understand what you want . Do you want endless war ?
With great power comes NO responsibility. Meaning, that if no one else has the adequate power to bring charges against you, you can abuse your power.
If the US were to now give up some its power it would risk having to face the consequences.
At this point, endless war by the establishment is all but guaranteed. We've committed crimes because flexing our might is simply convenient. And while the public at large may not approve, the establishment figures the racket must be maintained. Why risk the status quo? They figure it's easy and efficient to kill more innocent people than needed, and why stop if you can maintain your power?
I think the US makes a calculation to take a middle approach (a grotesque middle approach). On the one hand they aren't seeking to kill everyone and stack the body count as high as they can. But on the other hand, they aren't seeking to minimize civilian casualties. A show of overwhelming force and higher than needed civilian casualties makes the case that they are not to be trifled with.
Isn't it cute? We get to play Gandhi and Hitler at the same time.
I love what Chomsky exposes as The Pentagon and generals continue to play alpha males hiding behind their push button bombings.
chomsky one of few inteligents humans who speaks truth to power
he doesn't speak truth to power. he speaks truth to us. power knows the truth already
0:13
1984 reminds me of Julian Assange and freedom of speech, the have got him incarcerated because of that.
This comment section is a kimberlite of crazy.
apparently high amounts of Magnesium is good for brain development
Oh just a little quiz for the "Chomsky-supported Pol Pot" crowd.
1. Which of the following countries besides China supported the Khmer Rouge while in power and after it was deposed?
a) Russia b) Vietnam c) US
2. Which country rescued Cambodia from Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge?
a) US b) Thailand c) Vietnam
Support for answer 1
1. Parkinson, Charles; Cuddy, Alice; Pye, Daniel (May 29, 2015). "The Pol Pot dilemma". The Phnom Penh Post. Phnom Penh, Cambodia. Retrieved August 29, 2016.
2. Jump up ^ Becker, Elizabeth (1998-04-17). "Death of Pol Pot: The Diplomacy; Pol Pot's End Won't Stop U.S. Pursuit of His Circle". The New York Times. Retrieved 2017-07-12. cf. Lewis, Daniel (2017-05-26). "Zbigniew Brzezinski, National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter, Dies at 89". The New York Times. Retrieved 2017-07-12.
3. Haas, Michael (1991). Cambodia, Pol Pot, and the United States: The Faustian Pact. ABC-CLIO.
Support for answer 2
Any history book!
So where are the answers smartie?
question one) c
question two) c
Deganawidah
When did Chomsky support Pol Pot... ?
Yeah, he never did !
If you want people to belive your lies, you should make them fit peoples preconseptions and making them borderline realistic also helps.
Dumbass !
What cUntry has killed over 20 Million since WINNING WW2 supposedly for 'Free Democracy'? Check, "globalresearch.ca-us-has-killed.." more than 20 million in 37 VICTIM nations..."
Check, "williamblum.org/books"
Chomsky's recordings are always potato-like.
I think Chomsky has a tendency to simplify issues in the same way that he accuses most intellectuals of simplifying their own mistakes. If you are resentful of your little brother for having the toy that you want, it's easy to go to your mother and come up with a reason that he's awful and that he actually stole it from someone else. It's easy to criticize the U.S. government (because it's so unbelievably easy to criticize any government), but it's harder to understand why these decisions were made. I don't think Chomsky's interested in actually understanding the actions of the United States as THEY see it (not that that's the only perspective that matters because it's certainly not). And we need genuine critics of U.S. action because any government will commit crimes and consist of corrupt enterprises, but Chomsky's criticisms will always fall short because they stop at "why what you did was unacceptable" and never "what you could've done differently with the problem presented". Idk just food for thought
Moon , firstly - big part of his criticism towards the US is based on hypocrisy of their foreign policy and their own description of it. They set the rules and don't play by them themselves. In these cases you can barely make an excuse on a bases of "they had no other alternative". Secondly - I can't even agree that he tend to oversimplify things (maybe if you've pointed out any of his particular statements it would be easier to discuss). Thirdly - if I am not mistaken, I think Sam Harris made somewhat same idea - that you have to consider what intentions had the US had when discussing their atrocities. And I am not into that idea also - bad outcome but with good intentions maybe matters but not to that extent that it's an excuse. Being stupid is not much better (or maybe worse) than being evil.
Medved4tube Fair enough, there's no arguing that the United States is not a guilty nation, but so are all nations. And Chomsky has no respect for the fallibility of men attempting to create a better world or to protect people. It's a dualistic process. The good comes with the bad like with any person, and Chomsky holds the U.S. up as the arbiter of ultimate evil because of its capabilities without considering the idea of being at the helm himself. Id like to see what kind of world an idealist like him would create. He has no respect for the idea of having to make a "hard descision". One with no morally comfortable outcome. And as far as I'm concerned Sam Harris made an excellent point when attempting to discuss the issue with Chomsky. Chomsky's ivory tower and garden of Eden will always make him a weak critic in my view because he works with utopian ideals and has an adolencant's idea of human nature. He has no respect for the real evils people are capable of and has made the United States the snake in his garden.
Moon, to me, it does not weaken his arguments to say that perhaps we had our reasons for the heinous things we have done. Even if we did them for "freedom," "democracy," or some such thing. Maybe if you provided some specific examples I could wrap my head around this a bit better. Still this analysis would be a different discussion, I think.
All Nations ARE guilty. This is one of the reasons Anarchism is a school of thought. Abolition of the state.
Moon , firslty - again, as I said, big part of critisim is towards hypocrisy - when examining the US actions you suggest we should always consider that they, maybe, had no alternatives or they had good intentions, but when the US make their judjment of others (I mean in foreign policy) - it seems like they dont use this kind of logic. Chomsky is judjing them by their own standards poining out their hypocrisy. Secondly - this type of argument can make an excuse for any evil action, so we should use it with extreme caution - only when provided with undoubtable evidence. Thirdly - if one's intentions are mostly good but the outcome is usually the opposite - one still should be held accountable. And finally - I believe that Chomsky is not oversimplyfing - maybe you do it, by saying that there is/were no other alternative for the US foreign policy.
He’’s over analyzing it.
Edgar Arenas Moron
Edgar Arenas
No such thing. He's thoroughly analyzing... the wrong part of the question.
awhodothey which part?
It's kind of underwhelming but also to be expected. 'Don't punch left' - somebody broke a cardinal rule. Thus, we have to say something critical about Orwell's level of insight, and we have to highlight scant remarks about Barcelona that are more favorable, and we have to suggest how 'newspeak' really applies to the right-affecting neoliberals and not the more lefterly ones.
Orwell’s Animal Farm was and still is about Capitalism, not like Noam Chomsky is thinking and saying about Leninizm! The point of the Animal Farm is this is fit quite well for all broken systems such us capitalism/socialism etc. where all humans are show the worst example of human behaviour and how they are treat those people who are poor.
About Leninizm, Socialism ( not communism!) Marxism etc or even Fascism all those examples were only created capitalism and by that what in capitalism was the worst.
But chomskys brilliant observation is that there's little difference leninism and western beaurocratic states