• Noam #Chomsky Unravels the Political Mechanics Behind His Gradual Expulsion From Mainstream #Media | Alternet

    The irony of Chomsky’s media criticism being dismissed by the media is not lost on the former MIT professor, who remains in awe of America’s level of censorship. 

    “Any one of the former Bush-Cheney warmongers like Paul Wolfowitz and John Bolton and others have gotten far more press after they’ve left federal positions; in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post,” Nader said.

    And unlike Chomsky, “They’ve been on television public television, NPR and they have a record of false statements; they have record of deception, they have record of pursuing policies are illegal under our Constitution, under international law and under federal statutes such as criminal invasion of Iraq and other adventures around the world,” Nader pointed out.

    But the media problem permeates other industries, like #education and government. 

    “Now, a society that operates in a way where propaganda is not only emanating from the major media but it gets into our schools, the kind of courses are taught, the content of the history, is a society that’s not going to be mobilized for its own survival, much less the survival of other countries whose dictators we have for decades supported to oppress their people,” explained Nader.

    #propagande #censure #Etats-Unis #MSM

  • Burkini Bans, New Atheism and State Worship: Noam #Chomsky on #Religion in Politics

    A drumbeat of propaganda on how “we are good” and “they are evil,” with constant exercises of self-admiration and abuse of others, can hardly fail to have an impact on perception of the world.

    Examples abound, but merely to illustrate the common pattern, take a current example from the peak of the intellectual culture: Samantha Power’s August 18 article in the New York Review of Books. Without any relevant qualification or comment, the author presents Henry Kissinger’s sage reflections on “America’s tragic flaw”: namely, “believing that our principles are universal principles, and seeking to extend human rights far beyond our nation’s borders... ’No nation... has ever imposed the moral demands on itself that America has. And no country has so tormented itself over the gap between its moral values, which are by definition absolute, and the imperfection inherent in the concrete situations to which they must be applied.’”

    For anyone with the slightest familiarity with contemporary history, such fatuous musings are simply an embarrassment — or to be more accurate, a horror. And this is not talk radio, but a leading journal of left-liberal intellectuals. People bombarded with patriotic drivel from all corners are likely to have a view of themselves and the world that poses major threats to humanity. It is hardly surprising in the light, both of the historical record and the self-images concocted by ideologists, that the US is ranked in international polls as the greatest threat to world peace, no one else even close. Nor is it surprising that the population is protected from such improper facts by the “free press.”

    #propagande #énormités #effroyables #Etats-Unis

  • Kenneth Roth de Human’s Rights Watch est furieux contre le dernier livre de Noam #Chomsky,

    Who Rules the World? is also an infuriating book because it is so partisan that it leaves the reader convinced not of his insights but of the need to hear the other side.

    Entre autres parce que Chomsky occulterait le fait que Assad et Poutine sont aussi responsables que les #Etats-Unis quant à la situation délétère du Moyen-Orient,

    President George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq fits his thesis of American malevolence, and the terrible human costs of the war get mentioned, but Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s decision to fight his country’s civil war by targeting civilians in opposition-held areas, killing hundreds of thousands and setting off the flight of several million refugees, does not. Nor does Russia’s decision to back Assad’s murderous shredding of the Geneva Conventions, since Chomsky’s focus is America’s contribution to global suffering, not Vladimir Putin’s.

    • Un vrai débat crucial et pas facile à mener étant donné l’activité propagandiste des grands médias qui opacifie ou floute notre perception des actions des différents acteurs.

      Les objections de Kenneth Roth sont valables. Mais on aimerait avoir sa vision complète de la politique étrangère d’Obama (rechargeant par exemple Israël en munition en plein bombardement de Gaza à l’été 2014).

    • The Supposedly Liberal NY Review of Books Published a Very Strange Review of Chomsky’s Latest | Alternet

      In the first paragraph of his surprisingly inept and unfriendly review in the New York Review of Books of Noam Chomsky’s Who Rules the World? (May 2016), Kenneth Roth described the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq as a “blunder.” This wasn’t a good sign, since it signaled either ignorance or rejection of the UN Charter’s prohibition of the threat or use of force by states in the conduct of their international relations. This stipulation in the Charter—Article 2(4)—has been described by a distinguished group of international law scholars as the “keystone” and “cardinal rule” of modern international law (see below). It is also a centerpiece of Noam Chomsky’s long-standing criticism of U.S. foreign policy, a fact about which Roth—the long-time head of Human Rights Watch—also seemed unaware. Roth’s “blunder” (defined as “a stupid or careless mistake”) signaled what was to come, and indeed spiraled downward into a web of chronic mistake-making in his analysis of Chomsky’s book.

  • #Noam_Chomsky, drôle de créature libertaire

    Quelle sorte de créatures sommes-nous ?, dernier essai du célèbre linguiste et professeur émérite au Massachusetts Institute of Technology, vient de paraître. Si le livre ne traite pas spécifiquement de ce thème, il interroge toutefois, sur quelques pages, les liens entre #anarchisme, #libéralisme et #libertarianisme.

    #livre #Chomsky

  • Chomsky et Bouveresse, adepte du Grand Partage. Il faut absolument leur répondre….
    Dialogue sur la science et la politique. NOAM CHOMSKY, dialogue avec Jacques BOUVERESSE

    Noam Chomsky : On ne peut pas sérieusement penser que la vérité objective n’existe pas. Savoir jusqu’à quel point on peut l’approcher est une autre question. On sait depuis le XVIIème siècle que l’enquête empirique comporte toujours un élément de doute. On peut en principe démontrer ou réfuter le dernier théorème de Fermat, mais dans le monde empirique, le monde de la physique, de la chimie, de l’histoire et ainsi de suite, on a beau faire de son mieux, on a beau essayer de faire de son mieux pour approcher la vérité, on ne peut pas démontrer que les résultats trouvés sont corrects. C’est une évidence depuis l’effondrement du fondationnalisme cartésien. On a donc compris dans les sciences, dans la philosophie, etc., que nous devons procéder avec ce que Hume appelle un « scepticisme mitigé ». Scepticisme au sens où nous savons que nous ne pouvons pas établir des résultats définitivement, mais mitigé au sens où nous savons que nous pouvons progresser.
    Mais cela n’a pas de rapport direct avec la liberté  ; celle-ci est une question de valeur : nous choisissons de l’accepter ou de la rejeter. Voulons-nous adopter la croyance selon laquelle les êtres humains ont le droit de déterminer leur destin et leurs propres affaires  ? ou voulons-nous adopter celle selon laquelle de plus hautes autorités les guident et les contrôlent  ? La science ne répond pas à cette question, c’est une affaire de choix. Peut-être la science sera-t-elle capable un jour de confirmer ce que nous espérons être vrai, à savoir qu’un instinct de liberté fait partie de la nature humaine – cela pourrait bien être vrai, et je pense que ça l’est  ; mais il n’y a aucun domaine où les sciences soient suffisamment développées pour être en mesure d’établir un tel résultat. Peut-être en seront-elles capables un jour.
    Ainsi, dans nos vies quotidiennes – qu’elles soient des vies politiques, militantes, que nous restions passifs ou dans quelque direction que nous choisissions d’agir –, nous faisons des suppositions que nous tenons pour vraies, mais nous ne pouvons pas les établir fermement  ; et nous les utilisons en essayant de leur donner des bases plus solides au fur et à mesure que nous avançons. C’est essentiellement la même chose qui se passe dans les sciences, mais lorsqu’on réduit la sphère de l’enquête à des domaines très spécifiques, on peut évidemment aller plus loin dans l’établissement des conclusions qui nous intéressent.


    Daniel Mermet : Pensez-vous que la science a besoin d’être défendue, comme le suggère Jacques Bouveresse  ?
    Noam Chomsky : La question est tellement absurde que je n’arrive même pas à l’envisager. Pourquoi la tentative de découvrir la vérité sur le monde aurait-elle besoin d’être défendue  ? Si quelqu’un ne se sent absolument pas concerné, il peut tenir les propos suivants : « Je me moque de ce qui arrive dans le monde, je me moque de ce qui arrive aux gens, je me moque de savoir si la lune est faite en fromage vert, je me moque de savoir si les gens souffrent et sont tués. Je m’en moque éperdument, je veux juste aller boire un verre et me sentir bien. » Mais celui qui rejette cette position – celui qui dit : « Moi, ça m’intéresse de savoir si la lune est faite en fromage vert, ça m’intéresse de savoir si les gens souffrent, ça m’intéresse de savoir si on peut faire quelque chose pour les aider » – celui-là n’a rien à défendre. Et, pour avancer dans cette voie, il va évidemment chercher à comprendre les faits, à comprendre le monde. Cette position n’a pas besoin d’être défendue.


    Jacques Bouveresse : [...] Dans mon exposé au colloque, j’ai fait référence au livre de Bernard Williams, Vérité et véracité, où il décrit le comportement d’une catégorie de gens qu’il appelle « les négateurs [deniers] » : ceux qui nient l’intérêt de notions comme celle de vérité, qui contestent ouvertement la valeur de la vérité. Ce sont des gens, dit-il, qui ne peuvent manifestement pas penser véritablement ce qu’ils disent puisque, par exemple, quand ils disent : « les propositions des sciences ne sont jamais rien d’autre que des conventions sociales, des constructions sociales plus ou moins arbitraires qui pourraient être différentes si la société était différente », ils oublient simplement qu’ils parient quotidiennement leurs vies sur une croyance en la vérité – la vérité objective – de certaines lois de la nature, comme celle de la chute des corps, ou toutes les lois scientifiques qui permettent de faire voler des avions, rouler des trains, etc.
    Aucun d’entre nous ne met sérieusement en doute de telles vérités. Ce sont, pour tout le monde, des choses aussi vraies qu’une chose peut jamais être vraie. Le genre de discours que tiennent, sur ce point, les négateurs soulève une énorme difficulté : il laisse ceux qui ont envie de protester complètement désarmés  ; on ne peut même pas savoir, encore une fois, si les gens qui s’expriment de cette façon pensent réellement ce qu’ils disent  ; cela rend la situation encore plus inquiétante et inconfortable.

    #Chomsky #Bouveresse #épistémologie #réalité #pragmatisme #relativisme #Russel #James #Bourdieu

  • Chomsky : Donald Trump est en train de gagner parce que l’Amérique blanche est en train de mourir | Réseau International


    Je ne sais pas trop quoi en penser, mais je référence pour plus tard.


    Noam Chomsky dit que l’ascension de Trump est due en partie à des sentiments profondément enracinés et potentiellement fatals de peur et de colère.

    Noam Chomsky dit que l’ascension de Donald Trump dans la politique américaine est en partie alimentée par une peur et un désespoir très profonds, qui pourraient être causés par une croissance alarmante du taux de mortalité chez les blancs pauvres sous-éduqués.

    « Il trouve à l’évidence un écho dans des sentiments très profonds de colère, de peur, de frustration et de désespoir, probablement dans des parties de la population dont le taux de mortalité est en train d’augmenter, chose inouïe en dehors des guerres et des catastrophes naturelles » a dit Chomsky au Huffington Post, dans une interview de jeudi dernier.

    #états-unis #élections #trump #chomsky

    • #site_complotiste (légèrement).
      L’article lui même ne l’est pas, mais il peut facilement être mal interprété, laissant penser que les américains blancs, pauvres et sous-éduqués auraient une espérance de vie plus faible que toutes les autres catégories de population, alors que ce que me semble dire Chomsky, c’est qu’elle est la seule à décroître, donnant l’impression d’une injustice vis à vis des populations non-blanches, alors que l’injustice se situe en fait vis à vis des populations plus aisées.
      Je crois que Chomsky tente d’exposer un #biais_cognitif dont seraient victimes ces américains (et qui les pousserait à préférer D. Trump), que l’article, par son manque de clarifications, risque de propager, au lieu de le mettre en évidence.

    • Some of Trump’s strongest supporters are registered Democrats. Here’s why - Salon.com


      When we examine only whites to discover how economic peril interacts with resentment across partisanship and ideology, we find that the relationship between racial resentment and economic peril is particularly acute among white liberals and Democratic partisans. The graph below shows that conservatives and Republicans have higher levels of racial resentment compared to liberals and Democrats. Possibly because of this, increased perception of economic peril has no significant effect on racial resentment for Republicans and conservatives. However, the results show that increased sense of economic peril substantially increases racial resentment among both liberals and Democrats. At above-average levels of economic peril, the resentment attitudes of white Democratic partisans become almost indistinguishable from those of Republicans. Additionally, the attitudes of white liberals become indistinguishable from those of ideological conservatives. This may help explain one of the most confusing parts of the Trump phenomenon: his success with moderates, independents and even some liberals.

  • Chomsky hits back at Erdoğan, accusing him of double standards on terrorism

    In his email to the Guardian, Chomsky accused Erdoğan of hypocrisy. He said: “Turkey blamed Isis [for the attack on Istanbul], which Erdoğan has been aiding in many ways, while also supporting the al-Nusra Front, which is hardly different. He then launched a tirade against those who condemn his crimes against Kurds – who happen to be the main ground force opposing Isis in both Syria and Iraq. Is there any need for further comment?”

    (via Angry Arab)

  • Noam #Chomsky on Trump: “We Should Recognize the Other Candidates Are Not That Different”

    Noam Chomsky weighed in on US presidential politics in a speech Saturday at The New School in New York. In addressing a question about Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, Chomsky assessed the political landscape: “Today’s Democrats are what used to be called moderate Republicans. The Republicans have just drifted off the spectrum. They’re so committed to extreme wealth and power that they cannot get votes ... So what has happened is that they’ve mobilized sectors of the population that have been around for a long time. ... Trump may be comic relief, but it’s not that different from the mainstream, which I think is more important.”

  • #Chomsky: Greece Faces “Savage Response” For Taking on Austerity “Class War”

    NOAM CHOMSKY: What’s going on with the austerity is really class war. As an economic program, austerity, under recession, makes no sense. It just makes the situation worse. So the Greek debt, relative to GDP, has actually gone up during the period of—which is—well, the policies that are supposed to overcome the debt.


    That’s class war. It’s not an economic policy that makes any sense as to end a serious recession. And there is a reaction to it—Greece, Spain and some in Ireland, growing elsewhere, France. But it’s a very dangerous situation, could lead to a right-wing response, very right-wing. The alternative to Syriza might be Golden Dawn, neo-Nazi party.


  • Noam #Chomsky on the Roots of American Racism - NYTimes.com

    ... when I read about the dehumanizing acts committed at Abu Ghraib prison, I wasn’t surprised. I recall that after the photos appeared President George W. Bush said that “This is not the America I know.” But isn’t this the America black people have always known?


    Perhaps the most appalling contemporary myth is that none of this happened. (...)

    There is also a common variant of what has sometimes been called “intentional ignorance” of what it is inconvenient to know: Yes, bad things happened in the past, but let us put all of that behind us and march on to a glorious future, all sharing equally in the rights and opportunities of citizenry.”

    #backward #forward #Etats-Unis #racisme #déni #délire

  • Página/12 :: El país :: “La vanguardia contra el neoliberalismo”

    El filósofo y activista estadounidense analizó el devenir geopolítico global a 70 años de la Segunda Guerra Mundial, con el ascenso y el declive de los EE.UU. como eje. “América latina ha dado pasos significativos hacia su liberación del dominio imperial”, dijo.

    Voir aussi : http://seenthis.net/messages/345818

    #Amérique_latine #Chomsky

  • #Chomsky: Paris attacks show hypocrisy of West’s outrage
    By #Noam_Chomsky


    [veteran Europe correspondent Steven] Erlanger also quoted a surviving journalist who said that “Everything crashed. There was no way out. There was smoke everywhere. It was terrible. People were screaming. It was like a nightmare.” Another reported a “huge detonation, and everything went completely dark.” The scene, Erlanger reported, “was an increasingly familiar one of smashed glass, broken walls, twisted timbers, scorched paint and emotional devastation.”

    These last quotes, however — as independent journalist David Peterson reminds us — are not from January 2015. Rather, they are from a report by Erlanger on April 24 1999, which received far less attention. Erlanger was reporting on the NATO “missile attack on Serbian state television headquarters” that “knocked Radio Television Serbia off the air,” killing 16 journalists.

    “NATO and American officials defended the attack,” Erlanger reported, “as an effort to undermine the regime of President Slobodan Milosevic of Yugoslavia.” Pentagon spokesman Kenneth Bacon told a briefing in Washington that “Serb TV is as much a part of Milosevic’s murder machine as his military is,” hence a legitimate target of attack.

    There were no demonstrations or cries of outrage, no chants of “We are RTV,” no inquiries into the roots of the attack in Christian culture and history. On the contrary, the attack on the press was lauded. The highly regarded U.S. diplomat Richard Holbrooke, then envoy to Yugoslavia, described the successful attack on RTV as “an enormously important and, I think, positive development,” a sentiment echoed by others.

    There are many other events that call for no inquiry into western culture and history — for example, the worst single terrorist atrocity in Europe in recent years, in July 2011, when Anders Breivik, a Christian ultra-Zionist extremist and Islamophobe, slaughtered 77 people, mostly teenagers.

    Also ignored in the “war against terrorism” is the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times — Barack Obama’s global assassination campaign targeting people suspected of perhaps intending to harm us some day, and any unfortunates who happen to be nearby. Other unfortunates are also not lacking, such as the 50 civilians reportedly killed in a U.S.-led bombing raid in Syria in December, which was barely reported.

    One person was indeed punished in connection with the NATO attack on RTV — Dragoljub Milanović, the general manager of the station, who was sentenced by the European Court of Human Rights to 10 years in prison for failing to evacuate the building, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists. The International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia considered the NATO attack, concluding that it was not a crime, and although civilian casualties were “unfortunately high, they do not appear to be clearly disproportionate.”

    The comparison between these cases helps us understand the condemnation of the New York Times by civil rights lawyer Floyd Abrams, famous for his forceful defense of freedom of expression. “There are times for self-restraint,” Abrams wrote, “but in the immediate wake of the most threatening assault on journalism in living memory, [the Times editors] would have served the cause of free expression best by engaging in it” by publishing the #Charlie_Hebdo cartoons ridiculing Mohammed that elicited the assault.

    Abrams is right in describing the Charlie Hebdo attack as “the most threatening assault on journalism in living memory.” The reason has to do with the concept “living memory,” a category carefully constructed to include Their crimes against us while scrupulously excluding Our crimes against them — the latter not crimes but noble defense of the highest values, sometimes inadvertently flawed.

    #terrorisme #Etats-Unis #Occident #hypocrisie #mémoire #indignation_sélective

    • Et le moine #Howard_Zinn


      et le Greenman


      So, you might well ask, why bring new #Gnomes into the World when there’s already such an obvious problem with overpopulation!? Well that’s a good question to ask. – and overpopulation certainly doesn’t just refer to human overpopulation – today garden Gnomes are probably at least as overpopulated as humans – they just stay still a lot, they’re smaller, and they don’t usually drive -so it’s not as obvious how overcrowded they really are. Well the reason that even in these trying and uncertain times we here at Just Say Gnome! continue to ‘birth’ new gnomes into the World can be summed up by one simple but essential word: ‘Hope!’ We have faith that our gnomes are special and beneficial enough that they will help to both offset and heal the tremendous glut of plastic and other cheap low-quality gnomes being pumped out into gardens and yards from industrial factories in China and elsewhere. We feel that Just Say Gnome! gnomes can help guide their gnome brethren onto a higher road – a road that ultimately leads to universal gnome enlightenment and a return to the Golden Age of Gnomekind!


  • Tomgram: Noam #Chomsky, America’s Real Foreign Policy

    In the 1950s, President #Eisenhower and Secretary of State John Foster #Dulles explained quite clearly the dilemma that the U.S. faced. They complained that the Communists had an unfair advantage. They were able to “appeal directly to the masses” and “get control of mass movements, something we have no capacity to duplicate. The poor people are the ones they appeal to and they have always wanted to plunder the rich.”

    That causes problems. The U.S. somehow finds it difficult to appeal to the poor with its doctrine that the rich should plunder the poor.


    • The current issue of the premier journal of media criticism, the Columbia Journalism Review, has an interesting article on this subject, attributing this outcome to the media doctrine of “fair and balanced.” In other words, if a journal publishes an opinion piece reflecting the conclusions of 97% of scientists, it must also run a counter-piece expressing the viewpoint of the energy corporations.

      That indeed is what happens, but there certainly is no “fair and balanced” doctrine . Thus, if a journal runs an opinion piece denouncing Russian President Vladimir Putin for the criminal act of taking over the Crimea, it surely does not have to run a piece pointing out that, while the act is indeed criminal, Russia has a far stronger case today than the U.S. did more than a century ago in taking over southeastern Cuba, including the country’s major port — and rejecting the Cuban demand since independence to have it returned. And the same is true of many other cases. The actual media doctrine is “fair and balanced” when the concerns of concentrated private power are involved, but surely not elsewhere .

  • Chris #Hedges Interviews Noam #Chomsky (1/3)

    Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Chris Hedges speaks with Professor Noam Chomsky about working-class resistance during the Industrial Revolution, propaganda, and the historical role played by intellectuals in times of war - June 17, 14


    – chez TRNN avec une trace écrite: http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=12006


    [I]n the early 19th century, the business world recognized, both in England and the United States, that sufficient freedom had been won so that they could no longer control people just by violence. They had to turn to new means of control. The obvious ones were control of opinions and attitudes. That’s the origins of the massive public relations industry, which is explicitly dedicated to controlling minds and attitudes.

    The first—it partly was government. The first government commission was the British Ministry of Information. This is long before Orwell—he didn’t have to invent it. So the Ministry of Information had as its goal to control the minds of the people of the world, but particularly the minds of American intellectuals, for a very good reason: they knew that if they can delude American intellectuals into supporting British policy, they could be very effective in imposing that on the population of the United States. The British, of course, were desperate to get the Americans into the war with a pacifist population. Woodrow Wilson won the 1916 election with the slogan “Peace without Victory”. And they had to drive a pacifist population into a population that bitterly hated all things German, wanted to tear the Germans apart. The Boston Symphony Orchestra couldn’t play Beethoven. You know. And they succeeded.

    Wilson set up a counterpart to the Ministry of Information called the Committee on Public Information. You know, again, you can guess what it was. And they’ve at least felt, probably correctly, that they had succeeded in carrying out this massive change of opinion on the part of the population and driving the pacifist population into, you know, warmongering fanatics.

    And the people on the commission learned a lesson. One of them was Edward Bernays, who went on to found—the main guru of the public relations industry. Another one was Walter Lippman, who was the leading progressive intellectual of the 20th century. And they both drew the same lessons, and said so.

    The lessons were that we have what Lippmann called a “new art” in democracy, “manufacturing consent”. That’s where Ed Herman and I took the phrase from. For Bernays it was “engineering of consent”. The conception was that the intelligent minority, who of course is us, have to make sure that we can run the affairs of public affairs, affairs of state, the economy, and so on. We’re the only ones capable of doing it, of course. And we have to be—I’m quoting—"free of the trampling and the roar of the bewildered herd", the “ignorant and meddlesome outsiders”—the general public. They have a role. Their role is to be “spectators”, not participants. And every couple of years they’re permitted to choose among one of the “responsible men”, us.

    And the John Dewey circle took the same view. Dewey changed his mind a couple of years later, to his credit, but at that time, Dewey and his circle were writing that—speaking of the First World War, that this was the first war in history that was not organized and manipulated by the military and the political figures and so on, but rather it was carefully planned by rational calculation of “the intelligent men of the community”, namely us, and we thought it through carefully and decided that this is the reasonable thing to do, for all kind of benevolent reasons.

    And they were very proud of themselves.

    There were people who disagreed. Like, Randolph Bourne disagreed. He was kicked out. He couldn’t write in the Deweyite journals. He wasn’t killed, you know, but he was just excluded.

    And if you take a look around the world, it was pretty much the same. The intellectuals on all sides were passionately dedicated to the national cause—all sides, Germans, British, everywhere.

    There were a few, a fringe of dissenters, like Bertrand Russell, who was in jail; Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg, in jail; Randolph Bourne, marginalized; Eugene Debs, in jail for daring to question the magnificence of the war. In fact, Wilson hated him with such passion that when he finally declared an amnesty, Debs was left out, you know, had to wait for Warren Harding to release him. And he was the leading labor figure in the country. He was a candidate for president, Socialist Party, and so on.

    But the lesson that came out is we believe you can and of course ought to control the public, and if we can’t do it by force, we’ll do it by manufacturing consent, by engineering of consent. Out of that comes the huge public relations industry, massive industry dedicated to this.

    Incidentally, it’s also dedicated to undermining markets, a fact that’s rarely noticed but is quite obvious. Business hates markets. They don’t want to—and you can see it very clearly. Markets, if you take an economics course, are based on rational, informed consumers making rational choices. Turn on the television set and look at the first ad you see. It’s trying to create uninformed consumers making irrational choices. That’s the whole point of the huge advertising industry. But also to try to control and manipulate thought. And it takes various forms in different institutions. The media do it one way, the academic institutions do it another way, and the educational system is a crucial part of it.

    This is not a new observation. There’s actually an interesting essay by—Orwell’s, which is not very well known because it wasn’t published. It’s the introduction to Animal Farm. In the introduction, he addresses himself to the people of England and he says, you shouldn’t feel too self-righteous reading this satire of the totalitarian enemy, because in free England, ideas can be suppressed without the use of force. And he doesn’t say much about it. He actually has two sentences. He says one reason is the press “is owned by wealthy men” who have every reason not to want certain ideas to be expressed.

    But the second reason, and the more important one in my view, is a good education, so that if you’ve gone to all the good schools, you know, Oxford, Cambridge, and so on, you have instilled into you the understanding that there are certain things it wouldn’t do to say—and I don’t think he went far enough: wouldn’t do to think. And that’s very broad among the educated classes. That’s why overwhelmingly they tend to support state power and state violence, and maybe with some qualifications, like, say, Obama is regarded as a critic of the invasion of Iraq. Why? Because he thought it was a strategic blunder. That puts him on the same moral level as some Nazi general who thought that the second front was a strategic blunder—you should knock off England first. That’s called criticism.


    #media #histoire #Geschichte #institution
    #USA #England #Angleterre
    #Grande-Bretagne #Great_Britain #Großbritannien
    #Allemagne #Germany #Deutschland

    #contrôle #Kontrolle
    #résistance #Widerstand
    #working_class #ouvriers #Arbeiterklasse
    #éducation #Bildung

    • Chris Hedges Interviews Noam Chomsky (2/3)



      Like a lot of people, I’ve written a lot about media and intellectual propaganda, but there’s another question which isn’t studied much: how effective is it? And that’s—when you brought up the polls, it’s a striking illustration. The propaganda is—you can see from the poll results that the propaganda has only limited effectiveness. I mean, it can drive a population into terror and fear and war hysteria, like before the Iraq invasion or 1917 and so on, but over time, public attitudes remain quite different. In fact, studies even of what’s called the right-wing, you know, people who say, get the government off my back, that kind of sector, they turn out to be kind of social democratic. They want more spending on health, more spending on education, more spending on, say, women with dependent children, but not welfare, no spending on welfare, because Reagan, who was an extreme racist, succeeded in demonizing the notion of welfare. So in people’s minds welfare means a rich black woman driving in her limousine to the welfare office to steal your money. Well, nobody wants that. But they want what welfare does.

      Foreign aid is an interesting case. There’s an enormous propaganda against foreign aid, ’cause we’re giving everything to the undeserving people out there. You take a look at public attitudes. A lot of opposition to foreign aid. Very high. On the other hand, when you ask people, how much do we give in foreign aid? Way beyond what we give. When you ask what we should give in foreign aid, far above what we give.

      And this runs across the board. Take, say taxes. There’ve been studies of attitudes towards taxes for 40 years. Overwhelmingly the population says taxes are much too low for the rich and the corporate sector. You’ve got to raise it. What happens? Well, the opposite.


      #effectiveness #efficacité #Effizienz

    • Chris Hedges Interviews Noam Chomsky (3/3)


      #ows #occupy


      Well, I think it’s a little misleading to call it a movement. Occupy was a tactic, in fact a brilliant tactic. I mean, if I’d been asked a couple of months earlier whether they should take over public places, I would have said it’s crazy. But it worked extremely well, and it lit a spark which went all over the place. Hundreds and hundreds of places in the country, there were Occupy events. It was all over the world. I mean, I gave talks in Sydney, Australia, to the Occupy movement there. But it was a tactic, a very effective tactic. Changed public discourse, not policy. It brought issues to the forefront.I think my own feeling is its most important contribution was just to break through the atomization of the society. I mean, it’s a very atomized society. There’s all sorts of efforts to separate people from one another, as if the ideal social unit is, you know, you and your TV set.

      HEDGES: You know, Hannah Arendt raises atomization as one of the key components of totalitarianism.

      CHOMSKY: Exactly. And the Occupy actions broke that down for a large part of the population. People could recognize that we can get together and do things for ourselves, we can have a common kitchen, we can have a place for public discourse, we can form our ideas and do something. Now, that’s an important attack on the core of the means by which the public is controlled. So you’re not just an individual trying to maximize your consumption, but there are other concerns in life, and you can do something about them. If those attitudes and associations and bonds can be sustained and move in other directions, that’ll be important.

      But going back to Occupy, it’s a tactic. Tactics have a kind of a half-life. You can’t keep doing them, and certainly you can’t keep occupying public places for very long. And was very successful, but it was not in itself a movement. The question is: what happens to the people who were involved in it? Do they go on and develop, do they move into communities, pick up community issues? Do they organize?

      Take, say, this business of, say, worker-owned industry. Right here in Massachusetts, not far from here, there was something similar. One of the multinationals decided to close down a fairly profitable small plant, which was producing aerospace equipment. High-skilled workers and so on, but it wasn’t profitable enough, so they were going to close it down. The union wanted to buy it. Company refused—usual class reasons, I think. If the Occupy efforts had been available at the time, they could have provided the public support for it.


      Well, you know, a reconstituted auto industry could have turned in that direction under worker and community control. I don’t think these things are out of sight. And, incidentally, they even have so-called conservative support, because they’re within a broader what’s called capitalist framework (it’s not really capitalist). And those are directions that should be pressed.

      Right now, for example, the Steelworkers union is trying to establish some kind of relations with Mondragon, the huge worker-owned conglomerate in the Basque country in Spain, which is very successful, in fact, and includes industry, manufacturing, banks, hospitals, living quarters. It’s very broad. It’s not impossible that that can be brought here, and it’s potentially radical. It’s creating the basis for quite a different society.


      #Militarisierung #Aufrüstung

      #war_crime #Iraq


      Go back to the #Nuremberg judgments. I’m not telling you anything you don’t know, but in Nuremberg aggression was defined as “the supreme international crime,” differing from other war crimes in that it includes, it encompasses all of the evil that follows. Well, the U.S.-British invasion of Iraq is a textbook case of aggression. By the standards of Nuremberg, they’d all be hanged. And one of the things it did, one of the crimes was to ignite a Sunni-Shiite conflict which hadn’t been going on. I mean, there was, you know, various kinds of tensions, but Iraqis didn’t believe there could ever be a conflict. They were intermarried, they lived in the same places, and so on. But the invasion set it off. Took off on its own. By now it’s inflaming the whole region. Now we’re at the point where Sunni jihadi forces are actually marching on Baghdad.

      HEDGES: And the Iraqi army is collapsing.

      CHOMSKY: The Iraqi army’s just giving away their arms. There obviously is a lot of collaboration going on.And all of this is a U.S. crime if we believe in the validity of the judgments against the Nazis.

      And it’s kind of interesting. Robert Jackson, the chief prosecutor, a U.S. justice, at the tribunal, addressed the tribunal, and he pointed out, as he put it, that we’re giving these defendants a “poisoned chalice”, and if we ever sip from it, we have to be treated the same way, or else the whole thing is a farce and we should recognize this as just victor’s justice.


  • Chomsky’s Undocumented a Must Read Immigration Debate Book

    #Aviva_Chomsky’s Undocumented is a very significant contribution to our understanding of the history leading to the current immigration reform debates. It focuses on the human toll of our recent construction of “illegal immigration.” Building upon Michelle Alexander’s The New Jim Crow thesis about the post-1960s creation of an alternative “caste” of disenfranchised African Americans through the judicial system, Chomsky’s book unveils the way in which the criminalization of immigrants has been used to marginalize millions of people and force them unto “the lowest ranks of the labor force.”



    #migration #sans-papiers #terminologie #criminalisation #Chomsky #vocabulaire #livre

  • Lost in cognition : psychanalyse et sciences cognitives, de Eric Parent - France Culture

    Ce livre examine les prétentions du nouveau paradigme de la psychologie à se proposer comme modèle d’avenir pour les disciplines cliniques, et par là, venir à bout de la psychanalyse. Quel est ce changement de paradigme ? C’est le cognitivo-comportementalisme. D’où vient-il ? Des Etats-Unis. Jusqu’aux années soixante, la psychologie comportementale avait joui d’un certain prestige. Elle s’est trouvée disqualifiée par l’objection du linguiste Noam Chomsky : aucun apprentissage ne pourrait jamais rendre compte de la compétence linguistique. Celle-ci devait être innée. La psychologie comportementale mit trente ans à se revêtir d’habits neufs. Les avancées de la biologie, de la neurologie, et de la nébuleuse qui en a résulté sous le nom de neurosciences le lui ont permis. Sous le nom de cognitivisme comportemental, une nouvelle réduction de l’expérience humaine à l’apprentissage a fait retour. A partir de la psychanalyse d’orientation lacanienne, ce livre soutient une thèse opposée. L’inconscient ne relève d’aucun apprentissage. Il est ce qui manque ou excède tout apprentissage possible. L’inconscient est un mode de la pensée délivrée de l’apprentissage comme de la conscience. C’est son scandale et sa particularité


    #Lacan #Chomsky #psychanalyse #apprentissage #linguistique #inconscient

    • oups, petite erreur, il ne s’agit pas de Eric Parent mais bien de Eric LAURENT !! (c’est une erreur sur la page de france culture !!)

  • « NFL Player Quits Midseason, Citing Noam Chomsky »



    “I don’t want to risk health for money,” said Moffitt, 27, who walked away from about $1 million in salary, various benefits for retirees who play at least three seasons and quite possibly a trip to the Super Bowl with the 9-1 Broncos. “I’m happy, and I don’t need the N.F.L.”

    In the off-season, Moffitt started reading the writings of the Dalai Lama and Noam Chomsky, among others. They helped him conclude that he was a pawn in a machine that controlled his life.

    #US #NFL #John_Moffitt #Chomsky

  • Les inquiétudes de #Chomsky sur « L’ère du #drone » :

    Just driving in this morning I was listening to NPR news. The program opened by announcing, very excitedly, that the drone industry is exploding so fast that colleges are trying to catch up and opening new programs in the engineering schools and so on, and teaching drone technology because that’s what students are dying to study because of the fantastic number of jobs going on.

    And it’s true. If you look at the public reports, you can imagine what the secret reports are. It’s been known for a couple of years, but we learn more and more that drones, for one thing, are already being given to police departments for surveillance. And they are being designed for every possible purpose. I mean, theoretically, maybe practically, you could have a drone the size of a fly which could be buzzing around over there [points to window] listening to what we’re talking about. And I’d suspect that it won’t be too long before that becomes realistic.


    #3DRobotics Announces $30 Million Series B Financing
    L’industrie du drone se porte effectivement bien. La boîte de drones DIY open source de Chris Anderson (ex Wired) a annoncé le 26 septembre avoir trouvé 30 millions de dollars d’investissement. Pour la propagande dronesque, c’est l’occasion de redire que c’est à la fois l’avenir de l’écologie et de l’économie qui se joue. Bientôt, un paysan qui n’utilisera pas de drones sera considéré comme un dangereux pollueur.

    As part of this funding round 3D Robotics will expand its development and deployment of advanced UAV applications, with a focus on agricultural crop mapping and other commercial aerial survey technology. “The opportunity to bring ‘big data’ to agriculture through low-cost automated aerial crop surveys could be a game-changer for both farming and the UAV industry alike,” said Chris Anderson, CEO of 3D Robotics. “Adding UAVs to the precision agriculture toolkit of a 21st Century farmer gives them the power to use imaging data to not only increase yield, but decrease water use and the chemical load in both food and environment.”

    Starting in 2015, AUVSI, the UAV industry trade group, estimates that the first three years of integration of commercial drones into the national airspace will create more than 70,000 jobs in the United States with an economic impact of more than $13.6 billion. International prospects are much larger. ”We’re building out a world-wide sales, service and support model that will help us build long-term relationships with local resellers that can in-turn support their local community requirements for mapping and imaging,” said John Cherbini, 3D Robotics VP of Sales.