Times Radio sur Twitter : “Noam #Chomsky claims Jeremy Corbyn won an “enormous victory” in the 2017 election. MattChorley challenges him on the facts of Corbyn’s leadership Tune to ▻https://t.co/xhUnEXLqj5 from 10am 📻 ▻https://t.co/sL3unxScdE” / Twitter
▻https://twitter.com/TimesRadio/status/1650779177056870403
#Chomsky - #Foucault Debate on Power vs Justice (1971)
A few clips of Noam Chomsky and Michel Foucault discussing justice, power, and the notion of human nature in their famous #1971 debate. This is a version of an upload from the previous channel. The translation is my own, although I referenced the published text (which by the way was edited by Foucault prior to publication, which is why there are various differences between the published transcript and the actual recording).
▻https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpVQ3l5P0A4
#vidéo #pouvoir #justice #Noam_Chomsky #Michel_Foucault #nature_humaine
Noam #Chomsky: The False Promise of ChatGPT | Portside
▻https://portside.org/2023-03-08/noam-chomsky-false-promise-chatgpt
We know from the science of linguistics and the philosophy of knowledge that #AI minds differ profoundly from how humans reason and use language. These differences place significant limitations on what these programs can do, encoding them with ineradicable defects.
#IA
]]>Noam #Chomsky: The Elites Are Fighting a Vicious Class War All the Time
▻https://jacobinmag.com/2021/06/noam-chomsky-class-war-universal-health-care-climate-justice-denucleariz
… in fact, we all know what happens when a congressional representative gets elected. Their first day in office, they start making phone calls to the potential donors for their next election. Meanwhile, hordes of corporate lobbyists descend on their offices. Their staff are often young kids, totally overwhelmed by the resources, the wealth, the power, of the massive lobbyists who pour in. Out of that comes legislation, which the representative later signs — maybe even looks at occasionally, when he can get off the phone with the donors. What kind of system do you expect to emerge from this?
One recent study found that for about 90 percent of the population, there’s essentially no correlation between their income and decisions by their representatives — that is, they’re fundamentally unrepresented. This extends earlier work by Martin Gilens, Benjamin Page, and others who found pretty similar results, and the general picture is clear: the working class and most of the middle class are basically unrepresented.
]]>Twitter
▻https://mobile.twitter.com/sabilkaban/status/1393527358380941316/photo/1
La Grande Interview : Noam Chomsky – par RT France
▻https://www.les-crises.fr/la-grande-interview-noam-chomsky-par-rt-france
Source : RT France Dans la Grande Interview, Afshin Rattansi reçoit Noam #Chomsky, professeur émérite du MIT. Source : RT France – 16/09/2020 Nous vous proposons cet article afin d’élargir votre champ de réflexion. Cela ne signifie pas forcément que nous approuvions la vision développée ici. Dans tous les cas, notre responsabilité s’arrête aux […]
]]>Noam #Chomsky on 2020 Primary, Media Criticism, COVID-19 : Useful Idiots - Rolling Stone
▻https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/noam-chomsky-covid-19-useful-idiots-podcast-970047
Chomsky gives a grim assessment of the government’s response to #COVID-19: “There’s a concept of economy and efficiency. You should have just enough beds for what you need tomorrow. You shouldn’t prepare for the future. Right? So the hospital system’s crashing. Simple things like tests which you can easily get in a country South Korea, you can’t get here. So the #coronavirus, which should be controlled in a functioning society, is going out of hand here. We’re just not ready for it. What we’re good at, what our leaders are good at, and have been very good at for the last 40 years, is pouring money into the pockets of the rich and the corporate executives while everything else crashes. ”
]]>#Chomsky: EEUU apoya golpe de Estado o asesinato de Evo Morales
▻https://www.aporrea.org/internacionales/n348769.html
El politólogo Noam Chomsky denuncia que EE.UU. está detrás del golpe de Estado de la oposición en Bolivia para derrocar al presidente #Evo_Morales.
“El golpe es promovido por la oligarquía boliviana (…) y cuenta con el total apoyo del Gobierno de Estados Unidos, que desde hace mucho tiempo está ansioso por expulsar a Evo Morales y a su movimiento del poder”, advirtió el reconocido politólogo estadounidense.
En un comunicado emitido el sábado, Chosmky alertó que el centro de operaciones de la embajada de Estados Unidos en La Paz (capital boliviana) ha dejado entrever dos planes en el país suramericano: “el ’plan A’, un golpe de Estado, y el ’plan B’, el asesinato de Morales”, indicó.
]]>Guardian accused of ‘vendetta’ for ignoring Chomsky’s Labour anti-Semitism comments — RT UK News
▻https://www.rt.com/uk/463581-guardian-criticized-chomsky-silence
The Guardian is coming under fire for not reporting on renowned intellectual Noam Chomsky’s comments on Labour’s anti-Semitism row, with social media users accusing the outlet of hypocrisy.
Chomsky said that the allegations of anti-Semitism against party leader Jeremy Corbyn and MP Chris Williamson are a “disgrace” and an “insult to the memory” of Holocaust victims.
The Guardian has in the past reported on many of Chomsky’s comments, but has chosen to ignore his latest take on a current issue, leaving many wondering if it is conveniently selective about which of his comments it deems newsworthy.
Independent journalist Matt Kennard noted that RT, the Morning Star, and the Canary were the only news organizations to cover the esteemed intellectual’s remarks. “The mainstream media is running a campaign where contradictory information is just erased from record. The Guardian is at the forefront of this campaign,” he said.
Numerous people questioned the Guardian’s silence on the issue, with some accusing it of “censorship by omission” and having a “vendetta” against Chomsky and Corbyn. Kennard also noted that Chomsky’s previous comments on Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez and the Palestinian Boycott Divestment and Sanctions movement, were reported by the newspaper.
Social media users also asked why other media outlets like the BBC hadn’t covered Chomsky’s comments.
La fabrique du consentement : vérification par l’absurde ! #chomsky #omerta
]]>Les néonazis veulent la peau de Carola et Pia – Blog YY
▻http://blogyy.net/2019/07/01/les-neonazis-veulent-la-peau-de-carola-et-pia
Carola Rackete et Pia Klemp sont devenues les nouvelles cibles de prédilection des sites d’extrême-droite phallocrates et xenophobes. On pouvait malheureusement s’y attendre. Jusque là, rien de très original dans cette Europe qui pue le racisme et le repli sur soi à plein nez.
Mais la menace devient plus précise depuis quelques jours. Les réseaux fascistes qui viennent d’applaudir l’assassinat de Walter Lübcke par le néonazi Stephan Ernst, début juin en Allemagne, espèrent ouvertement que Carola et Pia seront les prochains cadavres sur la liste. On ne compte plus les sites qui relaient actuellement ces horreurs.
Avec en note une info sur ce brave #Chomsky :
(2) En août 2017, au lendemain du meurtre de Heather Heyer, Noam Chomsky n’a rien trouvé de mieux que de mettre dos à dos les néonazis et les antifascistes (comme l’a fait Trump également), notamment dans The Independent (où il a heureusement été contredit par Eleanor Penny).
▻https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/noam-chomsky-antifa-major-gift-right-wing-anti-fascist-alt-left-a7906
]]>#Chomsky: Arrest of #Assange Is “Scandalous” and Highlights Shocking Extraterritorial Reach of U.S. | Democracy Now!
▻https://www.democracynow.org/2019/4/12/chomsky_arrest_of_assange_is_scandalous
NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, the Assange arrest is scandalous in several respects. One of them is just the effort of governments—and it’s not just the U.S. government. The British are cooperating. Ecuador, of course, is now cooperating. Sweden, before, had cooperated. The efforts to silence a journalist who was producing materials that people in power didn’t want the rascal multitude to know about—OK?—that’s basically what happened. #WikiLeaks was producing things that people ought to know about those in power. People in power don’t like that, so therefore we have to silence it. OK? This is the kind of thing, the kind of scandal, that takes place, unfortunately, over and over.
To take another example, right next door to Ecuador, in Brazil, where the developments that have gone on are extremely important. This is the most important country in Latin America, one of the most important in the world. Under the Lula government early in this millennium, Brazil was the most—maybe the most respected country in the world. It was the voice for the Global South under the leadership of Lula da Silva. Notice what happened. There was a coup, soft coup, to eliminate the nefarious effects of the labor party, the Workers’ Party. These are described by the World Bank—not me, the World Bank—as the “golden decade” in Brazil’s history, with radical reduction of poverty, a massive extension of inclusion of marginalized populations, large parts of the population—Afro-Brazilian, indigenous—who were brought into the society, a sense of dignity and hope for the population. That couldn’t be tolerated.
After Lula’s—after he left office, a kind of a “soft coup” take place—I won’t go through the details, but the last move, last September, was to take Lula da Silva, the leading, the most popular figure in Brazil, who was almost certain to win the forthcoming election, put him in jail, solitary confinement, essentially a death sentence, 25 years in jail, banned from reading press or books, and, crucially, barred from making a public statement—unlike mass murderers on death row.
This, in order to silence the person who was likely to win the election. He’s the most important political prisoner in the world. Do you hear anything about it?
Well, Assange is a similar case: We’ve got to silence this voice. You go back to history. Some of you may recall when Mussolini’s fascist government put Antonio Gramsci in jail. The prosecutor said, “We have to silence this voice for 20 years. Can’t let it speak.” That’s Assange. That’s Lula. There are other cases. That’s one scandal.
The other scandal is just the extraterritorial reach of the United States, which is shocking. I mean, why should the United States—why should any—no other state could possibly do it. But why should the United States have the power to control what others are doing elsewhere in the world? I mean, it’s an outlandish situation. It goes on all the time. We never even notice it. At least there’s no comment on it .
]]>« les gilets jaunes sont des êtres substituables », Laurent Alexandre
Table ronde de l’X sur le Transhumanisme
conférence à l’École polytechnique, le 14 janvier 2019
▻https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kyLysKUMyyU
David Graeber sur l’oiseau bleu :)
So excited. My garden Noam has finally arrived.
▻https://twitter.com/davidgraeber/status/1091097375672807427
Noam #Chomsky: #Migrants are fleeing horrors created by the U.S. in Latin America - U.S. News - Haaretz.com
▻https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/noam-chomsky-migrants-are-fleeing-horrors-created-by-the-u-s-1.6695006
Noam Chomsky turns 90: How the controversial activist survived to become one of the most influential anarchists in US history | Alternet
▻https://www.alternet.org/noam-chomsky-turns-90-how-controversial-activist-survived-become-one-most-
With both his wisdom and luck, Chomsky has more than survived to become one of the most influential anarchists in U.S. history, an inspiring model for millions of anti-authoritarians, especially young ones. He has modeled taking seriously critical thinking and truth—not mainstream credentials and official badges. The truths asserted by Noam Chomsky have been powerful challenges to authoritarian society, but perhaps even more powerful, especially for young anti-authoritarians, is his modeling of an unbroken human being.
“The person who claims the legitimacy of the authority always bears the burden of justifying it. And if they can’t justify it, it’s illegitimate and should be dismantled. To tell you the truth, I don’t really understand anarchism as being much more than that.”
—Noam Chomsky
]]>Noam #Chomsky slams Israeli interference in U.S. politics as far greater than Russian - Jewish World - Haaretz.com
▻https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/chomsky-criticizes-israeli-interference-in-u-s-elections-1.6407407
“Israeli intervention in U.S. elections vastly overwhelms anything the Russians may have done,” Chomsky said. “I mean, even to the point where the prime minister of Israel, Netanyahu, goes directly to Congress, without even informing the president, and speaks to Congress, with overwhelming applause, to try to undermine the president’s policies—what happened with Obama and Netanyahu in 2015. Did Putin come to give an address to the joint sessions of Congress trying to—calling on them to reverse U.S. policy, without even informing the president?”
“And that’s just a tiny bit of this overwhelming influence.”
The interview was recorded in late July, but is making waves in U.S. politics this week as Trump continues to attack the Trump-Russia investigation and RealClearPolitics highlighted the clip.
]]>Propaganda - La fabrique du consentement - ARTE
Comment influencer les foules ? À travers la figure d’Edward Bernays (1891-1995), l’un des inventeurs du marketing et l’auteur de “Propaganda”, un passionnant décryptage des méthodes de la “fabrique du consentement”.
▻https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPbxJV4QKso
Si les techniques de persuasion des masses apparaissent en Europe à la fin du XIXe siècle pour lutter contre les révoltes ouvrières, elles sont développées aux États-Unis pour convaincre les Américains de s’engager dans la Première Guerre mondiale. Peu connu du grand public, neveu de Sigmund Freud, l’auteur du livre de référence Propaganda et l’un des inventeurs du marketing, Edward Bernays (1891-1995) en fut l’un des principaux théoriciens. Inspirées des codes de la publicité et du divertissement, ces méthodes de “fabrique du consentement” des foules s’adressent aux désirs inconscients de celles-ci. Les industriels s’en emparent pour lutter contre les grèves avec l’objectif de faire adhérer la classe ouvrière au capitalisme et transformer ainsi le citoyen en consommateur. En 2001, le magazine Life classait Edward Bernays parmi les cent personnalités américaines les plus influentes du XXe siècle. Ce documentaire riche en archives retrace, à la lumière d’une analyse critique – dont celle du célèbre linguiste Noam Chomsky –, le parcours de celui qui, entre autres, fit fumer les femmes, inspira le régime nazi, accompagna le New Deal et fut l’artisan du renversement du gouvernement du Guatemala en 1954.
Source : Arte, Jimmy Leipold, 29-05-2018
Réalisation : Jimmy Leipold - France - 2017
▻https://www.arte.tv/fr/videos/071470-000-A/propaganda-la-fabrique-du-consentement
Proposé par ▻https://www.les-crises.fr/video-propaganda-la-fabrique-du-consentement-par-arte
#propagande #propaganda #manipulation #médias #edward_bernays #comportementalisme #freud #adam_curtis #psychologie #chomsky #noam_chomsky #relations-publiques #capitalisme
]]>The Angry Arab News Service/وكالة أنباء العربي الغاضب: This is just incredible: #Chomsky and Judith #Butler are calling on the Trump administration to sponsor and arm a militia in Syria
▻http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2018/04/this-is-just-incredible-chomsky-and.html
▻http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2018/04/23/a-call-to-defend-rojava
]]>Noam #Chomsky Unravels the Political Mechanics Behind His Gradual Expulsion From Mainstream #Media | Alternet
▻http://www.alternet.org/media/noam-chomsky-unravels-political-mechanics-behind-his-gradual-expulsion-mai
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.
]]>Burkini Bans, New Atheism and State Worship: Noam #Chomsky on #Religion in Politics
▻http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/37424-burkini-bans-new-atheism-and-state-worship-noam-chomsky-on-religion
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.”
]]>Kenneth Roth de Human’s Rights Watch est furieux contre le dernier livre de Noam #Chomsky,
▻http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/06/09/a-case-against-america
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.
]]>#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.
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
▻http://agone.org/revueagone/agone44/enligne/6/index.html
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
▻http://reseauinternational.net/chomsky-donald-trump-est-en-train-de-gagner-parce-que-lamerique
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.
]]>Noam Chomsky Interview : U.S. Terrorism, Hypocrisy, and Morality
▻http://www.filmsforaction.org/watch/noam-chomsky-interview-us-terrorism-hypocrisy-and-morality
Noam Chomsky discusses his book “9/11” and U.S. foreign policy in the 20th Century on moral grounds in this 2002 interview with CBC Hot Type’s Evan Solomon.
]]>Chomsky hits back at Erdoğan, accusing him of double standards on terrorism
▻http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/14/chomsky-hits-back-erdogan-double-standards-terrorism-bomb-istanbul
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”
▻http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/32906-noam-chomsky-on-trump-we-should-recognize-the-other-candidates-are-
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”
▻http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2015/7/1/chomsky_greece_s_syriza_spain_s
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 : l’interview qui dénonce l’#Occident
▻http://fr.euronews.com/2015/04/17/noam-chomsky-l-interview-qui-denonce-l-occident
Isabelle Kumar, euronews :
L’#Europe est la servante des #Etats-Unis ?
Noam Chomsky :
Certainement. Ils sont trop #lâches pour adopter une position indépendante.
]]>Noam #Chomsky on the Roots of American Racism - NYTimes.com
▻http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/03/18/noam-chomsky-on-the-roots-of-american-racism
... 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.”
]]>Página/12 :: El país :: “La vanguardia contra el neoliberalismo”
▻http://www.pagina12.com.ar/diario/elpais/1-268061-2015-03-13.html
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
]]>#Chomsky can’t be bothered to learn #C
▻http://byfat.xxx/chomsky
#Chomsky: Paris attacks show hypocrisy of West’s outrage
By #Noam_Chomsky
▻http://edition.cnn.com/2015/01/19/opinion/charlie-hebdo-noam-chomsky/index.html
(...)
[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
]]>Le nain de jardin Noam #Chomsky
▻http://www.justsaygnome.net/gnomes-noams--oms---products---ordering.html
Chomsky
]]>►https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/we-are-all-fill-in-the-blank autre distanciation critique par Chomsky ; l’attaque de la TV serbe par l’OTAN et l’offensive americaine sur Fallouja comme exemples (parmi d’autres...) #CharlieHebdo #chomsky #mainstreammedia #Fallouja #tvserbe
]]>#Chomsky About Terrorism in #Palestine, Syria and Iraq
Professor’s Chomsky’s press conf with UN correspondents Tuesday October 14 2014
▻https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJh5muRa8zk
#terrorisme #Syrie #Irak
▻http://afternoonsnoozebutton.com/post/106746953113
Noam #Chomsky le jeu de société
]]>Tomgram: Noam #Chomsky, America’s Real Foreign Policy
▻http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175863/tomgram%3A_noam_chomsky%2C_america%27s_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.
]]>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
▻https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwRf5HHm2Mo
– 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.
[...]
#industrialisation
#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
#intellectuels
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.”
▻http://www.latinorebels.com/2014/06/16/chomskys-undocumented-a-must-read-immigration-debate-book
#migration #sans-papiers #terminologie #criminalisation #Chomsky #vocabulaire #livre
]]>