***** I don't mind competing ideas. I won't allow racism for racism sake. And you are wrong about that statement that everyone wants to live with their own kind and that's what determines racism, it's not, it doesnt. I Don't care if a group of whites want to live in a community with no black people. Heck, I'm all for bringing back Black Wall street! Racism is tied into a power structure though. Telling me where I can live, where I can and not work, where I can learn, etc. Only white people posses that power. Wanting one thing. To go so far as to make it IMPOSSIBLE for another race to live comfortably in the way they wish too, that's racism.
***** There are differences between races, it may be the ugly truth but it makes sense that if certain society lived in huts as fishermen and farmers, and other as more economy/industry driven society that values education and more complex forms of systems, that after XX generations you will have differences between avg individuals between those races. Yep talking about IQs. It's well researched and comes with tables and charts. So "we are all humans, we have one consciousness", yes, but put consciousness to different use and you get varied results over time. Oh and if I got it right by the names here, none of us are at the top of the IQ chain. It is held firmly by (East) Asians. Congrats to em! ; )
I grew up in an extremely conservative household. Now I listen to Chomsky in my twenties and have chills because I realize how wrong I have been taught
+Karsten “moxy” Lane - Sounds like your parents were uninformed conservatives. Otherwise they would have taught you to spot the liars in the atheist elite media and the Democratic Party along with how Chomsky is tragically misinformed in important ways. Not too late though. Continuing education goes on every day on talk radio and a wee bit on Fox News, wherein one can unlearn the garbage shoved into children in the deceit factories called public schools. You can also visit MRC.org for an eye-opening glimpse at how easy it is to catch the liars at ABC News, NBC and CBS applying their craft. It will be more difficult for you than for the typical escapee from the lies of liberalism because you believe you have already seen the other side. Trust me though, you have not.
Straw-man. Chomsky criticizes the liberal-media as well. Have you ever even taken the time to read _Manufacturing_ _Consent_? I'm assuming from your statements that you're a free-market libertarian. So centre-right. But the problem with this alignment is that its advocates fail to see that the market is already essentially deregulated. Deregulation doesn't serve to foster "competition" and "diversity" in the market. It in fact does quite the opposite. It allows cooperation/collusion between big corporate monoliths and only fosters competition either among the impoverished, or between the affluent and the impoverished. A good example of this is the price-fixing scandal between Procter & Gamble and Unilever in the UK I believe. But the wealthy all prosper the same.
If that is the case, why doesn't he mention the fact that so many of those 'whites' that owned Blacks as slaves were in fact Jewish? Because that wouldn't fit the agenda, and Chomsky is a Jew, so why would he tell the world the truth. No, much easier to claim Whites were the racists, when in fact his fellow tribesmen still practice their racism to this day in the "Jewish" State of Israel.
Is Chomsky not white? aren't many Jews considered white? or consider themselves white? Actually Mid-Eastern people are considered Caucasian!! So perhaps you're are discriminating too!! Chomsky is in a mission to demystify Israel!! Every day he speaks of the atrocities and mistakes by radical Zionists and Israeli government and right wing leaders!!! Every day! Doesn't that show he tries to express himself above tribal loyalties? In here, he's referring to ALL slave owners, but tying to the write supremacy that has reigned the world for at least 2,000 years. Have a good one!
StJohn .ChapterEight First of all, even though you didn't admit to it, Chomsky is on of the staunchest critics of Israel!! He condemns Zionism! as many Jews either criticize or are vehemently against it!! 2nd, your statements are such sweeping misconstrued notions that I ask you to share it somewhere else, not under my post. Your language steams of anti-semitism!! Most Jews were still laboring as serfs in Russia and all Eastern Europeans countries for most of the African Slave Era. If you like percentages you'll see that most Jews didn't own and, didn't have citizenship and couldn't buy properties in Europe for all of the Middle Ages and Modern Era!! That's why the few that had any means focused on urban luxury trade, portable wealth, so they could pick up and leave which was most of their A.D. era experience. 3rd, indeed there were some Dutch Jewish pirates and traders who founded some of the 1st synagogues in the Americas but they worked above, for and with non-Jewish counterparts that vastly outnumbered them!! Everyone who could trade and make fortune in the 16-1800s was trying to do it, like anyone else would, unfortunately, but that's how the world moves. I guess you don't consider Spanish and Portuguese white, another problem there, they're Caucasian!! The American definition of white is very exclusive!! and I can promise you that the descendants of Spanish and Portuguese in those countries view themselves as white and hold the cards of wealth and social privilege just as well as the whites do in the US and UK. The percentages you mentioned are a symbol of how always a few manage to hold some of the largest fortunes and main trade and corporation deals in relation to vastly a poorer uneducated labor force, which prevailed in all history!! To take percentages out of context it's to misuse them, that's why Maher and Harris and others manage to manipulate our perceptions so easily, because percentages have to be taken with all sorts of information to diminish their bias. The essence of statistics is bias! -- It was an era where few had access to wealth and means of producing more wealth!! There were even a few blacks who owned slaves in Louisiana for example, because the first slaves to come were hired as indentured slaves, who worked themselves out of their contracts and managed to live freely, but was a tiny number of them, soon the English changed the rules as many slaves lost precious lands such as lands right above Wall Street, but whites were the vast majority of slave owners, they're controlled the means of production, they were the only ones to vote and run for office which is social political power anywhere, who can hold office in the legislative, judicial or executive branches. Certainly not blacks, there're exceptions for everything, but that's why they're called exceptions! In any case, the best person to read to understand Chomsky's points, is Chomsky, after reading what he means, then you can try to argue.
StJohn .ChapterEight It's always difficult to respond to extreme anti-Semites with measured answers, but, at least to begin with, I think it's worth the effort. First of all, Chomsky is a unapologetic, fierce critic of Israel. His book The Fateful Triangle is indispensable for people interested in truths about Zionist violence that is unreported in the mainstream US press. American slavery was not some sort of Jewish conspiracy, as you appear to believe. There were Jews involved, yes, and Christians, and Muslims, all enriching themselves at Africa's expense. Chomsky isn't covering anything up. You may feel free to have the last word if you like. I'll not respond to anything else you say, you piece of shit. You of course give the game away with your choice of screen name; but, honestly, why not simply have done with it and call yourself StJohn .ChapterEight Vs.44. It would be far more honest.
Noam Chomsky's book reference he mentioned concerning African-American life after Reconstruction: Slavery by Another Name: The Re-Enslavement of Black Americans from the Civil War to World War II by Douglass A. Blackmon
Zak Merou 18:02 Chomsky references "Douglass Blackmon" who wrote the book Slavery by Another Name. Or he could have read both of the books & conflated the two.
For a second I thought the last question was gonna be some gossip bs question but when I found out it was just a joke, I immediately gained respect for this channel. Been livin in 'merica too long, im conditioned. Great interview
Excellent show Laura. Noam is so significant and of course getting on in years. So, I hope he is able to talk about his views for at least another five years! Thank you!
A lot of people talk, but very few say anything. Noam I feel like is a lot of clear and concise substance. He should be on the television, not some awful celebrity.
Nicholas Frechen "Birds of a Feather". Because of the information available today, there are more and more people questioning what they see on the news.
When I visit a barbershop in Beirut or Amman, and am asked ‘where are you from?’ (It used to be a painfully confusing and complex question to answer, just a few years ago), I now simply reply: “Russia,” and people come and hug me and say, “Thank you.” It is not because Russia is perfect. It is not perfect - as no country on Earth could or should be. But it is because it is standing once more against the Empire, and the Empire has brought so many horrors, so much humiliation, to so many people; to billions of people around the world… and to them, to so many of them, anyone who is standing against the Empire, is a hero. This I heard recently, first hand, from people in Eritrea, China, Russia, Palestine, Ecuador, Cuba, Venezuela, and South Africa, to name just a few places. And that is why the Empire is now ‘in such a hurry’, unwilling to wait any longer, trying to provoke Russia, to bring it, metaphorically speaking, into yet another open epic battle, like the one that was fought in ancient times, on the thick ice, by Alexander Nevski. The Empire is in too much of a rush, it is too scared to think, to understand, to remember, what every invader had to learned the hard way: Russia can be attacked and Russian people can be murdered by millions. There can be devastation and fire; there can be ruins, tears and graves, graves, graves… Mothers burying their sons, and sons returning back home, to only encounter ashes. But Russia cannot be defeated. When the survival of the world is at stake, Russia stands up, enormous, powerful and frightening. And it fights as no other nation can; it fights for humanity, not only for itself. And it wins. When such a moment comes, there is only one possible way how to defeat Russia: it is to destroy the entire world. www.counterpunch.org/2014/12/26/the-empire-is-crumbling-that-is-why-it-needs-war/ 2015 Will See Decisive Battles The Empire is Crumbling, That is Why it Needs War by ANDRE VLTCHEK
Chomsky is a national treasure, glad I have a chance to hear him while hes still alive. Howard Zinn, Noam and george carlin have changed alot of my world view thank you sir
by far the best video that sums up the current state of things and where we are headed.....if only we could upload Dr. Chomsky's brain on the net and make him immortal :-(
No século XVII, já o padre António Vieira falava contra a escravatura! Muitos dos fundamentos da sociedade ocidental têm pés de barro...É muito difícil encarar os nossos próprios erros e mais ainda sofrer-lhes as consequências...
Maria Fernanda Araujo ● It's nice to know at least one "Father" of The Church was speaking against Slavery instead of Sanctioning Human Bondage as was done in that Period. But ... Father Antonio Vieira wasn't The Pope AND w / his "Progressive" views, I'll bet he never became one ... ?
That was a disappointing response by Chomsky on Syria. His solution is to let the UN handle the situation. This is disregarding the fact that Russia would veto any solution that did not keep Assad in power, and even if an agreement was reached he knows the UN would not do enough to actually solve anything. UN troops were in Rwanda during the genocide there. But assuming the UN could and would do something, what would that something be Mr. Chomsky?
Thanks for the thoughtful response, though I was already aware of US support for those regimes. But what does that have to do with the viability of using the UN to solve the Syria situation?
+BobClemintime *But what does that have to do with the viability of using the UN to solve the Syria situation?* The point is that what is the issue with letting Assad remain in power when so many other men, too often worse, were permitted or protected, if it stops the killing? The point that eludes all critics of Chomsky is that he's advocating a progressive solution that involves abandoning all the traditional policy positions that lead to suffering and instead focus on eliminating suffering. Today you permit Assad to survive because he will anyway, or if you want to get rid of him you need to destroy or let Syria be destroyed making the goal of protecting the Syrian people impossible. Tomorrow you focus on persuading and cooperating with Russia to avoid future situations like this rather than encircling them as NATO has attempted to do since the end of the cold war thus giving Putin and his cohorts every reason to be an opponent of the west - because even before there was a stand off we put Russia in the position of either being subservient or fighting to be independent as all nations will. You act as if we don't have a choice. We do, it just involves actually taking the high ground instead of just proclaiming we do in our propaganda. By high ground i don't mean the one where we force our opponent to surrender militarily I mean the moral one, the one that is anathema to all our traditional policy solutions. The point is so far off the reservation I'm not surprised it eluded you.
+BollocksUtwat Assad has continued to be in power as far as I am aware, and we are left with one of most severe human crises in recent times. How exactly does leaving a person in power stop killing, when that person is actively fighting rebels who say that they will never stop fighting the government so long as Assad is in power? There is even a legitimate case to be made that removing Assad from power in the beginning could have resulted in a much safer situation for the people of Syria and the world. I think Chomsky is a very valuable asset to the US and I often think he makes good points. In this case, I think it is very easy to criticize the outcomes of a policy on an issue that is extremely complicated without suggesting a better alternative. It it easy to same something general like the UN should handle it, but much more difficult to suggest a specific response that would solve the situation. Just because I am critical of a weak response by Chomsky, doesn't mean that I am critical of everything he does. In what way would supporting a violent crackdown on peaceful protesters (along with Russia) lead to a more peaceful and more moral world? NATO is a separate issue from the Syrian Civil War. I also never said there were not different choices the US could have made, just that Chomsky's "solution" was very weak.
NOAM CHOMSKY ON SYRIA, CHINA, CAPITALISM, AND FERGUSON Published on 9 Dec 2014 Noam Chomsky discusses the recent climate agreement between the US and China, the rise of ISIL, and the the movement in Ferguson against racism and police violence. Chomsky is the author of more than a hundred books and the subject of several films about his ideas. He is a political theorist and philosopher who has dissected the contradictions of US empire and inspired several generations of activists. This episode also features a special report on successful worker organizing among low-wage workers in New York City. Category Education Licence Creative Commons Attribution licence (reuse allowed) Remix this video JAN 4, 2015
Wow, a One World Government! If you enjoyed Bush and Obama as head of just the U.S. government, you'll "love" the monster that gets to be the government of the entire world. But don't worry, if you don't like the One World Government monster, you can always move to...Pluto.
Dear Mrs. Flanders, please check this out. You just used the expression Social Justice. Are you aware that few mean the same thing by it. Earlier on TV you talked about Restorative Justice, giving the impression that it meant restoring convicts to whatever. It actually refers to the victims of crime being restored. These phrases start off addressing reformed offenders, but law enforcement redefine them against the formerly incarcerated.
I really wish the volumes of the two speakers had been adjusted to be more similar. He mumbles really low, I turn the volume up, then she implodes my ears, I turn the volume down. Not a fun game. Good talk though.
Noam Chomsky is intelligent. He has a number of good ideas. But at any time he will begin to spin. Few people catch his lies because they honor his word. His calm demeanor is reassuring but perhaps it is hiding something darker. This is conjecture on my part, because I don't know what motivates him to go so far off the mark. Chomsky has lied about Bashar Assad since the beginning of the proxy war against Syria. 85 percent of Syrians support Bashar Assad. Bashar and his army have been successfully fighting an influx of terrorists that are supported by the US, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. ISIS is just an offshoot of the so called moderate western supported Al Qaeda proxy fighters who have been attacking the Syrian people for years but have recently infiltrated Iraq. Iran and Syria have been succesfully fighting ISIS for months, why does Chomsky deny this. Turkey is a launching pad for ISIS, why does Chomsky tell us otherwise? Before any Chomsky supporters decide to ____ ____ ____ ____, at least try doing a google search on the topic. I will give you a head start with a link. thehill.com/policy/international/middle-east-north-africa/228133-iran-has-sent-over-1000-military-advisors-into
3506Dodge :: Yeah ! There is an "international community". Just like there's an "intelligence community". The pollution of language has spread all over the place ; even "Progressive" / "Alternative Media" ( Democracy NOW ! ). Community has an Ancient meaning of Humans living together ; building together ; protecting each other ; rising off-spring --- Together ! --- It takes a Community to raise a Child. They've turned that word, community, into some Public Relations BS. You know what community means, otherwise you wouldn't be asking. If there was an international community :: Kissinger would have been before the World Court. Israel would have been stopped, long ago, with massive sanctions from the international "community". I won't insult your intelligence by commenting on the pollution of the intelligence "community" ( CIA / FBI / Mossad.
Criminalizing Black Life ::: The Southern States succeeded in making the lives of Black People as miserable as possible after the Civil-War. Jim-Crow Laws :: keeping Blacks Segregated. Criminalizing them for the slightest "offense" for breaking the most trivial Laws as an excuse to get them into the prison system for free-labor. This time, the Plantation owners wouldn't have to worry about housing/food/clothing ... better than the Slavery --- Pre Civil-War.
The Douglas Blackmon book Chomsky references at 18:00 is Slavery by Another Name. It's also a documentary film you can watch here: www.pbs.org/tpt/slavery-by-another-name/watch
Notecrusher ● Thank you for the link ; unfortunately, I got the message :: "This page could not be found". It must not have met YOU-TUBE's "Community Standards" or somebody's.
How come you never see such a great intellect such as Chomsky on mainstream news channels? Obviously he is not going to be invited to appear on Fox "News" for obvious reasons but why not CNN?
Since he is a linguist, it is surprising that Chomsky is not more circumspect about word meanings. Capitalism, according to Merriam Webster, is "an economic system characterized by private and corporate ownership of capital goods...." Rather than attempting to claim that the system under which we live is not capitalism--IT MOST DEFINITELY IS CAPITALISM--he could modify it by specifying that it is monopoly capitalism rather than "free market" capitalism.
Oners82 bullshit. Capitalism isn't about proportions of GDP produced by the state, its about the ability of an individual to privately own the means of production of a society and extract the surplus value of said means of production's laborers. This is the system in place in the USA today. Just because government departments did the research, or production was subsidized, doesn't mean the state PRODUCED the goods, ie the profit went to private individuals, not the state. You're simply wrong
Whinging about an assertion made after an argument is pointless. The assertion itself is just a summary of position His own definition, as you say, refutes his argument only in the case of nationalized industries, which are fairly uncommon in the US. This list (not sure how comprehensive it is) shows that there are very few industries, especially outside of public transport and utilities, which are nationalized. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nationalizations_by_country#United_States However, his definition still holds up his argument for *the case that Chomsky was speaking about*, the IT revolution and other innovations. The development and research, as Chomsky says, was done through the state, but he is incorrect in saying that this doesn't make it capitalist, as the profit went to private individuals who owned the MOP, which is definitively capitalist. Finally, for a country to be capitalist, as I said, there simply has to be the ability to privately own the means of production. This makes America capitalist.
I made an argument and then an assertion, that's what I was talking about. "Interviewer: Is capitalism ... in the United States. Is it reedemable, reformable? Chomsky: Well this is a good example of how remote our system is from capitalism" (Starting at around 9:15) Chomsky is almost certainly referencing the US, it is nonsensical for him to reference "capitalism in general" and say it is remote from capitalism, especially when the question was US-specific. Also, at absolutely no point did I say that *all* profit had to go to private individuals and never to the state for a society to be called capitalist. That was simply not a statement I made. In fact, it seems like you're inserting your own argument into mine here. Bizarre "Nope. There are plenty of economic systems that allow private ownership that are not capitalist" So what is the definition of capitalism? Does a country need to have zero nationalized industry to be truly capitalist? Are you trying to argue that capitalism only exists in idealized, pure states where profit only goes to private individuals? So it .... has never been tried? Also, nice to see that you didn't address the point about the obvious fact that Chomsky references the IT revolution, which is not nationalized, and in which the profit went to private individuals, and was thus capitalist.
"It actually makes perfect sense; it is just a reference to how people misuse words and redefine them to mean things that they don't." Fair enough, I actually didn't understand that this was what he was trying to say, it seemed like he was arguing over whether the US was definitively capitalist, rather than its use in regular parlance. My bad. "The idea of the free market and Laissez-faire capitalism that right wingers seem to praise and think we have has NEVER existed" I agree with this, and wasn't trying to argue otherwise. Now that I understand Chomsky on this point, I have no disagreement with you in this case, only I would add the qualifier (which I think you, me and Chomsky probably agree on, but I don't want to assume) that such a free market system is not only impossible, but not beneficial either. "As for the IT revolution ....." Fair enough, only I would disagree with the idea of taxpayers as investors. Investors knowingly and with consent give their money to an enterprise with the idea of making money. Taxpayers, honestly, don't necessarily have any idea which kinds of R&D their money funds, and there is no promise of an investment in a real sense. I would say the government funds R&D with taxes for various reasons, including the development of industry and for security reasons, but not in the sense of an investor looking to speculate on the future of a company. Also, I'm not really sure you can even qualify research as investment. Academics aren't "investors" in the products created by their research, even if they put in labour and money, because the idea behind a product is not the same as the product itself. Maybe I'm limiting the government support of the IT revolution to just research, which could be wrong, I'm not sure, but it doesn't seem accurate to call financial backers of research "investors" in products that might use said research.
"whether or not you agree with the argument does not particularly concern me" This is a strange stance to take, and fairly pedantic tbh, but whatever "It's THEFT, not capitalism!" >Implying they're mutually exclusive "I find it hard to express how bizarre your argument appears to me, it is like you are actively defending the people who you claim are stealing from you!" I'm not defending the system in an way, shape or form. I was simply saying that taxation is without explicit consent for what it is being spent on, and thus taxpayers aren't "investors" in any typical sense, in the same way that if I stole your money and bought stocks with it, that's not you "investing" in the company whose stocks I bought, and you shouldn't be subject to either the gain if it takes off, or the risk if it collapses.
Watched countless talked by Chomsky and boy does he reference the New York Times ALOT. Constantly, to the point where it sounds like he remembers word for word each article printed there. I can't put my finger on it why I find it odd. I also admit that a I do not know if this is a good or bad thing either. Just an observation I've made over the last few years. And since he is a master of his own studies, linguistics, he must know what he's doing. Doubly strange.
⚽️ He references the NYT & sometimes the WSJ, because they are Newspapers of National recognition. He sites the NYT to point out its _Manufacturing Consent !_ Front-men for the United States' Foreign-Policy ... & Domestic. For the WSJ, he has more respect as he suggests that we all read it if we want to know what the Business-Class is up to ... the journalists for that paper don't mis-lead the Financiers about what is happening on Wall-Street & in International Financial Markets. ⚽️ This isn't my opinion. This is what Chomsky has stated. ( I paraphrased. )
Capitalists capture only a small part of the benefit of there products. With all due respect to a brilliant linguist Mr. Chomsky please look up "consumer surplus".
Jim Oliver The reason economists believe that government pays for basic research is because it is very difficult for the producers of basic research to capture even a small portion of the benefit and so it would be under-produced. So we taxpayers invest in basic research so we get cool stuff. Companies like Apple capture only a small part of their admittedly small part in production. And BTW what makes Chomsky so sure that basic research is hard compared to putting out a finished product.
Interesting when you talk about pollution (you say emissions - but that is a too polite a word - it is pollution of the environment) - specifically pollution from Chinese manufacturing - that it is in reality US pollution, because they manufacture for the US. One could argue that the Chinese don't have strong pollution controls and regulations and it is not the fault of the US. But we could manufacture the products in the US - so why don't we? It isn't just to access a low cost labor force. It is to manufacture in a low regulation market - where you are free to pollute the environment and not have to pay for pollution controls and clean up. Because if we did insist on pollution controls then the cost of manufacturing would increase. So yes - China's pollution is the pollution of the countries they manufacture for. It is not just the US - it is all developed economies. And recently I heard the CEO of Apple Tim Cook say that China stopped being a low cost manufacturer many years ago and that we use China because of the large pool of skilled workers. He said that he couldn't fill a factory with skilled workers in the US. And he is right on that point. But who's fault is that? It is his fault. Because after two decades of gutting the manufacturing base in the US, no new workers were trained for manufacturing - because there are no jobs to train for. You only train for a career that there are jobs for. So the lack of skilled workers in the US is his fault and the fault of the CEO's of all companies that moved manufacturing to China. And they moved there because the US had too many controls on pollution; work health and safety. In an Apple factory in China - they had to install nets around the tops of the factory - because too many workers were committing suicide by jumping of the roof. The highly skilled workers that the Apple CEO likes so much - hated working there so much, they would throw themselves off the roof and kill themselves. So instead of addressing the reasons for this - they installed nets. Let me congratulate you on your success Tim Cook! Because it came at the suffering of skilled workers in China.
Oners82 So if you know it's utter nonsense, why do you post it then? So far you've admitted posting things that were "retarded", "bizarre" and "utter nonsense". You're at least mildly amusing, and really slow to catch on, so keep them coming lol.
Oners82 HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHHA Wow, you're the most gullible person I've ever seen on the internet. I just had a family member out here to see this thread and we were just laughing hysterically!
Oners82 HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHHA Wow, you're the most gullible person I've ever seen on the internet. I just had a family member out here to see this thread and we were just laughing hysterically!
Chomsky apparently would have loved to give advice to presidents and feels qualified for that although no president seems to be interested in his advice. Napoleon must have been very unhappy(if he had known somebody like Chomsky) that Wellington was not a political theorist otherwise history would have been completely different at Waterloo.
Why doesn't anyone mention all the Irish slaves when they're referring to slavery, the founders were not racist.. they kept many nationalities of slaves in many colors.
omgnotaflake There are no such things as races in humans. The idea that some one who looked different from your ethnic group was of a inferior race was a pre scientific myth now known as ethnocentric belief. Today this false belief in the idea of human races is the primary source of racism.
Chomsky has had the past half-century to offer solutions about ANYTHING, by seeking a Policy-Making/Public Service position, and show he can do a better job than those he criticizes, himself! Yet instead, he chose to merely criticize everyone ELSE from the sidelines, and with the great luxury of 20/20 Hindsight! Which makes Chomsky nothing more than a very intelligent-sounding Monday-Morning-Quarterback, and renders his criticisms of others essentially worthless! smh
I'd like to see Noam move to North St. Louis. If he lasted more than a day and got out alive he might just sing a different tune. Amazing to me he actually makes a living talking his "intellectual" nonsense.
why doesn't moderator ask Chomsky to explain statements such as Iran benefited from Iraq war? how did they benefit and where is his proof? she lets him monologue spewing out all these statements without enquiry.
'Cause it really shouldn't have to be explained. Iraq is predominantly Shi'ite. Iran is also predominantly Shi'ite as opposed to Sunni. The war in Iraq has done nothing but destabilize much of the region. Since Saddam was an enemy of Iran and even invaded Iran during the 1980's, it's only sensible that Iran would benefit from his execution. Due to its Shi'ite affiliations, Tehran was able to establish amicable relations with the new regime in Baghdad and has a new ally. With waning influence from the States in Baghdad, it seems as though the American plan to build a strong partnership with Iraq has failed, and the destabilization has handed over an ally to Iran (an enemy of the United States) on a silver platter. Simply put, the United States lost an "enemy" (I use this term loosely as Saddam was an ally of the United States in the past) AND they lost the allegiance of the new regime in Iraq. Iran however lost an enemy (not used loosely here as Saddam was legitimately an enemy of Iran) BUT GAINED an ally in the new regime in Iraq. The math looks pretty simple.
Tristan Hurley brains? why does this sound like a veiled insult? my comment focused on moderator not mr chomsky. i thought the point of an interview was to be informative and probing otherwise what is the point of an interview? As a member of the audience if i know it all, why would i bother to listen to an interview? i listen to learn. maybe i was way over my head when i tuned into this interview and you are absolutely correct about my brain power. a moderator should think the audience has no brain to reach as many as possible. why not?
johanne poirier I'm not justifying what Tristan said. But your OP came off as a veiled insult of Chomsky. You used the word "spewing" to describe the manner in which Chomsky shared his ideas. In case you didn't know, "spewing" has negative connotations and the implication that the speaker is speaking nothing but non-sense and absurdities. Clearly he isn't as I have explained the validity of his assertions in my 1st reply.
Jeff T you are completely correct. i should not have used spew but outpouring or ebullience or unreservedness. i misrepresented myself because i have nothing but respect and admiration for mr. chomsky, the needed third voice. he is a genius really. a great voice and i guess i just wanted to hear more... justifications, or supporting explanations, but i don't want to say more i will just get into trouble... sorry did not mean to sound disrespectful of Chomsky. peace and love
It's crazy to mention Facebook questions in this interview and very rude to call him Noam. Are you serious? And you finish it by asking a silly question from Russell Brand. If I had the chance to meet Noam Chomsky, I would do much more research than that, because it doesn't fly very high.
Noam Chomsky is the kinda guy who you push a button for and he's there to offer his intelligence. But when it comes to the real world and making difficult decisions when your options are limited, he would be sure to fall back on Liberal "feel good" politics which we all know what that gets us. It's always far easier to look back in retrospect to see what could have been done differently. Like the political armchair quarterback that judges difficult decision making. I would love to have him sit in on a national security briefing behind closed doors and have the generals pick him apart from his "perfect world" delusions.
Wow, talk about a negative guy when it comes to the US. I've heard third world thug dictators talk nicer than that about the USA. I know Billy Joel has a song about the 'Angry Young Man' now he needs one "The Bitter Old Man".
Trains aren't passed by trucks in any other country? What planet does this guy live on? Try taking RER A from outside Paris to get into Paris in the morning or evening. As a high speed train, it should easily surpass even the fastest automobuiles moving on the highways, but that's not the case at all. A trip that should take twenty or maybe thirty minutes on that line takes more than an hour and a half, every day. The train is so overcrowded that people have to stand, smushed together with countless other passangers. There's no doubt that trains are better for the planet, by far, than cars that run on gas. And, there are a lot more arguments in their favor. But don't reduce the country to trains as though because other countries use trains more than the US, the US must be failing. The US has the best economy by almost double, unless we compare it with the EU, in which case we're essentially comparing one country with some twenty countries. Then we would get comparable economies. Trains go slower than cars in some areas and at some times? Oh wow... what insight.
Sorry Noam, dealing with ISSI would be to get US and its allies to stop funding them and stop the branding campaign around them. Defund CIA/NSA and criminalist them. Help Syria fight these State funded terrorists....
Terrorism is not war as Chomsky has argued over the years yet a act of terror against a citizenry of innocents outside of the military for the reason of propaganda. Chomsky has used this argument constantly in painting the US as offenders in most international efforts where war acts were used. His shortsightedness is a mistake of logic regardless of other unfair actions he might choose instead. Having said as much in reference to this notion terrorism can be and is used as an act of war.
He made a really important point on the ferguson mater that unfortunately still is for the most part unrecognized about how the modern protest movements have no thorough awareness of the history of prior movements. It's a year later and the Black Lives Mater protests have morphed into Black students from upper middle class even in a few cases outright wealthy families basically boycotting their actual education to march against what literaly amounts to a swastika rendered in shit, a mouthy drunk asshole and an invisible boogieman KKK lynch mob from the 1910's that must have fallen through a time warp coming home from the premier of Birth Of A Nation. Then once you start looking even closer you start seeing most of these groups segregating their organizational meetings by race and I can't help but wonder if this regression will play out to sarcastic rhetoric about being better off as slaves.
11:00 "have you got anything back" from smartphones & the IT revolution. Besides it smartphones/IT having changed the world for the better - no, not much. :)
I hate racism, I hate the war on drugs and I am not a big fan of Ronald Reagan but so I can be fair, what is the evidence that Reagan was racist as Chomsky said in the video? I like to think as good as possible of even the people that I disagree with.
J Oliver ● Chomsky doesn't throw out those kinds of accusations w / o reason. Reagan was a very disturbing creature. He was well-known for his racial views. He supported the Apartheid Government of South Africa. There's really no reason to pick on Reagan as he is a different body but in the same head as others before him. He was a president who didn't concern himself or his presidency with The Aids crisis. He was a Union-Buster ! Had no regard for working people ... Surely, you can't be unaware of Reagan's character ? His racism is covered all over Google & YOU-TUBE.
From what I see and hear, the USA is today the only real terrorist! and that my friend! is bad. It is pretty shocking indeed! More reason we must learn TTATT. Thank you! Both of you! I enjoy the truth!
American freedom allows you to leave. There are millions dying to get in here. I guess you believe that all those people are stupid and ignorant. If you need some help, I will pay for your plane ticket. Please act fast so that another person can come to America and they will have boundless gratitude for it. Let's go Brandon!
I like people like this who understands racism white supremacy, very few understand racism as system of subjection and control...the guilt complex.. mixed with an inherent idea of racism being beneficial to "my" team.. Allow for most white folks to be happily ignorant to the facts..
"Anyone on the US left" ???? To imply only leftists can understand or learn from Chomsky? Who is BTW an Anarchist. I mean, what kind of opening remark is that?
I bloody hate how people compare Noam to God ... i mean lets face it god did some good stuff but he's no Noam Chomsky...... you want truth here it is ! or maybe YOU CANT HANDLE THE TRUTH
when I started watching videos of Chomsky talking politics I thought he was a serious thinker, having studied his linguistic works at university.. what came was a shock. I expected intellectual lucidity, clear analysis. and then he starts with things like : the Iraq war is the biggest crime of the 20th century. ok... there are limits to subjectivity, beyond which statements like this are obviously targeted at very uneducated audiences, because otherwise such a statement would immediately invalidate you as a serious thinker. on the other hand it's not surprising that he is so popular in certain circles. what he comes out of his speech is that we are the bad guys. which is relaxing to hear in a way, it means we are strong. if america would stop intervening in the middle east,everything would be fine. a very soothing thought. it's us, we are the cause and the remedy of all that is bad in the world. why worry? we just have to stop being bad and everything will be ok. yes, I can understand why he's so popular. reality is a bit more complicated than that. and more horrible. we are not strong anymore. this is a post modern world. I dont expect mr Chomsky to grasp that, he is still an intellectual hostage of some cold war crisis. I suspect all his fanboys, if they actually knew, if they suddenly realized that their soft and protected lifestyle was in real danger, they would change their views quite a bit. the most laughable statement I've heard said about mr Chomsky is that he is a realist. Those guys cutting people's heads somewhere in the desert are the realists. They know how to manipulate the west's values against itself. They know the west can't just wake up one morning and say: let's just kill them all, they're not human. They know they are all human in our eyes, more human than ourselves. And when we see a beheading posted on the net, we shudder for a moment but then we think 'yes but we have done worse things. we're the bad guys. let's not forget that' and we're lulled back into a sense of security. everything is still fine with the world. yeah
+michel michel so america starts the Iraq war, a war of aggression, the first phase of the war results in the deaths of over 600,000 civilians, costs the american government over 1 trillion dollars and leads to the death of 5000 american soldiers. After the war, with the loss of a powerful secular dictator groups of Sunni Iraqis formed organized military groups. These groups gain power because they don't have a powerful dictator controlling them and then seize millions of dollars worth of American military equipment. these groups, along with syrian groups, form ISIS and start beheading people after gaining control of a large part of Iraq and Syria. So im not saying america is evil, and either is Chomsky, but we are saying that america contributed to the current situation. America is one of the greatest countries in the world, but in reality it contributed to the current situation in the middle east. AGAIN im not saying they are the only reason. the fucked up religion that is islam is also responsible, but yes america did contribute. Also if ISIS is the realists and you want me, a fanboy of chomsky, to become a realist, should i start by beheading you?
Noam Chomsky, such a brilliant man.
If a white person tries to tell me to prove racism exists, I'm just deleting you period. You've been warned.
Also I'm not letting anybody derail my point either.
***** I don't mind competing ideas. I won't allow racism for racism sake. And you are wrong about that statement that everyone wants to live with their own kind and that's what determines racism, it's not, it doesnt. I Don't care if a group of whites want to live in a community with no black people. Heck, I'm all for bringing back Black Wall street! Racism is tied into a power structure though. Telling me where I can live, where I can and not work, where I can learn, etc. Only white people posses that power. Wanting one thing. To go so far as to make it IMPOSSIBLE for another race to live comfortably in the way they wish too, that's racism.
***** There are differences between races, it may be the ugly truth but it makes sense that if certain society lived in huts as fishermen and farmers, and other as more economy/industry driven society that values education and more complex forms of systems, that after XX generations you will have differences between avg individuals between those races. Yep talking about IQs.
It's well researched and comes with tables and charts. So "we are all humans, we have one consciousness", yes, but put consciousness to different use and you get varied results over time.
Oh and if I got it right by the names here, none of us are at the top of the IQ chain. It is held firmly by (East) Asians. Congrats to em! ; )
***** Huzzah to the greeks, the gate keepers of Europe! Yep talking about Persia
I grew up in an extremely conservative household. Now I listen to Chomsky in my twenties and have chills because I realize how wrong I have been taught
+Karsten Lane (“moxy”) Give it time and you'll realize he is full of shit.
+L2084 Well, we've already established you are. Good job.
+Karsten “moxy” Lane - Sounds like your parents were uninformed conservatives. Otherwise they would have taught you to spot the liars in the atheist elite media and the Democratic Party along with how Chomsky is tragically misinformed in important ways. Not too late though. Continuing education goes on every day on talk radio and a wee bit on Fox News, wherein one can unlearn the garbage shoved into children in the deceit factories called public schools.
You can also visit MRC.org for an eye-opening glimpse at how easy it is to catch the liars at ABC News, NBC and CBS applying their craft. It will be more difficult for you than for the typical escapee from the lies of liberalism because you believe you have already seen the other side. Trust me though, you have not.
Straw-man. Chomsky criticizes the liberal-media as well. Have you ever even taken the time to read _Manufacturing_ _Consent_?
I'm assuming from your statements that you're a free-market libertarian. So centre-right. But the problem with this alignment is that its advocates fail to see that the market is already essentially deregulated. Deregulation doesn't serve to foster "competition" and "diversity" in the market. It in fact does quite the opposite. It allows cooperation/collusion between big corporate monoliths and only fosters competition either among the impoverished, or between the affluent and the impoverished.
A good example of this is the price-fixing scandal between Procter & Gamble and Unilever in the UK I believe.
But the wealthy all prosper the same.
I stand corrected. It wasn't just the UK. It was 8 countries.
The book referenced is : The Half Has Never Been Told: Slavery and the Making of American Capitalism - Edward E Baptist .
Yes it is, thank you Michael!
GRITtv You're welcome.
What a wonderful wholistic view of how all is interconnected, how it's part of a mentality we cannot justify anymore!
If that is the case, why doesn't he mention the fact that so many of those 'whites' that owned Blacks as slaves were in fact Jewish? Because that wouldn't fit the agenda, and Chomsky is a Jew, so why would he tell the world the truth. No, much easier to claim Whites were the racists, when in fact his fellow tribesmen still practice their racism to this day in the "Jewish" State of Israel.
Is Chomsky not white? aren't many Jews considered white? or consider themselves white?
Actually Mid-Eastern people are considered Caucasian!! So perhaps you're are discriminating too!!
Chomsky is in a mission to demystify Israel!! Every day he speaks of the atrocities and mistakes by radical Zionists and Israeli government and right wing leaders!!! Every day! Doesn't that show he tries to express himself above tribal loyalties?
In here, he's referring to ALL slave owners, but tying to the write supremacy that has reigned the world for at least 2,000 years.
Have a good one!
StJohn .ChapterEight This is factually incorrect, not that you are likely to be bothered by being wrong.
StJohn .ChapterEight First of all, even though you didn't admit to it, Chomsky is on of the staunchest critics of Israel!! He condemns Zionism! as many Jews either criticize or are vehemently against it!!
2nd, your statements are such sweeping misconstrued notions that I ask you to share it somewhere else, not under my post. Your language steams of anti-semitism!!
Most Jews were still laboring as serfs in Russia and all Eastern Europeans countries for most of the African Slave Era. If you like percentages you'll see that most Jews didn't own and, didn't have citizenship and couldn't buy properties in Europe for all of the Middle Ages and Modern Era!! That's why the few that had any means focused on urban luxury trade, portable wealth, so they could pick up and leave which was most of their A.D. era experience.
3rd, indeed there were some Dutch Jewish pirates and traders who founded some of the 1st synagogues in the Americas but they worked above, for and with non-Jewish counterparts that vastly outnumbered them!! Everyone who could trade and make fortune in the 16-1800s was trying to do it, like anyone else would, unfortunately, but that's how the world moves.
I guess you don't consider Spanish and Portuguese white, another problem there, they're Caucasian!! The American definition of white is very exclusive!! and I can promise you that the descendants of Spanish and Portuguese in those countries view themselves as white and hold the cards of wealth and social privilege just as well as the whites do in the US and UK.
The percentages you mentioned are a symbol of how always a few manage to hold some of the largest fortunes and main trade and corporation deals in relation to vastly a poorer uneducated labor force, which prevailed in all history!! To take percentages out of context it's to misuse them, that's why Maher and Harris and others manage to manipulate our perceptions so easily, because percentages have to be taken with all sorts of information to diminish their bias. The essence of statistics is bias! -- It was an era where few had access to wealth and means of producing more wealth!! There were even a few blacks who owned slaves in Louisiana for example, because the first slaves to come were hired as indentured slaves, who worked themselves out of their contracts and managed to live freely, but was a tiny number of them, soon the English changed the rules as many slaves lost precious lands such as lands right above Wall Street, but whites were the vast majority of slave owners, they're controlled the means of production, they were the only ones to vote and run for office which is social political power anywhere, who can hold office in the legislative, judicial or executive branches. Certainly not blacks, there're exceptions for everything, but that's why they're called exceptions!
In any case, the best person to read to understand Chomsky's points, is Chomsky, after reading what he means, then you can try to argue.
StJohn .ChapterEight It's always difficult to respond to extreme anti-Semites with measured answers, but, at least to begin with, I think it's worth the effort. First of all, Chomsky is a unapologetic, fierce critic of Israel. His book The Fateful Triangle is indispensable for people interested in truths about Zionist violence that is unreported in the mainstream US press.
American slavery was not some sort of Jewish conspiracy, as you appear to believe. There were Jews involved, yes, and Christians, and Muslims, all enriching themselves at Africa's expense. Chomsky isn't covering anything up.
You may feel free to have the last word if you like. I'll not respond to anything else you say, you piece of shit.
You of course give the game away with your choice of screen name; but, honestly, why not simply have done with it and call yourself StJohn .ChapterEight Vs.44. It would be far more honest.
Noam Chomsky's book reference he mentioned concerning African-American life after Reconstruction:
Slavery by Another Name: The Re-Enslavement of Black Americans from the Civil War to World War II by Douglass A. Blackmon
I thought it was this one: Worse than Slavery: Parchman Farm and the Ordeal of Jim Crow Justice
Zak Merou
18:02 Chomsky references "Douglass Blackmon" who wrote the book Slavery by Another Name.
Or he could have read both of the books & conflated the two.
ProjectDystopia Zak Merou Chomsky was referring to Blackmon's book. Thanks for commenting Project!
*****
Read the book referenced before you make that comment.
*****
If ignorance is bliss, then you must be a happy person.
gotsda, keep smiling......
Excellent interview! Kudos for asking the biting questions ;P
Thanks for watching! We like to have a little fun while asking the big questions!
Great interviewer. Great interview. Why so many dislikes? Psht TH-cam.
+Zachary Mikuska We like to look at the likes! Definitely subscribe for more interviews by Laura!
The Laura Flanders Show
Done & Done
For a second I thought the last question was gonna be some gossip bs question but when I found out it was just a joke, I immediately gained respect for this channel. Been livin in 'merica too long, im conditioned. Great interview
Please leave.
I had to raise the volume to 100% to be able to listen to him! :)
Excellent show Laura. Noam is so significant and of course getting on in years. So, I hope he is able to talk about his views for at least another five years! Thank you!
I always enjoy listening to Chomsky. He speaks in a similar way to how he writes.
A lot of people talk, but very few say anything. Noam I feel like is a lot of clear and concise substance. He should be on the television, not some awful celebrity.
What a brave woman to interview about these subjects
The truth most people don't want to hear.
Nicholas Frechen "Birds of a Feather". Because of the information available today, there are more and more people questioning what they see on the news.
Laura is a great interviewer.
21:32 was that an actual laugh from my man Noam? I don't think I ever saw that before! Hahahaha!
Thank you for all your contributions Noam Chomsky!
When I visit a barbershop in Beirut or Amman, and am asked ‘where are you from?’ (It used to be a painfully confusing and complex question to answer, just a few years ago), I now simply reply: “Russia,” and people come and hug me and say, “Thank you.”
It is not because Russia is perfect. It is not perfect - as no country on Earth could or should be. But it is because it is standing once more against the Empire, and the Empire has brought so many horrors, so much humiliation, to so many people; to billions of people around the world… and to them, to so many of them, anyone who is standing against the Empire, is a hero. This I heard recently, first hand, from people in Eritrea, China, Russia, Palestine, Ecuador, Cuba, Venezuela, and South Africa, to name just a few places.
And that is why the Empire is now ‘in such a hurry’, unwilling to wait any longer, trying to provoke Russia, to bring it, metaphorically speaking, into yet another open epic battle, like the one that was fought in ancient times, on the thick ice, by Alexander Nevski.
The Empire is in too much of a rush, it is too scared to think, to understand, to remember, what every invader had to learned the hard way: Russia can be attacked and Russian people can be murdered by millions. There can be devastation and fire; there can be ruins, tears and graves, graves, graves… Mothers burying their sons, and sons returning back home, to only encounter ashes. But Russia cannot be defeated. When the survival of the world is at stake, Russia stands up, enormous, powerful and frightening. And it fights as no other nation can; it fights for humanity, not only for itself. And it wins.
When such a moment comes, there is only one possible way how to defeat Russia: it is to destroy the entire world.
www.counterpunch.org/2014/12/26/the-empire-is-crumbling-that-is-why-it-needs-war/
2015 Will See Decisive Battles
The Empire is Crumbling, That is Why it Needs War
by ANDRE VLTCHEK
Chomsky is a national treasure, glad I have a chance to hear him while hes still alive. Howard Zinn, Noam and george carlin have changed alot of my world view thank you sir
Brilliant man, we need more people around like him!!!
his voice is so calm, his words so wise- the best person to listen to when the world's turning upside down.
by far the best video that sums up the current state of things and where we are headed.....if only we could upload Dr. Chomsky's brain on the net and make him immortal :-(
Great intro sequence. Great guest!
No século XVII, já o padre António Vieira falava contra a escravatura! Muitos dos fundamentos da sociedade ocidental têm pés de barro...É muito difícil encarar os nossos próprios erros e mais ainda sofrer-lhes as consequências...
Maria Fernanda Araujo ●
It's nice to know at least one "Father" of The Church was speaking against Slavery instead of Sanctioning Human Bondage as was done in that Period.
But ... Father Antonio Vieira wasn't The Pope AND w / his "Progressive" views, I'll bet he never became one ... ?
a great man all my respect sir !
Loved this episode!
thank you !
I lost all respect for Chomsky when he claimed that the atrocities committed by Jihadi John was the fault of UK intelligence services.
That was a really stupid statement, I agree. Chomsky is brilliant, but he simply doesn't understand the mind of a religious fundamentalist.
Have you actually seen the reasons and arguments for why he said that?
The sweater is what drew me in from the sidebar.
É inteligente, observador, racional, sincero, humano, visionário e corajoso. É admirável! Um verdadeiro ídolo!
I saw that Russell Brand interview! It was funny to think of Chomsky in that way at a summer camp!
That was a disappointing response by Chomsky on Syria. His solution is to let the UN handle the situation. This is disregarding the fact that Russia would veto any solution that did not keep Assad in power, and even if an agreement was reached he knows the UN would not do enough to actually solve anything. UN troops were in Rwanda during the genocide there. But assuming the UN could and would do something, what would that something be Mr. Chomsky?
+BobClemintime
Nothing more than his hollow words
I am not sure what you point is supposed to be?
Thanks for the thoughtful response, though I was already aware of US support for those regimes.
But what does that have to do with the viability of using the UN to solve the Syria situation?
+BobClemintime
*But what does that have to do with the viability of using the UN to solve the Syria situation?*
The point is that what is the issue with letting Assad remain in power when so many other men, too often worse, were permitted or protected, if it stops the killing?
The point that eludes all critics of Chomsky is that he's advocating a progressive solution that involves abandoning all the traditional policy positions that lead to suffering and instead focus on eliminating suffering. Today you permit Assad to survive because he will anyway, or if you want to get rid of him you need to destroy or let Syria be destroyed making the goal of protecting the Syrian people impossible. Tomorrow you focus on persuading and cooperating with Russia to avoid future situations like this rather than encircling them as NATO has attempted to do since the end of the cold war thus giving Putin and his cohorts every reason to be an opponent of the west - because even before there was a stand off we put Russia in the position of either being subservient or fighting to be independent as all nations will.
You act as if we don't have a choice. We do, it just involves actually taking the high ground instead of just proclaiming we do in our propaganda. By high ground i don't mean the one where we force our opponent to surrender militarily I mean the moral one, the one that is anathema to all our traditional policy solutions.
The point is so far off the reservation I'm not surprised it eluded you.
+BollocksUtwat Assad has continued to be in power as far as I am aware, and we are left with one of most severe human crises in recent times. How exactly does leaving a person in power stop killing, when that person is actively fighting rebels who say that they will never stop fighting the government so long as Assad is in power? There is even a legitimate case to be made that removing Assad from power in the beginning could have resulted in a much safer situation for the people of Syria and the world.
I think Chomsky is a very valuable asset to the US and I often think he makes good points. In this case, I think it is very easy to criticize the outcomes of a policy on an issue that is extremely complicated without suggesting a better alternative. It it easy to same something general like the UN should handle it, but much more difficult to suggest a specific response that would solve the situation. Just because I am critical of a weak response by Chomsky, doesn't mean that I am critical of everything he does.
In what way would supporting a violent crackdown on peaceful protesters (along with Russia) lead to a more peaceful and more moral world?
NATO is a separate issue from the Syrian Civil War.
I also never said there were not different choices the US could have made, just that Chomsky's "solution" was very weak.
NOAM CHOMSKY ON SYRIA, CHINA, CAPITALISM, AND FERGUSON
Published on 9 Dec 2014
Noam Chomsky discusses the recent climate agreement between the US and China, the rise of ISIL, and the the movement in Ferguson against racism and police violence. Chomsky is the author of more than a hundred books and the subject of several films about his ideas. He is a political theorist and philosopher who has dissected the contradictions of US empire and inspired several generations of activists. This episode also features a special report on successful worker organizing among low-wage workers in New York City.
Category
Education
Licence
Creative Commons Attribution licence (reuse allowed)
Remix this video
JAN 4, 2015
I want him one of the members in the global government we all should be organizing!
Wow, a One World Government! If you enjoyed Bush and Obama as head of just the U.S. government, you'll "love" the monster that gets to be the government of the entire world.
But don't worry, if you don't like the One World Government monster, you can always move to...Pluto.
Dear Mrs. Flanders, please check this out. You just used the expression Social Justice. Are you aware that few mean the same thing by it. Earlier on TV you talked about Restorative Justice, giving the impression that it meant restoring convicts to whatever. It actually refers to the victims of crime being restored. These phrases start off addressing reformed offenders, but law enforcement redefine them against the formerly incarcerated.
***** - at 11:38, the subtitle should read "worker owned" and not "work around" - big difference!
I really wish the volumes of the two speakers had been adjusted to be more similar. He mumbles really low, I turn the volume up, then she implodes my ears, I turn the volume down. Not a fun game. Good talk though.
why doesn't he just become president????
The next time Chomsky is invited to come to New York from Boston, I would like to see him walk.
Walk to Canada.
Word.
I feel like the "Chew on this" was timed a bit poorly. Right after Chomsky talked about the rumors XD.
I nominate Mr. Chomsky for the year 2015 Nobel peace prize.
Noam Chomsky is intelligent. He has a number of good ideas. But at any time he will begin to spin. Few people catch his lies because they honor his word. His calm demeanor is reassuring but perhaps it is hiding something darker. This is conjecture on my part, because I don't know what motivates him to go so far off the mark. Chomsky has lied about Bashar Assad since the beginning of the proxy war against Syria. 85 percent of Syrians support Bashar Assad. Bashar and his army have been successfully fighting an influx of terrorists that are supported by the US, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. ISIS is just an offshoot of the so called moderate western supported Al Qaeda proxy fighters who have been attacking the Syrian people for years but have recently infiltrated Iraq. Iran and Syria have been succesfully fighting ISIS for months, why does Chomsky deny this. Turkey is a launching pad for ISIS, why does Chomsky tell us otherwise? Before any Chomsky supporters decide to ____ ____ ____ ____, at least try doing a google search on the topic. I will give you a head start with a link.
thehill.com/policy/international/middle-east-north-africa/228133-iran-has-sent-over-1000-military-advisors-into
Is there an "international community"?
3506Dodge ::
Yeah ! There is an "international community".
Just like there's an "intelligence community".
The pollution of language has spread all over the place ; even "Progressive" / "Alternative Media" ( Democracy NOW ! ).
Community has an Ancient meaning of Humans living together ; building together ; protecting each other ; rising off-spring --- Together ! --- It takes a Community to raise a Child.
They've turned that word, community, into some Public Relations BS.
You know what community means, otherwise you wouldn't be asking.
If there was an international community ::
Kissinger would have been before the World Court.
Israel would have been stopped, long ago, with massive sanctions from the international "community".
I won't insult your intelligence by commenting on the pollution of the intelligence "community" ( CIA / FBI / Mossad.
well I guess many proud americans here right,
What does he mean by 'criminalising black life'?
Criminalizing Black Life :::
The Southern States succeeded in making the lives of Black People as miserable as possible after the Civil-War.
Jim-Crow Laws :: keeping Blacks Segregated.
Criminalizing them for the slightest "offense" for breaking the most trivial Laws as an excuse to get them into the prison system for free-labor.
This time, the Plantation owners wouldn't have to worry about housing/food/clothing ... better than the Slavery --- Pre Civil-War.
I have never thought of the term "shit for brains" as literal until i listened to this interview.
What a thinker!
The Douglas Blackmon book Chomsky references at 18:00 is Slavery by Another Name. It's also a documentary film you can watch here:
www.pbs.org/tpt/slavery-by-another-name/watch
Notecrusher ● Thank you for the link ; unfortunately, I got the message ::
"This page could not be found".
It must not have met YOU-TUBE's "Community Standards" or somebody's.
13:23.... Noam predicted back in 2014 the USA withdraw from Paris climate agreement
How come you never see such a great intellect such as Chomsky on mainstream news channels? Obviously he is not going to be invited to appear on Fox "News" for obvious reasons but why not CNN?
Blacks & Hispanics needs to form their own parties and put good people into congress and senate.
Since he is a linguist, it is surprising that Chomsky is not more circumspect about word meanings. Capitalism, according to Merriam Webster, is "an economic system characterized by private and corporate ownership of capital goods...." Rather than attempting to claim that the system under which we live is not capitalism--IT MOST DEFINITELY IS CAPITALISM--he could modify it by specifying that it is monopoly capitalism rather than "free market" capitalism.
Oners82 bullshit. Capitalism isn't about proportions of GDP produced by the state, its about the ability of an individual to privately own the means of production of a society and extract the surplus value of said means of production's laborers. This is the system in place in the USA today. Just because government departments did the research, or production was subsidized, doesn't mean the state PRODUCED the goods, ie the profit went to private individuals, not the state. You're simply wrong
Whinging about an assertion made after an argument is pointless. The assertion itself is just a summary of position
His own definition, as you say, refutes his argument only in the case of nationalized industries, which are fairly uncommon in the US. This list (not sure how comprehensive it is) shows that there are very few industries, especially outside of public transport and utilities, which are nationalized. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nationalizations_by_country#United_States
However, his definition still holds up his argument for *the case that Chomsky was speaking about*, the IT revolution and other innovations. The development and research, as Chomsky says, was done through the state, but he is incorrect in saying that this doesn't make it capitalist, as the profit went to private individuals who owned the MOP, which is definitively capitalist.
Finally, for a country to be capitalist, as I said, there simply has to be the ability to privately own the means of production. This makes America capitalist.
I made an argument and then an assertion, that's what I was talking about.
"Interviewer: Is capitalism ... in the United States. Is it reedemable, reformable?
Chomsky: Well this is a good example of how remote our system is from capitalism" (Starting at around 9:15)
Chomsky is almost certainly referencing the US, it is nonsensical for him to reference "capitalism in general" and say it is remote from capitalism, especially when the question was US-specific.
Also, at absolutely no point did I say that *all* profit had to go to private individuals and never to the state for a society to be called capitalist. That was simply not a statement I made. In fact, it seems like you're inserting your own argument into mine here. Bizarre
"Nope. There are plenty of economic systems that allow private ownership that are not capitalist"
So what is the definition of capitalism? Does a country need to have zero nationalized industry to be truly capitalist? Are you trying to argue that capitalism only exists in idealized, pure states where profit only goes to private individuals? So it .... has never been tried?
Also, nice to see that you didn't address the point about the obvious fact that Chomsky references the IT revolution, which is not nationalized, and in which the profit went to private individuals, and was thus capitalist.
"It actually makes perfect sense; it is just a reference to how people misuse words and redefine them to mean things that they don't."
Fair enough, I actually didn't understand that this was what he was trying to say, it seemed like he was arguing over whether the US was definitively capitalist, rather than its use in regular parlance. My bad.
"The idea of the free market and Laissez-faire capitalism that right wingers seem to praise and think we have has NEVER existed"
I agree with this, and wasn't trying to argue otherwise. Now that I understand Chomsky on this point, I have no disagreement with you in this case, only I would add the qualifier (which I think you, me and Chomsky probably agree on, but I don't want to assume) that such a free market system is not only impossible, but not beneficial either.
"As for the IT revolution ....."
Fair enough, only I would disagree with the idea of taxpayers as investors. Investors knowingly and with consent give their money to an enterprise with the idea of making money. Taxpayers, honestly, don't necessarily have any idea which kinds of R&D their money funds, and there is no promise of an investment in a real sense. I would say the government funds R&D with taxes for various reasons, including the development of industry and for security reasons, but not in the sense of an investor looking to speculate on the future of a company. Also, I'm not really sure you can even qualify research as investment. Academics aren't "investors" in the products created by their research, even if they put in labour and money, because the idea behind a product is not the same as the product itself. Maybe I'm limiting the government support of the IT revolution to just research, which could be wrong, I'm not sure, but it doesn't seem accurate to call financial backers of research "investors" in products that might use said research.
"whether or not you agree with the argument does not particularly concern me"
This is a strange stance to take, and fairly pedantic tbh, but whatever
"It's THEFT, not capitalism!"
>Implying they're mutually exclusive
"I find it hard to express how bizarre your argument appears to me, it is like you are actively defending the people who you claim are stealing from you!"
I'm not defending the system in an way, shape or form. I was simply saying that taxation is without explicit consent for what it is being spent on, and thus taxpayers aren't "investors" in any typical sense, in the same way that if I stole your money and bought stocks with it, that's not you "investing" in the company whose stocks I bought, and you shouldn't be subject to either the gain if it takes off, or the risk if it collapses.
Watched countless talked by Chomsky and boy does he reference the New York Times ALOT. Constantly, to the point where it sounds like he remembers word for word each article printed there. I can't put my finger on it why I find it odd. I also admit that a I do not know if this is a good or bad thing either. Just an observation I've made over the last few years. And since he is a master of his own studies, linguistics, he must know what he's doing. Doubly strange.
⚽️ He references the NYT & sometimes the WSJ, because they are Newspapers of National recognition. He sites the NYT to point out its _Manufacturing Consent !_ Front-men for the United States' Foreign-Policy ... & Domestic.
For the WSJ, he has more respect as he suggests that we all read it if we want to know what the Business-Class is up to ... the journalists for that paper don't mis-lead the Financiers about what is happening on Wall-Street & in International Financial Markets.
⚽️ This isn't my opinion. This is what Chomsky has stated. ( I paraphrased. )
Capitalists capture only a small part of the benefit of there products. With all due respect to a brilliant linguist Mr. Chomsky please look up "consumer surplus".
Steve Jobs and Apple executives only captured a minuscule part of the value that they created. Consumer surplus is great!
Jim Oliver The reason economists believe that government pays for basic research is because it is very difficult for the producers of basic research to capture even a small portion of the benefit and so it would be under-produced. So we taxpayers invest in basic research so we get cool stuff. Companies like Apple capture only a small part of their admittedly small part in production. And BTW what makes Chomsky so sure that basic research is hard compared to putting out a finished product.
Interesting when you talk about pollution (you say emissions - but that is a too polite a word - it is pollution of the environment) - specifically pollution from Chinese manufacturing - that it is in reality US pollution, because they manufacture for the US.
One could argue that the Chinese don't have strong pollution controls and regulations and it is not the fault of the US. But we could manufacture the products in the US - so why don't we? It isn't just to access a low cost labor force. It is to manufacture in a low regulation market - where you are free to pollute the environment and not have to pay for pollution controls and clean up.
Because if we did insist on pollution controls then the cost of manufacturing would increase. So yes - China's pollution is the pollution of the countries they manufacture for. It is not just the US - it is all developed economies.
And recently I heard the CEO of Apple Tim Cook say that China stopped being a low cost manufacturer many years ago and that we use China because of the large pool of skilled workers. He said that he couldn't fill a factory with skilled workers in the US. And he is right on that point. But who's fault is that? It is his fault. Because after two decades of gutting the manufacturing base in the US, no new workers were trained for manufacturing - because there are no jobs to train for. You only train for a career that there are jobs for. So the lack of skilled workers in the US is his fault and the fault of the CEO's of all companies that moved manufacturing to China.
And they moved there because the US had too many controls on pollution; work health and safety. In an Apple factory in China - they had to install nets around the tops of the factory - because too many workers were committing suicide by jumping of the roof. The highly skilled workers that the Apple CEO likes so much - hated working there so much, they would throw themselves off the roof and kill themselves. So instead of addressing the reasons for this - they installed nets.
Let me congratulate you on your success Tim Cook! Because it came at the suffering of skilled workers in China.
Thank you, Stephen Cotton. It doesn't seem to matter --- skilled or unskilled --- the results will be the same for both.
Why is he whispering? We can still hear you!
Noam Chomsky is a wonderful Human Being. His message is simple "Common sense and Love for our fellow man".
This man hasn't experienced anything new in half a century. How can he understand other lands without having traveled in them?
Oners82 So why did you ask that question if you knew it sounded "retarded"?
Oners82 So why did you ask that question if you knew it sounded "bizarre"?
Oners82 So if you know it's utter nonsense, why do you post it then? So far you've admitted posting things that were "retarded", "bizarre" and "utter nonsense".
You're at least mildly amusing, and really slow to catch on, so keep them coming lol.
Oners82 HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHHA
Wow, you're the most gullible person I've ever seen on the internet. I just had a family member out here to see this thread and we were just laughing hysterically!
Oners82 HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHHA
Wow, you're the most gullible person I've ever seen on the internet. I just had a family member out here to see this thread and we were just laughing hysterically!
Noam Chomsky is brilliant...
Chomsky apparently would have loved to give advice to presidents and feels qualified for that although no president seems to be interested in his advice. Napoleon must have been very unhappy(if he had known somebody like Chomsky) that Wellington was not a political theorist otherwise history would have been completely different at Waterloo.
long live HOT AND CRUSTY .... its for you and me !
I really can't help not saying this: We, pretty much, live in a very shitty world and are unaware of it.
Chomsky heated cus the train takes too long . what a guy
Why doesn't anyone mention all the Irish slaves when they're referring to slavery, the founders were not racist.. they kept many nationalities of slaves in many colors.
To imagine one is entitled to keep others as your slaves is the most fundamental form of racism.
THX1138A100 What? You don't make any sense. How is enslaving a member of your own race racism?
omgnotaflake
There are no such things as races in humans.
The idea that some one who looked different from your ethnic group was of a inferior race was a pre scientific myth now known as ethnocentric belief.
Today this false belief in the idea of human races is the primary source of racism.
Chomsky does not offer any solutions on what to do about Saddam.
Chomsky has had the past half-century to offer solutions about ANYTHING, by seeking a Policy-Making/Public Service position, and show he can do a better job than those he criticizes, himself!
Yet instead, he chose to merely criticize everyone ELSE from the sidelines, and with the great luxury of 20/20 Hindsight! Which makes Chomsky nothing more than a very intelligent-sounding Monday-Morning-Quarterback, and renders his criticisms of others essentially worthless! smh
I'd like to see Noam move to North St. Louis. If he lasted more than a day and got out alive he might just sing a different tune. Amazing to me he actually makes a living
talking his "intellectual" nonsense.
Don't criticized Chomsky !
Disprove him !
why doesn't moderator ask Chomsky to explain statements such as Iran benefited from Iraq war? how did they benefit and where is his proof? she lets him monologue spewing out all these statements without enquiry.
'Cause it really shouldn't have to be explained. Iraq is predominantly Shi'ite. Iran is also predominantly Shi'ite as opposed to Sunni. The war in Iraq has done nothing but destabilize much of the region. Since Saddam was an enemy of Iran and even invaded Iran during the 1980's, it's only sensible that Iran would benefit from his execution. Due to its Shi'ite affiliations, Tehran was able to establish amicable relations with the new regime in Baghdad and has a new ally. With waning influence from the States in Baghdad, it seems as though the American plan to build a strong partnership with Iraq has failed, and the destabilization has handed over an ally to Iran (an enemy of the United States) on a silver platter.
Simply put, the United States lost an "enemy" (I use this term loosely as Saddam was an ally of the United States in the past) AND they lost the allegiance of the new regime in Iraq. Iran however lost an enemy (not used loosely here as Saddam was legitimately an enemy of Iran) BUT GAINED an ally in the new regime in Iraq. The math looks pretty simple.
johanne poirier he presumes we have brains of our own?
Tristan Hurley brains? why does this sound like a veiled insult? my comment focused on moderator not mr chomsky. i thought the point of an interview was to be informative and probing otherwise what is the point of an interview? As a member of the audience if i know it all, why would i bother to listen to an interview? i listen to learn. maybe i was way over my head when i tuned into this interview and you are absolutely correct about my brain power. a moderator should think the audience has no brain to reach as many as possible. why not?
johanne poirier
I'm not justifying what Tristan said. But your OP came off as a veiled insult of Chomsky. You used the word "spewing" to describe the manner in which Chomsky shared his ideas. In case you didn't know, "spewing" has negative connotations and the implication that the speaker is speaking nothing but non-sense and absurdities. Clearly he isn't as I have explained the validity of his assertions in my 1st reply.
Jeff T you are completely correct. i should not have used spew but outpouring or ebullience or unreservedness. i misrepresented myself because i have nothing but respect and admiration for mr. chomsky, the needed third voice. he is a genius really. a great voice and i guess i just wanted to hear more... justifications, or supporting explanations, but i don't want to say more i will just get into trouble... sorry did not mean to sound disrespectful of Chomsky. peace and love
oui
If you don't love Chomsky you aren't listenning or just maybe you are too far gone.
"not necessarily a failure for the United States but a failure for the region." That's the problem...the selfishness of America.
It's crazy to mention Facebook questions in this interview and very rude to call him Noam. Are you serious? And you finish it by asking a silly question from Russell Brand. If I had the chance to meet Noam Chomsky, I would do much more research than that, because it doesn't fly very high.
Think it's well past time the old guy retired and kept to doing Sudoku at the old folks' home.
Noam Chomsky is the kinda guy who you push a button for and he's there to offer his intelligence. But when it comes to the real world and making difficult decisions when your options are limited, he would be sure to fall back on Liberal "feel good" politics which we all know what that gets us. It's always far easier to look back in retrospect to see what could have been done differently. Like the political armchair quarterback that judges difficult decision making. I would love to have him sit in on a national security briefing behind closed doors and have the generals pick him apart from his "perfect world" delusions.
The US does have the idea that everyone wants their culture around.
Sounds like the same things that Ron Paul was saying
A little more you listen, a little less you comment.
Is the single tax the silver bullet?
Wow, talk about a negative guy when it comes to the US. I've heard third world thug dictators talk nicer than that about the USA. I know Billy Joel has a song about the 'Angry Young Man' now he needs one "The Bitter Old Man".
Trains aren't passed by trucks in any other country? What planet does this guy live on? Try taking RER A from outside Paris to get into Paris in the morning or evening. As a high speed train, it should easily surpass even the fastest automobuiles moving on the highways, but that's not the case at all. A trip that should take twenty or maybe thirty minutes on that line takes more than an hour and a half, every day. The train is so overcrowded that people have to stand, smushed together with countless other passangers. There's no doubt that trains are better for the planet, by far, than cars that run on gas. And, there are a lot more arguments in their favor. But don't reduce the country to trains as though because other countries use trains more than the US, the US must be failing. The US has the best economy by almost double, unless we compare it with the EU, in which case we're essentially comparing one country with some twenty countries. Then we would get comparable economies. Trains go slower than cars in some areas and at some times? Oh wow... what insight.
talks about ferguson at 17:00
Sorry Noam, dealing with ISSI would be to get US and its allies to stop funding them and stop the branding campaign around them. Defund CIA/NSA and criminalist them. Help Syria fight these State funded terrorists....
Terrorism is not war as Chomsky has argued over the years yet a act of terror against a citizenry of innocents outside of the military for the reason of propaganda. Chomsky has used this argument constantly in painting the US as offenders in most international efforts where war acts were used. His shortsightedness is a mistake of logic regardless of other unfair actions he might choose instead. Having said as much in reference to this notion terrorism can be and is used as an act of war.
He made a really important point on the ferguson mater that unfortunately still is for the most part unrecognized about how the modern protest movements have no thorough awareness of the history of prior movements. It's a year later and the Black Lives Mater protests have morphed into Black students from upper middle class even in a few cases outright wealthy families basically boycotting their actual education to march against what literaly amounts to a swastika rendered in shit, a mouthy drunk asshole and an invisible boogieman KKK lynch mob from the 1910's that must have fallen through a time warp coming home from the premier of Birth Of A Nation. Then once you start looking even closer you start seeing most of these groups segregating their organizational meetings by race and I can't help but wonder if this regression will play out to sarcastic rhetoric about being better off as slaves.
How does Noam Chomsky get away with his anti American views ? Anyone else expressing such views would be deleted.
I wonder if he would say this living under Sadaam's regime.
He sounds like Noah Levenstein
11:00 "have you got anything back" from smartphones & the IT revolution. Besides it smartphones/IT having changed the world for the better - no, not much. :)
I hate racism, I hate the war on drugs and I am not a big fan of Ronald Reagan but so I can be fair, what is the evidence that Reagan was racist as Chomsky said in the video? I like to think as good as possible of even the people that I disagree with.
J Oliver ●
Chomsky doesn't throw out those kinds of accusations w / o reason.
Reagan was a very disturbing creature. He was well-known for his racial views. He supported the Apartheid Government of South Africa. There's really no reason to pick on Reagan as he is a different body but in the same head as others before him.
He was a president who didn't concern himself or his presidency with The Aids crisis.
He was a Union-Buster ! Had no regard for working people ...
Surely, you can't be unaware of Reagan's character ?
His racism is covered all over Google & YOU-TUBE.
the red states are the landlocked ones, so it doesn't quite line up with the confederacy, which were solid blue.
From what
I see and hear,
the USA is today
the only real terrorist!
and that my friend! is bad.
It is pretty shocking indeed!
More reason we must learn TTATT.
Thank you! Both of you! I enjoy the truth!
American freedom allows you to leave. There are millions dying to get in here. I guess you believe that all those people are stupid and ignorant. If you need some help, I will pay for your plane ticket. Please act fast so that another person can come to America and they will have boundless gratitude for it.
Let's go Brandon!
@@jessesnyder5426 Happy are those with eyes to see, ears to hear, the truth behind the smoke and mirror.
Times, never seen before, are upon us. Shalom
Remarkable man with a far-reaching intellect all delivered in an anger absent voice.
Norm ...... you have to understand that it is "never a war crime " when "America does it" !
I like people like this who understands racism white supremacy, very few understand racism as system of subjection and control...the guilt complex.. mixed with an inherent idea of racism being beneficial to "my" team.. Allow for most white folks to be happily ignorant to the facts..
1:00 "He's not just a commited public intellectual: He's an activist, he shows up on CAMPUSES, WHERE THE ACTION IS."
I lol'd.
I know we often lack patience - and his words are brilliant - but my god he sounds dull. Get Samuel L. Jackson to read him.
Mick G ● A number of people agree w / you. But I like his delivery. It's as cold-blooded as the policy-makers' policies.
"Anyone on the US left" ????
To imply only leftists can understand or learn from Chomsky? Who is BTW an Anarchist. I mean, what kind of opening remark is that?
I bloody hate how people compare Noam to God ... i mean lets face it god did some good stuff but he's no Noam Chomsky...... you want truth here it is ! or maybe YOU CANT HANDLE THE TRUTH
when I started watching videos of Chomsky talking politics I thought he was a serious thinker, having studied his linguistic works at university..
what came was a shock. I expected intellectual lucidity, clear analysis.
and then he starts with things like : the Iraq war is the biggest crime of the 20th century. ok...
there are limits to subjectivity, beyond which statements like this are obviously targeted at very uneducated audiences, because otherwise such a statement would immediately invalidate you as a serious thinker.
on the other hand it's not surprising that he is so popular in certain circles. what he comes out of his speech is that we are the bad guys. which is relaxing to hear in a way, it means we are strong. if america would stop intervening in the middle east,everything would be fine. a very soothing thought. it's us, we are the cause and the remedy of all that is bad in the world. why worry? we just have to stop being bad and everything will be ok. yes, I can understand why he's so popular.
reality is a bit more complicated than that. and more horrible. we are not strong anymore. this is a post modern world. I dont expect mr Chomsky to grasp that, he is still an intellectual hostage of some cold war crisis. I suspect all his fanboys, if they actually knew, if they suddenly realized that their soft and protected lifestyle was in real danger, they would change their views quite a bit.
the most laughable statement I've heard said about mr Chomsky is that he is a realist. Those guys cutting people's heads somewhere in the desert are the realists.
They know how to manipulate the west's values against itself. They know the west can't just wake up one morning and say: let's just kill them all, they're not human. They know they are all human in our eyes, more human than ourselves. And when we see a beheading posted on the net, we shudder for a moment but then we think 'yes but we have done worse things. we're the bad guys. let's not forget that' and we're lulled back into a sense of security. everything is still fine with the world. yeah
+michel michel so america starts the Iraq war, a war of aggression, the first phase of the war results in the deaths of over 600,000 civilians, costs the american government over 1 trillion dollars and leads to the death of 5000 american soldiers. After the war, with the loss of a powerful secular dictator groups of Sunni Iraqis formed organized military groups. These groups gain power because they don't have a powerful dictator controlling them and then seize millions of dollars worth of American military equipment. these groups, along with syrian groups, form ISIS and start beheading people after gaining control of a large part of Iraq and Syria.
So im not saying america is evil, and either is Chomsky, but we are saying that america contributed to the current situation. America is one of the greatest countries in the world, but in reality it contributed to the current situation in the middle east. AGAIN im not saying they are the only reason. the fucked up religion that is islam is also responsible, but yes america did contribute.
Also if ISIS is the realists and you want me, a fanboy of chomsky, to become a realist, should i start by beheading you?
Hey, Noam! I consider you our best brain. Have you tried intermittent fasting? It may prolong your life. I want you to live forever!