Noam Chomsky 2014 | Talks at Google

Noam Chomsky 2014 | Talks at Google

name is John Orwant. I’m with the Google Cambridge
Tea Party Republicans Club. And it’s a pleasure and an honor
to introduce our guest today– a man whose fame rises to a
level of the kind that renders the standard introduction
pattern completely obsolete. I could tell you
about his 123 books. I counted. The seven books
have been written about him, the 38 doctoral–
honorary doctoral degrees– that he’s been granted. I could tell you about
the species of bee that has been named after him. Instead, I’m actually going to
talk about tenure, because it’s actually the thing
I think of first when I think about
our guest today. We tend to think of tenure
today as an entitlement. Right? So, professors–
they work really hard for some amount of time. And then they’re kind of
granted this lifetime protection from being fired. And, the institution of
tenure has been around for many decades. It really started to solidify
around the time of the McCarthy era, where a lot of
professors in this country were being asked to
take oaths of loyalty as part of the
anti-communist fervor that was sweeping the nation. And it wasn’t that the
University administrations wanted them to take those oaths. They were worried. The universities were worried
about pressure from government. They were worried about
wealthy donors saying, I’ll give you this check
for a million dollars, but you have to fire that
professor over there. And so that’s why
universities kind of lept into this institution
with gusto. And yet, when you
look at professors today, they very rarely
take advantage of tenure to speak on popular views. But of course, our
guest today, I think, is the world’s best
example of doing that. And I think that getting
tenure perhaps today should come with
a mild obligation to speak truth to power. So anyway, with that,
ladies and gentlemen, I want to introduce a man who is
to the left of Julian Assange, but with a less restrictive–
but with fewer travel restrictions– Noam Chomsky. [APPLAUSE] INTERVIEWER: Well we’re
very glad to have you back. You were here in 2008. And now, Google’s
grown considerably. You have a
considerable audience. And as was mentioned
earlier, the questions I’m about to pose to
you are from Googlers. So you guys went online
and you posted questions, and you voted on them. All right– so the first one. Your early view of
the potential abuse of the internet as a political
medium seem to convey a wait and see attitude. How has your view
evolved, and where do you think the balance
of power is headed? NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, the
internet is obviously a tremendous research tool. We use it all the time. I assume by internet, you mean
more generally– the whole kind of IT system that’s developed. And, it’s certainly useful
for activists and organizers. Almost all activist
efforts and enterprises involve intercommunication
through the internet. On the other hand, we don’t
have to talk about the fact that it’s a tremendous
tool for power systems to control and dominate
in all sorts of ways. I by now, hardly have to
mention the NSA revelations, Edward Snowden’s revelations. Commercial institutions,
like Google, for example, use it to undermine
privacy and independence in all kinds of ways. So the balance of power is where
it always was, and expending. Any technology that’s
around is going to be used by systems
of concentrated power to dominate and control. And you can’t open
a newspaper now without new things appearing. Take this morning. If you happened to look at
this morning’s newspaper, there was an associated press
report on some revelations that they’ve dug out
recently about efforts to develop by the US government
through USAID, US aid, which is supposed to be
a aid organization to carry forward the intensive
US efforts to undermine and overthrow the
government of Cuba. Read the report. It’s interesting for what it
says and what it doesn’t say. What it says is that the
government through US aid has set up– tried to set
up– a kind of social media inside Cuba that could be
used to organize the crowds to protest with the
people, not really knowing who they’re working
for what they’re doing. And the original AP
report, most of which didn’t get printed, at
least from what I saw, says that this has
already been used in many other places–
Philippines, Ukraine, and so on– to try to organize
anti-government protests, which raises quite a few
questions about what’s going on around the world. Well this is one of
the techniques that’s being used for subversion,
domination, control. This is an Obama
program, incidentally. Not Bush. And what’s said is interesting. What isn’t said is interesting. And here, the power
of the internet looms in the background. You can quickly find out what
isn’t said on the internet if you look for it. What isn’t said is that
this program– of course, it’s not called subversion. It’s called bringing
democracy and so on. But this program of trying to
subvert the Cuban government is part of a longstanding
war that the US has been conducting
against Cuba. Longstanding. You look at the history
of the US and Cuba– it starts in the 1820s. Cuba was regarded by
the founding fathers as the next conquest
that we have to make. Cuba was waiting there. We had to take it for ourselves
as we expand and become the greatest empire
in the world. Well we couldn’t do it in 1823. There was a deterrent–
the British. They were too powerful. The British were the main
enemy through the 19th most of the 19th century
but the big thinkers, like John Quincy Adams–
great grand strategist– he recognized and said, while
we can acquire Cuba now, it will fall into
our hands by the laws of political gravitation,
just as an apple falls from the tree. Meaning, over time, the US
will become more powerful. Britain’s power will decline,
And we’ll be able to take Cuba. And in fact, that’s
what happened. In 1898, Cuba was liberating
itself from Spain, and the US intervened in what’s
called here Liberation of Cuba, but in fact, was the prevention
of the liberation of Cuba by Cubans. The US took over the
island– one of several. Puerto Rico, Hawaii was
stolen from its inhabitants the same year, and Cuba became
a colony– a virtual colony. Well, something
quite interesting happened that’s
highly relevant today. Highly relevant. But never mentioned, but you
can find it on the internet if you like. At gun point, the
US imposed a treaty on Cuba, Platt
Ammendment, it’s called, in which Cuba granted
the United States control over eastern Cuba– so
what we call Guantanamo. Happens to include
Cuba’s major port– it’s only port oriented
towards Europe, which is where its
main trade would be. Of course, the Cubans
had no voice in this. We just took it over. And we’ve had it for 110 years. Cuba’s been trying to get
it back, but we refuse. The purpose has no
strategic interest for us. It’s used for
storage of refugees, like if Haitians flee from
monstrous dictatorships that we support in Haiti,
we’re supposed to accept them under international
law’s refugees. But instead, you send them
off Cuba– to Guantanamo– as a storage place, of course,
used as a torture chamber. The Cubans want it back. We won’t give it to them. Does this remind
you of something that’s happening in
world affairs right now? Yeah. Russia took over Crimea. Just as we’ve taken over eastern
Cuba for 110 years at gun point. We don’t formally annex
it, but we dominate it. Russia has a much stronger case
than the United States does. Crimea is primarily Russian. Its population overwhelmingly
supports Russia. It’s got major
strategic significance. It’s Russia’s only
warm water port. It’s the base for their fleet. It’s right on the
border of Russia. Russia’s surrounded by hostile
military alliance– NATO. And for them, it’s of great
strategic significance. Cuba for us is nothing. Guantanamo. It’s just a means of
trying to undermine Cuba– prevent
Cuban development. And the United
States, of course, has been at war with
Cuba since 1959, when Cuba finally
did liberate itself. Immediately, the US began an
attack on Cuba under Kennedy. A massive terrorist
operation was organized “to bring the
terrors of the earth to Cuba,” was Arthur Schlesinger’s
phrase describing it in his biography of
Robert Kennedy, who was in charge of it. It almost destroyed the world. It was a major factor that
led to the missile crisis. And it’s gone on. It went on afterwards. The terror based in Florida has
gone on almost without a stop. On top of that, there’s
an economic embargo to strangle the country,
opposed by the entire world. Take a look at the votes–
annual votes in the General Assembly, which don’t
get reported here. It’s 180 to two– US
and Israel sometimes. The Marshall Islands
or something. Well, all of this is part of
the background to the AP story about today’s effort to
subvert the government of Cuba. Well, coming back to the
internet, what’s interesting is what is available, and
what isn’t readily available, because people don’t see it. Like, you won’t find
a word about anything I said in the press, or in
commentary, or discussion, although it’s all
extremely timely. Very timely. Not arcane scholarship. But it’s right in front of
our eyes, but not there. And when you come back to
the power of the internet, I think it comes back to us. We don’t use it. We don’t use the resource for
the purposes for which it could be used– to break through
the silence, oppression, domination, terror,
violence, and bring the reality of the
world to people. So the internet, potentially,
is a wonderful tool, but only if you
decide to use it. If you decide to leave it in
the hands of private power, of power systems whether
state or private, sure– it’ll be used as a
way to oppress, undermine and dominate. But that’s a choice. Don’t have to. INTERVIEWER: Well,
on that note, we will be posting this on YouTube. NOAM CHOMSKY: What? INTERVIEWER: We’re going to be
posting this talk on YouTube, so your comments will
be on the internet. Happy to say. NOAM CHOMSKY:
Internet– but they won’t be in the New York Times. Well our channel is getting
more and more popular, so hopefully people
will find this. Switching gears a
little bit, what is the most interesting insight
the science of linguistics has revealed, but that
the public at large seems to not know
about or appreciate? Well, there are a number of
dogmas about language, which I think are being
systematically refuted. And they’re held by
linguists, too, I should say. Not just in the general public,
which are probably false, which I think are being
undermined by current research. This is a minority view. I’m not speaking
for the profession. The introductory
comments said that I’m supposed to be a contrarian,
so I try to keep to that. But for example, one
general assumption about language– almost
a dogma in philosophy. Common understanding, the
linguistics of psychology, is that language is primarily
a means of communication, and that it evolved as a
means of communication. Probably, that’s totally false. It seems that language is
evolved and is designed as a mode of creating
and interpreting thought. It’s a system of
thought, basically. It can be used to communicate. Everything people do can
be used to communicate. You can communicate
by your hairstyle, style of walk, everything. And yes, language can
be used to communicate, but it doesn’t seem to
be part of its design. It’s design seems to
be radically different, and in fact, even seems to
undermine communication. If you look carefully at
the structure of language, you find case after case, right
at the core of language design, where there are
conflicts between what would be efficient
for communication, and what is efficient for the
specific biological design of language. And in every case that’s
known, communicative efficiency is sacrificed. It just isn’t a consideration. I think that’s a
conclusion that has very widespread significance. In order to establish it, you
have to look at technical work. It’s not the kind
of thing you can explain in two
minutes of exposition. But it’s not profound. It’s not quantum physics. A half an hour would
certainly suffice. Suppliers And I think
it’s a pretty far-reaching consequence. Another general
belief about language, again, almost a dogma in all the
relevant fields– philosophy, linguistics, and so on–
is that the meaningful, the minimal meaningful
elements in language, sort of word-like
things, pick out entities in the
extra-mental world. So the word, say, river
picks out the Charles River, and so on– something that
a physicist could identify. That turns out to be
true for animal systems– animal communication systems. The symbols that appear– the
actions that are carried out– do apparently have a
one to one correlation with mind independent events. So some particular
call of a monkey will be related to
leaves fluttering, predators coming, sort of– I’m
hungry, some hormonal change. It’s just not true of language. Linguistic elements do
not have that property. Actually, this was
understood by Aristotle. It was understood in the
17th and 18th centuries. Interesting work on it. The entities that we construct
in our communiques, discourse, expression, interpretation–
are largely mental– partially, mental object. There are ways in
which they are– modes in which we
interpret phenomena. But they don’t pick out
entities in the world that a natural
scientist could identify without looking into our minds. That tells us a lot about
the nature of language, and about our own nature. Language is the
core human property. And this was
understood by Darwin, by a long tradition before him. And it’s very different from
the way it’s usually conceived. I think those are among
really conclusions that have pretty widespread
significance. Let me stress again,
a very minority view. Very few linguists
would agree with this. But I think, over time, I
suspect it will become clear. OK. In hopes and prospects, you
mentioned your colleague Kenneth Hale and his work
with Native Americans. In your opinion, how
important is the problem of language extinction? That is, how important
is it for humanity to preserve the current level
of linguistic diversity? Well, Ken Hale, who was a
friend of Anne’s as well. The teacher was a fantastic
linguist and person, also. He worked extensively
with indigenous languages all over the world. Australia– he was
one of the founders of Australian
linguistics– worked with Native American
languages, Central American, African, and so on. And he did really amazing work,
but this particular aspect of his work was something
that greatly concerned and interested him–
trying to protect. And as he pointed
out, correctly, when a language
disappears, a lot is lost. A language is a repository
of cultural wealth. It’s a way– this
actually relates to what I was saying
before– each language is a way of understanding and
interpreting the world. It carries the
wealth of tradition in history, oral history,
which can be extremely rich. Take the Bible, for example. For years, that
was oral history, before anything
was written down. Homer is oral history. And that’s all over the world. And we’re losing those
treasures every time a language disappears. And for the people themselves,
they’re losing their identity. If English disappeared, we would
lose our cultural identity, and the same is true if it’s
a small group somewhere. Well, one of Ken’s
achievements in this regard, which was quite spectacular,
was to take the language, which was one of the major
languages spoken right here before
the colonists came. Remember, the
United States is not an ordinary form of imperialism. The United States is a
secular colonial society. In fact, that’s true
of the whole– what’s called the Anglo sphere,
the countries that grew out of Britain’s
imperial domination. The United States, Canada,
Australia, mostly New Zealand– these are countries where
the settlers who came in didn’t just run the country the
way the British did in India. British in India
provided the bureaucrats, you know, the officer
corps, and so on. But Indians ran the
country under British rule. Secular colonial societies
are different, like ours. If you go back to the founders
of the country– like, say George Washington. He understood very well that
we have to, as he put it, extirpate the Iroquois. They’re in our way. We have to wipe them out. They’re and advanced
civilization. They, in fact, were
the basis for much of the American
constitutional system. But we had to extirpate them. They were in our way. Thomas Jefferson said,
we have to exterminate the native populations
because they’re attacking us. And why are they attacking us? Well, because we’re taking
everything away from them. He didn’t say that. But in general, the
settler colonial societies have to pretty much exterminate
the indigenous populations, or else marginalize them. Well that’s happened here. So where we’re
sitting was a place where the indigenous
population was close to exterminated–
pretty close to it. There are survivors. One of the major languages
spoken was one Wampanoag. It hadn’t been
spoken for a century. The last speaker
was a century ago. Ken, and some students, and a
woman from the Wampanoag tribe, which still exists,
Jessie Little Doe, managed to reconstruct
the language using comparative evidence
from other languages, and missionary texts that
were taken and preserved. And from this, they
were able to reconstruct what the language
must have been. And it now has its first native
speaker– Jessie Little Doe’s daughter, who’s a native
speaker of Wampanoag. This has revitalized the tribe. They’re now studying it. They’re reconstructing
their history. They’re reviving. It’s a pretty
amazing achievement. Jessie got her Ph.D. with
us, with Ken, her department, it’s the first time this
has ever happened, I think. Now there are efforts to
do it In other places. But if you can
revive– right now, there’s enormous
destruction going on. Species destruction,
for example, is taking place at a
level that hasn’t happened for 65 million years,
literally– the time when an asteroid hit
the earth, apparently, and wiped out the dinosaurs, and
the majority of living species were destroyed. Mammals survived. That’s why we’re around. But, right now, the
same thing’s happening. Species destruction is
happening, about at that level. And now, we’re the
asteroid, of course. We’re destroying the
species at a massive rate. Language destruction
is kind of a little like that at a cultural
and human level. You’re destroying the
richness of human civilization and understanding of the world. It’s disappearing fast. It’s disappearing
in Europe– not just in indigenous cultures. So if you go to,
say, Italy, there are people all
over the place who can’t talk to
their grandmothers. The grandmothers speak
a different language. They’re called dialects,
but they’re actually different languages. The number of
languages in Europe has contracted radically
over recent years through the policies
of state formation. When states are formed,
the formation of states is an extremely violent process. It imposes a rigid
form on societies, bringing together
people who have nothing to do with each
other, and separating people who have everything
to do with each other. That’s why Europe was
the most savage place in the world for centuries while
the process of state formation was taking place. You look around the world
today, and just about every major conflict is based
on the imperial borders. Borders were imposed
by the imperial powers for their own interests,
forming states which have no significance
for most of the people. So take, say, Pakistan
and Afghanistan. We talk about terrorists
crossing Pakistan to Afghanistan. They are, many of them,
are just Pashtun– moving from one part
of Pashtun territory to another part of
Pashtun territory, which is separated by a line–
that the British imposed– the Durand line– which the
Afghans have never accepted and the Pashtun
have never accepted. Now that happens everywhere. President Obama, one
of his achievements has been to break all
records in deporting undocumented immigrants–
almost two million. They’re crossing a border–
the Mexico US border– which, like state
borders generally, was established by brutal
violence and aggression. The US conquered half of Mexico. President Grant described
it as, who fought in it, described it as the most
wicked war in history. Well, OK, that
established the border. It was a pretty open border. The same kind of people
living on both sides until pretty recently. It’s been heavily
militarized now. Primarily since NAFTA. When NAFTA, the North
American Free Trade Agreement, was instituted, President
Clinton, his advisers, understood very
well that this is going to devastate Mexican–
the Mexican economy. And it’s going to destroy
Mexican agriculture. It’s going to undermine
small business, and so on. Mexican compacinos can
be quite efficient, but they can’t compete
with highly subsidized U.S. Agro-business. So there’s going to be
a flow of immigrants. So we’ve got to militarize
the border to prevent them. Send them back. Right now, to this day,
right here near Boston– right around us–
there are people fleeing from the
Guatemalan highlands. Mayan Indians, fleeing from
the Guatemalan highlands. Their languages are
also being destroyed. Why are they fleeing from
the Guatemalan highlands? Well, under Ronald
Reagan, the US supported a genocidal attacks
on the highlands, and the Mayan Indians by the
military dictatorship we were backing in Guatemala. And the devastation
was so extreme that they’re still fleeing. Well, they’re fleeing. We deport them. They’re coming
across from Mexico. We deport them. That’s a state border. That’s the way borders work. All over the world,
that’s the way it works. Take a look at the horror
stories all of the world. Almost entirely, the result
of the imposition of state borders, which also
has the consequence of wiping out lots of languages. When you impose a state
border, it constitutes, say, France, or Italy, or
Germany, or Guatemala, or whatever it may be, or the
United States for that matter, you’re wiping out huge
numbers of languages which are internal to them. Well, this is a kind of–
it’s not species destruction, but it’s kind of
analogous to it. And it’s going on all the time. And the effort to save species,
cultures, societies, languages is a major effort. Happening in Europe, too. So right now
there’s a referendum coming up in Catalonia. Another one in Scotland
asking about autonomy, or independence. That’s dissolving the European
state system, something which has been
going on for awhile, and reconstructing
the languages. Actually, I visited
Barcelona in the late ’70s. You couldn’t hear
a word of Catalan. It was spoken, but secret,
because under the dictatorship, which the US backed,
it was barred. 10 years later, if
you go to Catalonia, all you hear is Catalan. It revived. The Basque languages revived. Other regional
languages are reviving. If you walk around Wales,
kids walking out of school are talking Welsh. Things like this are happening. Ken’s achievement
was unique, but it’s a kind of a natural development. I think it should be
stimulated myself. But we should
recognize that there’s enormous loss when the cultural
wealth of a society disappears. That’s encapsulated
crucially in its language. INTERVIEWER: All right. So I’m going to change
gears a little bit again. Can you comment on
the contribution of research and statistical
natural language processing to linguistics? And that’s a yes/no question,
I realize, but– OK. [LAUGHTER] NOAM CHOMSKY: One of the
early proponents of it, maybe the earliest
in 1955, when I was working on
linguistic theory, it seemed to me the
only possible way in which a, let’s say, a
child, could identify words in continuous text– you know,
you’re not hearing single words when you live in the world. You’re hearing continuous text. It seemed to me the only
way that is could be done was by detecting transitional
probabilities of sounds or syllables. If you get to a word
boundary, the predictability of the next sound is lower
than if you’re inside a word. Right? For obvious reasons. So if you check these
transitional probabilities, it looked as if you ought
to be able to detect words. That’s probably
the first proposal. Maybe the first
proposal of literature. It turns out not to be accurate. Just in the last
couple of years, there’s been some
really careful work on statistical
analysis of texts. Charles Yang, who got
his Ph.D. At MIT– he’s now at Penn, a computational
linguist cognitive scientist– he showed
that if you actually use this technique on connected
text, that what you get is syllables, not words. So that doesn’t work. He also pointed out that if
you add a linguistic principle, you do get a better
approximation to words. Linguistic principle is that
a word– well, real words, tend to have stress
peak within them– stress pitch peek inside them. So if you add that
principle, and then you do the statistical analysis,
you get a better approximation. There’s subsequent work by a
number of cognitive scientists which has shown
that if you add what are called the prosodic
structure– the whole pitch stress structure of a
sentence– it goes up and down, but really reflecting
phrases pretty much, if you look at the
pitch structure. If you add all of
that, and then you do the statistical
analysis, you get and even better approximation. Now this is one of the very
few cases where there’s any results from
statistical analysis. There has been– there’s
a kind of a industry in computational cognitive
science and computer science trying to
show that you can get significant
knowledge of a language by statistical analysis of text. Antecedently, that’s
extremely unlikely to succeed. You do not get discoveries
in the sciences by taking huge amounts of data,
throwing them into a computer, and doing statistical
analysis of them. Try to think it through in
the history of the sciences. It just doesn’t happen. That’s not the way
you understand things. You have to have
theoretical insights. You have to know what
kind of experiments to carry out– what kind of
data are worth looking at, which kind of throw
away, and so on. That’s the way the sciences
have always worked. If you wanted to, say,
study the laws of motion, you could take a huge
number of videotapes of what’s happening
outside the window, and subject them to
statistical analysis. You could get a
pretty good prediction of the next thing that’s going
to happen outside the window– actually, a better
prediction than what the physics department can give. But it’s not science. It’s a way of matching data, and
maybe predicting some new data. But that’s not what
understanding is. And it’s very unlikely to
work for language, either. And I think the record shows
that it really fails totally. I could run through examples. But every example that’s
been carefully studied, it simply doesn’t work,
for pretty much the reasons that Charles Yang and his
successors discovered. You have to have the– have to
understand the principles that determine what
underlies the system. And then if you look around
the edges of those principles, you can find some sometimes
useful statistical data. I think that’s probably the
way it’s going to continue, but certainly is the
way it has so far. INTERVIEWER: We’re going
to change gears again. What, in your opinion, are
the most effective strategies for building a more and
just peace– I’m sorry, start over again– for building
a more just and peaceful world, and in your view, what are the
best– the most significant takeaways– from
Occupy the Arabs bring, and the Ukrainian
Euromaiden uprising. NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, those are
all quite different events, and I don’t think you
can consolidate them. Over time, there has–
you know, history doesn’t just go in
a straight line. There’s progress,
there’s regression. And they’re often in parallel. So say, take the last say, 50,
60 years in the United States. There’s been
significant progress in developing a more peaceful
and just and equitable society. Probably the most dramatic
example is women’s rights. Totally different from what
it was 50 or 60 years ago. It may be kind of
hard to remember, but if you look at US
history, at the time of the American Revolution,
the women were not people. They were property. The United States took
over British common law. And under British
common law, a woman is the property of
her father, and it’s transferred to her husband. So for example, one of the
arguments against giving women votes was that it would be
unfair to unmarried men, because a married man would
have two votes, since obviously the property votes the
way the owner votes. That was US law. If you look at the
chipping away of this, it literally was not until
1975 that this principle was abandoned. in 1975, the Supreme Court
ruled that women have the right to serve as peers
in federal jury. Peer means a person
just like you. OK, that goes back to the Magna
Carta in the 13th century. Women were accepted as
peers legally in 1975. Now that was part of
a major change that’s taken place in American
culture since the 1960s– one of the main outgrowths
of ’60s activism. And there are plenty of
other things like it. So opposition to, say,
violent aggression is far above what it
was 50 or 60 years ago. Take, say, Kennedy’s
invasion of South Vietnam. It’s a phrase you’ve
never heard, I suppose, because it isn’t
in consciousness. It happened in the world,
but it wasn’t reported and it isn’t part
of American history. In the 1962, Kennedy sent
the American Air Force to start bombing South Vietnam. Authorized chemical
warfare to destroy crops, so to drive the people
out of the countryside. Began big programs to
concentrate people, and put them out at the
concentration camps, to prevent them from supporting
the guerrilla movement, which was overthrowing the US
installed government. That’s an invasion. It happened, but not
in our consciousness. The reason it’s not
in our consciousness is there was no opposition. It was recorded. It was kind of known. You know, like it wasn’t a
total secret, but nobody cared. You couldn’t get people
to talk about it. I mean, literally
I remember trying to give talks in the early
’60s in people’s living rooms. You could get more people
than that together. Well that was the early ’60s. In 2003, the United
States invaded Iraq. It’s the first time in the
history of the imperial world that there have been massive
protests prior to the invasion, prior to the invasion– huge
protests all of the world. Here, too. My classes were called off
because the students wanted to call them off to go
down to the demonstration. That was 2003. Well, it didn’t end the
war, but it limited it. It’s often believed
that the demonstrations didn’t do anything. That’s a mistake. The United States could not
begin to carry out the policies that Kennedy and
Johnson could carry out without a second thought. It was bad enough, but
it wasn’t B52 bombing of heavily populated
urban centers. It wasn’t chemical
warfare destroying crops. Many of the atrocities
of the Vietnam War simply couldn’t be contemplated. Horrible enough, but not that. OK, all of that is progress. There’s also a regression. There’s been a big
backlash from power centers against the civilizing
effect of the ’60s. Now, that’s the
neoliberal attack on the population which has
been going on for a generation. That’s why, say,
real wages, real, for male workers– real wages
today are at the level of 1968 for the general public. And real wages are about
the level of 30 years ago. There’s been some
stagnation or decline for the majority
of the population. Tremendous concentration
of wealth in tiny number of– tiny sector
of the population. Mostly a fraction of 1%,
which feeds politics. Political power
reflects economic power. The Supreme Court just yesterday
just struck another blow against democracy and
its committed effort to try to undermine
the functioning of a democratic system
by placing power in the hands of those
who are super rich. OK, that’s going on. That’s the McCutcheon
case a couple days ago. Well, that’s regression. And they’re going
on in parallel. That’s the way history works. So what’s the way to go forward? Well, you know, as
Martin Luther King put it– shift
the arc of history by your own efforts in activism. That’s the only way
it’s ever worked. The arc of history bends the
way we decide to bend it. INTERVIEWER: In
“Hopes and Prospects” you compare Obama and Bush II. That’s four years ago. What would you say today? NOAM CHOMSKY: Like
what I just said about the arc of history–
both better in some ways, worse in others. So, for example, I
mentioned Guantanamo. Guantanamo is a
major torture center. OK, today, probably
torture isn’t taking place in Guantanamo–
at least what we call torture. Remember, the United States has
a special definition of torture which is different from
the world’s definition. So for example, in the
world, a solitary confinement is considered torture. You take a look at the
torture convention– international
torture convention. Solitary confinement
is regarded– and other forms of
mental torture– are regarded as torture. And they are. You try to lock yourself up in
a room for a couple of days, and you’ll see what happens. So it’s kind of torture. In the United States, it’s
surely going on in Guantanamo. But it’s also a routine. It goes on in the
prisons all the time. You go to the maximum
security prisons, they are torture chambers. People are confined 23
hours a day in a small room. It drives you insane. So torture– what
we call torture isn’t going on in Guantanamo. What is torture is
going on, but it’s going on in the incarceration
system generally. And that system is a real
international scandal on scale [INAUDIBLE]. So that’s an improvement. No magnificent,
but an improvement. On the other hand, there’s
the surveillance programs, which are– I don’t have
to talk to you about them. You know about them. They’re mostly Obama. The subversion of Cuba
that I mentioned– that’s a new Obama program. The worst global terrorism
campaign under way right now is Obama’s global
assassination campaign. The Drone Campaign. Notice that there’s a
debate in the United States when he decides to
murder Americans. Like, [INAUDIBLE]. You know, is that
legitimate or not? And what about the other people? The people that are being
murdered are suspects. Go back 800 years
again to Magna Carta. We’re going to commemorate
its 800th anniversary next year– probably
morn its disappearance. The core concept
developed in Magna Carta was what we call
presumption of innocence. What it stated is that a
free man cannot be subjected to state punishment
without due process– without trial by
a jury of peers. OK? Now, free man was a very limited
concept in the 13th century. Of course, it excluded women. It excluded people who
weren’t free and so on. It gradually expanded
over the centuries. So it’s embedded
in the Constitution also with limits– the 14th
Amendment, other limits. But now it’s being contracted. The Drone Campaign eliminates
presumption of innocence. The way it works is,
Obama and his advisers get together Tuesday
morning and decide who they’re going
to kill that day. The concept guilty means
Obama decided to murder you. That’s the meaning of
the concept guilty today. That’s a regression that
goes back 800 years. That’s pretty serious. And what’s even more serious
is, it’s not discussed. The only thing that is discussed
is the killing of Americans. Are Americans different species? Who says you can
kill other suspects? There’s some talk about
collateral damage. What about the people who are
just standing around and get killed? Well, yeah– that’s bad. But what about the
people you’re aiming at? They are suspects. You haven’t shown a proof
of anything about them. Just somebody the
government wants to kill. That’s true of
domestic law, too. Actually, I’m one of
the plaintiffs in a suit that I’m not entirely happy
about for this reason. It’s a suit about the NDAA
brought by Chris Hedges. A couple of other
people are plaintiffs. The NDAA legislation
under Obama– he says he doesn’t like
it, but he signed it. It permits indefinite detention. It extends the principle
of indefinite detention for suspects who are, under
this relatively new legislation under Obama. In includes– it is
written in such a way that it could include
American citizens. It’s not explicit. That’s what the suit is about. But the concept is– it permits
indefinite detention of people charged with providing support
for enemies of the United States. What’s support? Well, like saying maybe they got
a case, or something like that. Is that support? It’s not a joke, incidentally. The narrow case–
the very narrow case is against one part–
the fact that is might apply to
American citizens. I think it’s way too narrow. It shouldn’t apply to anybody. There should never
be such a thing as independent
indefinite detention. It’s criminal. And the idea of
supporting enemies is so meaningless, that such a
concept shouldn’t exist as law. But it’s a narrow
case about Americans. And that’s the framework
of discourse here. You shouldn’t accept
it, I don’t think. In fact, take another
Obama case– one of Obama’s major attacks
on civil liberties. It’s a case that probably most
of you haven’t heard about, but I’d look it
up if I were you. It’s a nice thing
about the internet. Holder v. Humanitarian
Law Project– case brought by the government to the
Supreme Court Government One. Holder is the Attorney General. Humanitarian Law
Project was a group that was giving legal
advice– legal advice– to a group that’s on
the US terrorist list. The group happened to be
the PKK– Kurdish group. The US government calls
it a terrorist group, so it’s on the terrorist list. Humanitarian Law Project was
giving legal advice to them. Obama’s Justice
Department decided to condemn that as material
assistance to terrorism. Material assistance
of terrorism used to mean giving a gun to
somebody in Al Qaeda. But this extends it
to giving legal advice to someone on the
government’s terrorist list. And if you look at the
court discussion colloquy, it could maybe apply
to somebody who has an interview with
Nasrallah, you know, the head of Hezbollah. Or just talks to,
maybe advises, a group to turn to non-violence. That could be regarded
as material assistance under Obama. That’s a tremendous attack
on the freedom of speech, and just ordinate
elementary justice– passed almost without comment. Now we might ask
ourselves– why should we even takes the
terrorist list seriously? What’s the terrorist list? The executive branch
of the government simply determines
you’re a terrorist. I put you on the list. No review. No judicial review. No defense. It’s just an executive act
of an authoritarian state. And if you look at the
history of the terrorist list, it’s mind-boggling. Like, Nelson
Mandela, for example, was on the terrorist list
because Reagan administration condemned them as– his group,
the African National Congress, as one of the more notorious
terrorist groups in the world because they were
opposing apartheid, which Reagan supported. OK, so that’s the
terrorist list. And Mandela was on until
about four years ago, when it took a special
Act of Congress to get him off the
terrorist list. On the other hand, take,
say, Saddam Hussein. He was taken off the
terrorist list in 1982, because the Reagan
administration wanted to provide arms to Iraq,
so in order to be legal, he had to be off
the terrorist list. Actually, that left a gap
in the terrorist list, so they put Cuba in. Why? Because Cuba has been the target
of more terrorism than the rest of the world combined
in the years before it, mostly based in Florida. That’s the terrorist list. So apart from being kind
of ludicrous in the way it actually works, the very
concept is an abomination. Why should the
state have the right to determine unilaterally
who’s a terrorist? Do they have that right? No, they don’t. Do they have the
right to murder people who they put on
the terrorist list? No they don’t. Do they have the right to
charge people with material assistance to terrorism if
they give legal aid to somebody that they’ve designated
as a terrorist? This gets more and more
extreme as you go on. These are Obama innovations. Well, history doesn’t
go straight line. And I think, myself,
Bush would’ve been worse, but not that there’s much to
cheer about in this regard. AUDIENCE: With cultures that
didn’t have a written language until another culture
came in that did, and they adopted
their writing system. Is there any systematic
effect on languages that adopted someone
else’s writing system? NOAM CHOMSKY: There is a
systematic effect of literacy. It’s not so much adopting
the writing system as using it for reading. So if we actually want,
there’s a– Ken Hale, same guy we talked
about before– he did a very important study in
the 1970s in which he showed that– an article that appeared
on what’s called cultural gaps. He studied the languages that
he worked on, mostly Australian, and found that many of
them had all kind of what looked like gaps. Like, they didn’t
have number words. They didn’t have color words. Or they didn’t have
relative clauses. A lot of other things
they didn’t have. And what he showed
was that all of this was just totally superficial. The people had all the concept. They had no problem with
dealing with any of them. They used them all the time,
but just in more indirect ways. So if they didn’t
have number words, they would still be
able to say five, ten. They had no problem dealing
with market societies. They may not have
had the color red, but they could say blood-like. And the same was true
even of structural things, like embedded relative clauses. Well, that was an
important study. Ignored, like most
important studies. But, shortly after it, somebody
else in our department, Wayne O’Neil, another friend
of Anne’s and mine, who studies the
history of English, he did a study of
middle English. And he investigated, and if
he was looking for something similar, he discovered that the
use of complex constructions, which had embedded
elements in them, increased as literacy increased. There’s a natural
reason for that. When you speak,
you’re constrained by short term memory,
which is pretty small. Short term memory is around
seven or something like that. The same for humans
and other organisms. And that means
you can’t do much. So ordinary speech tends to
be what’s called para-tactic. You just kind of tack things
on one after the other, because you can’t embed. On the other hand, once
you move to literacy, you begin to use capacities that
you always had but never used. It’s like, when
the people learn. You go to school and, you
say, first grade or something, and they teach you
how to multiply. You begin to use a capacity
which you always had. It’s not taught. It’s part of your
intrinsic capacities that you have the
capacity for number. Every society has it. Every human being has it. It’s kind of a mystery that
bothered Darwin and Wallace– the founders of
evolutionary theory. They asked, how could it
evolve since it’s never used? But it’s true that
everyone has it. But you can’t do
it in your head. Like, you can’t multiply
big numbers in your head. Right? You’d collapse after
a very short period. But you can multiply them
once you learn the technique, because you’ve
got the knowledge. You just have to exhibit it. And the same thing
happens with literacy. Once literacy spreads,
you get much more complex linguistic usage, even in
speech, because it carries over from writing to speech. So that effect I think
is real and documented. But the effect of just using. If you just use the letters
to say, write things, but you never read,
I’d doubt if it would have much of an effect. AUDIENCE: I’m curious as to
your thoughts, because I’m standing now, as
to your thoughts on– I guess some
people have said that the effect of technology
on certain languages has made us dumber. So like, texting,
LOL, or hash tags. And if that’s actually
true, or if it’s just the same as
any appendians, like new words being
added to languages. NOAM CHOMSKY: I think
the real question about the, what might be
the cognitive effect– the current kind of teenage
technology– it does have a very superficial
aspect to it. So, that’s true, for
example, of Facebook. People think they
have lots of– I mean I know of
cases, teenagers, who think they have lots of
friends, hundreds of friends. Because if they write,
I’ve got an exam tomorrow, they’ll get 100 letters saying,
I hope you do well, and so on. And the communication
is very restricted. A simple formula is
things like that. So does it have a
dumbing down effect? I kind of doubt it, frankly. But, you know, it is a
topic that could be studied. It is being studied, in fact. But as far as I know,
there are no real results, and I think it
would be surprising, because it’s all
kind of superficial. It does add a kind
of superficiality to life, which may
not be a good thing. I think it’s probably
harmful in the long run. But to try to– I feel like I’m
bringing coals to Newcastle. You people know a
lot more about this than I do, because I don’t
use any of this stuff, except with my grandchildren,
when I have to. Is there one last question? We have time for
a quick question. There. Is the– so the diversity
of languages and cultures is wonderful, but if there is
on the other side, if you would say anything, if you
would, sort of allow that having a unified
language and common culture helps communication and
may advance world peace? Well I don’t if
it advances peace. In fact, it seems to have
the opposite, because you’re forcing people into
situations of conflict. And the one language
that dominates is just the most powerful
state in the world. But there’s an advantage,
to having, say, a single language for science. OK, so by now, English is pretty
much the language of science. When I got to MIT
60 years ago, I was teaching scientific French
and scientific German– all graduate students
in every field had to pass an exam in
French and German. It was a complete fake,
but that was kind of like a residue of the
pre-second World War period. But it was true. You go back 70 years,
a civil engineer had to know French or German. OK now, that’s all gone. All around most of the world,
the language of science is English. That’s helpful. On the other hand,
exactly as you say, there’s also– if that
extend from just some mode of communication to the
actual languages of life, it would be a real loss. We would lose cultural wealth. Actually, if you live
in the United States, and you travel abroad,
you see it very quickly. The United States is an
extremely insular society. People don’t know anything
about the outside world. Students in colleges don’t
know where France is. It’s just– they
don’t know anything. It’s remarkably different from
Europe and other countries. And part of the
reason is that, you can go 3,000 miles
in the United States, and it looks exactly
like where you came from. Go to Boston to Los Angeles, the
weather’s a little different, but everything else is the same. The accent is
slightly different. You go 100 miles in Europe, and
you’re in a different society. So you just kind
of automatically gain comprehension of the
richness and complexity of life that’s missing when
societies are homogeneous. Of course American society
isn’t literally homogeneous. But, comparatively
speaking, it is. And I think that’s
the kind of loss you would get if,
in fact, you moved towards a universal language. Also, I just don’t think
there’s any possibility that’s happening. As I said, in
Europe, there’s now actually a reaction against
the unifying tendencies of the European Union–
more regionalization, regional languages, cultures. It’s not just
languages, incidentally. So take Catalonia,
which I mentioned. Under the Franco dictatorship,
Catalonian language and culture were totally suppressed. They could not be
exhibited in public. But, if you go to
Barcelona today, let’s say, you can
on Sunday morning, if you’re downtown in Barcelona,
take a look at the cathedral. There’s people swarming towards
the cathedral– folk singers, folk dances, Catalan
cultures being revived. It’s a rich culture
being revived. It was kind of
there, underground. Now it’s open. And I think that’s
just healthy for life. [APPLAUSE]

100 thoughts on “Noam Chomsky 2014 | Talks at Google

  1. Imagine if the average citizen were as brilliant as Noam Chomsky; the world would be rid of all its problems.

  2. #freedom & #anarchy   are are two brothers ; one is sensorily impaired and one is physically impaired chasing the same woman #JOY

  3. Chomsky is yet another anti-American who lives in an ivory tower with little real knowledge of what made America one of the only countries of the world where people want to come here, rather than other places. He just doesn't get it. Sorry, he deserves no respect from those of us who have watched and listened to his self-serving remarks over the past few decades.

  4. This man is remarkable. He gets asked good questions here, but how he answers is truly admirable. Translates a superficial question, in his mind, broadens the meaning of it to not only a bigger picture, but the biggest picture. One step towards his thinking would be a success for everybody

  5. Do any of us actually feel like the internet breaches our privacy?  It seems like most people voluntarily make more information about themselves public then anyone but themselves even slightly care about.

  6. Noam Chomsky articulately expresses his paranoia for EVERYTHING.  BACK TO BACK TO BACK for every single question like a broken record.

    Question: Dear Chomsky, what is your views on new FMRI scans finding cancer in young children in time to save there lives?   

    Noam: Well the metal in the FMRI machines is funding American weapon corporations who are controlling the Cuban government, helped by the invasion of privacy that the big corporations like google who want to watch you jack off and use that information to black mail you into selling your children to isis.  See it started back in the black panther movement in the 60's when activists…

    Question: Do you like lady bugs?

    Noam: Well I take it your asking about the Nazi involvement in the funding of the Volkswagon beetle which began by taking investment from Ford when Hitler sold 1 million Jews to France in a deal that ultimately has something to do with America being corrupt and the Cuban government…

  7. What a poor last question: if a unified language and culture would bring peace (???). It seems that the guy was sleeping all the talk and woke up at the last minute to say something completely ridiculous. Of course, that´s the proposal of totalitarian regimens like Franco. Chomsky did a good answer: just see US citizens going around the planet, everybody talks in English to them and they feel 'peaceful', but most of them are unable to learn other languages and understand the meaning of other traditions. That´s the danger of a homogeneous societies as Chomsky says.

  8. TODAY zionist jews in Israel are worse than nazis in Germany…see what they did to arab palestinians! real owners of those lands have been killed during last 65 years…

  9. This guy is incredibly skilled at deceiving idiots. The world will be a better place when his misinformation isn't available to poison the minds of the stupid.

  10. This guy is incredibly skilled at schooling idiots. Every time they try an cliche old and tired propaganda argument…He makes them look like idiots

  11. 35:++ So he claims that Americans have made no progress in wages since '68. Is there some rule that says American always have to increase in salary? People actually have to produce value to get paid. Being a grad student or professor in a modern university adds little value to anyone. Oh but Nim Chimpski is worth $5 million and most likely ranks in the 1% of wage earners if you include speaking engagements, books, teaching etc. And to add insult to injury he is peddling hate for the very economic system that he and his followers benefit from. What a tool and fool.

  12. Chomsky is interesting but his claim about Constitution being based on Iroquois is silly.

  13. Speaking truth to power; Speaking truth to ignorance; Speaking truth.. But is anyone listening? = I'm listening Noam.. We're listening..

  14. Not a single question (from the audience) that really matters. It seems that "googlers" don't care about the pressing issues of the world.

  15. I get fantastic medical care, because I'm rich and medical care is rationed by wealth. If you're rich, the system is working just right. The insurance companies, the health maintenance organizations, the pharmaceutical corporations are doing just great. Wealthy people are doing fine. If most of the population can't get decent medical care, that's not our problem. If health care costs are astronomical, too bad.

  16. People really does not care if a evil man gets old cause someone else gonna take his place but good people like Noam Chomsky getting old is frightening cause who will raise the iron voice like he does.

  17. the guy whit the black t-shirt long sleeves on front row with the plastic bottle in between his leg looks spooky !

  18. Where to begin with this stupid Marxist. His domination theory is in everything…even his linguistics. It is clear he was schooled by the Dewey education system.

  19. I would have no problems with confinement for days and days….Just spend time with the Infinite in mindful samadhi. See Yoga Sutras by Pantanjali.

  20. Wow a redaction in the first 5 minutes, and only seconds after Noam chastises Google for being an organism for decreased privacy and centralisation of power. And I was hooked

  21. the opening speaker is a complete Fookiwit, thats English for Fuckwit. What a monumental, regressive leftist. Just listen to the reasons he evinces in his speech for why Chomsky should be respected. THE VERY PLATFORM HE REPUDIATES AND vilifies he is using for his own self righteous promotion. Old obsolete asshole

  22. Funny how he talks about Cuba without reference to the Spanish role in that particular historical epock ha, Chomsky the bulshitsky

  23. Everyone knows his voice is low as hell, so why not make adjustments to his mike, an amplifier or something, I mean this is fucking google!! so we can HEAR without straining al the while!! you can even see some members of he audience are straining to hear him.

  24. I totally don't get the fan base for this guy. The USAID, by providing internet assistance, does add the "advantage" of democratic organization, and yes the USA wants a democratic government in Cuba, Philippines, etc. And yes, the USA has a bad history with anti-democratic subversion in Iran and Chile, etc. But it passes as "wisdom" when Chomsky "connects the dots" and calls internet system aid "subversion" and then follows it with a series of non-sequitur on Woodrow Wilson. A democracy builds consensus, and no doubt some who fund USAID want Castro to fall, some for more noble reasons than others. But his theory of a unified "power system" organizing USAID for the purpose of overthrow reminds me of the horrifically false statements he made about Jose Napolean Duarte of El Salvador. When I was first brought to hear Chomsky speak by a "fan-girl" in the late 80s, he was telling everyone about Jimmy Carter's apparently sinsister El Salvador policy. I happened to know that Duarte was the democratically elected former mayor of San Salvador, who was brought BACK by an anti/counter-coup supported by Jimmy Carter against General Romero and the land-holding party who ousted (and tortured) Duarte. Chomsky had this room of people clapping for him as he described President Carter as bringing "General" Duarte in through a coup to support "death squads". He made me want to vomit. I don't know everything he knows, but he definitely fails the bullshit test on numerous instances.

  25. Wonderful to listen to this great thinker. I hope he has many more years among us, in health and happiness.

  26. He clearly deserves all the admiration he gets for his insight and knowledge. But even better to know he found a new wife to give him a cuddle when he needs it.


  28. This the first time I have ever heard him speak and I have never read any of his writings. He is magic. Gentle and sincere about topics which are, everywhere else, inflammatory. In between the politic stuff he has some really interesting and complex things to say about language, which is his stock in trade. I'd recommend saving this one for when you can sit quietly and consume it as he is fairly concise with his language which makes some of his more nuanced answers harder to fully get first time. You don't have to agree with his views to get something from listening to him. I would think you get more if you disagree with him regardless of if your views changed after listening to him.

  29. Chomsky says that language is not really designed to communicate for others. I
    am very puzzled with this statement. Does he address this in his books? If so, which one(s)? Can anybody elaborate on what he means by this?

  30. Another question: Chomsky says that entities we construct with language are mental
    entities and they do not have to have an external correspondence. I
    understand  that  not everything we say in language has
    an external concrete correspondence (while the word apple has an
    external correspondence, the word "love" does not have an external
    concrete correspondence). Is he saying "even the words that we think
    we have an external concrete correspondence don't
    have an external concrete correspondence" or what?

  31. Coincidentally he is talking about what youtube is doing right know. Trying to silence youtubers for speaking their mind by demonetizing their channels.

  32. Ever since at least 1980, We the People of planet Earth have had the capability of providing the highest quality of food, the highest quality of clothing, the highest quality of shelter, the highest quality of healthcare, and the highest quality of education for each and every man, woman and child on the face of the Earth, and to do it in such a way that was in Harmony with Nature.

  33. I love Noam, I only regret that i didn't discover him earlier in my life. He has changed my view on the world and continues to do so. May he live forever!

  34. In addition. G-d does reward effort to Love, even if it isn't received. My opinion. The Love you give is NOT equal to the Love you get. Not in this Universe.

    The Beatles got it wrong. So, what? Yeah, that's about it.

  35. Can ypu imagine all the hidden atrocities USA goverment have been doing and still does. Tp mention. One Nagasaki and Hiroshima where almost 100.000 kids where killed by the USA.

  36. Just another glorified fake opposition actor using Hegellian dialectics of the tyrants covering up Jewish crimes against humanity.

  37. Wow, he attacks the Kennedys who the Jewish mafia killed (4) and he defends Communist Cuba who persecute Catholics. What Chutspah!

  38. John F. Kennedy Speeches (on Karl Marx & secret societies)
    The President and the Press: Address before the American Newspaper Publishers Association, April 27, 1961
    John F Kennedy's Famous Speech On Zionism (short version)
    Remember  4 dead Kennedys and only Catholic president.  Catholics were once banned to enter govt and even banned from voting.
    The Kennedys were murdered by Zionists.  JFK wanted to break the Jew owned Federal Reserve and stop Israel from going nuclear.
    israel killed kennedy for trying to stop the Israel in America
    Kennedy's 1945 Visit to Germany

    script of above talk by ex Palestinian’s-lobby-how-israel-gained-control-of-american-foreign-policy/

    John F Kennedy's Famous Speech On Zionism (short version) – since banned on J$wtube

    Who ordered the hit on JFK?

    The Notorious Banned FOX 9-11-2001 News Footage Israeli/Mossad Links
    Retired FDNY Rudy Dent on 9/11 Truth
    Govt Insider Confirms Israel's Role In 9/11 Attacks!
    Powerful Interview with Anti-War Author Christopher Bollyn (2018)

    9/11 Commission: Zionist controlled
    Philip Zelikow(Dual Citizen US / Israel) – 9/11 Commission Gatekeeper
    9/11 CLEAR bomb going off in WTC BEFORE first plane EVER hit
    General Wesley Clark on 9/11, Says Aggression Against Libya & Syria Was Planned Years Ago

    Mr Westfield, Frank Lowy (ex Israeli commando), The Other 9/11 Mass Murderer & Pal Of Larry Silverstein
    BANNED by Alex Jones INFOWARs ISRAELI Terrorism in the USA : Military Officers for 911 Truth
    Retired Expert Pilot John Lear – No Planes Hit the Towers on 9/11
    Former George Bush Chief Economist Says 911 Was An Inside Job
    The Israelization Of America II (Disproportional Influence)

    "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."  – Goethe

    "Terror is theatre… Theatre's a con trick. Do you know what that means? Con trick? You've been deceived. "- John Le Carré, The Little Drummer Girl, 1983
    "Terrorism is aimed at the people watching, not at the actual victims. Terrorism is theater… The normal objective of state or official terrorism is to enforce obedience and cooperation… Success demands the creation of an atmosphere of fear and the seeming omnipresence of the internal security apparatus." – Brian Michael Jenkins, "International Terrorism: A New Kind of Warfare," Rand Corporation, June 1974
    The Israeli construct known as the War on Terror is a global fraud, a Zionist war agenda that is based on deception and false-flag terrorism.  In my presentations about the dual-deception of 9/11 and the War on Terror I use the Mossad quote from The Little Drummer Girl, “Terror is theatre… Theatre's a con trick. Do you know what that means? Con trick? You've been deceived.”  I advise people to keep this quote in mind whenever an act of terrorism, like the recent massacre in Orlando, occurs.
    This is an excellent analysis of our death cult fraudulent govts
    Christopher Bollyn "The Dual-Deception of 9/11 and the Fraudulent War on Terror”
    US Presidential Candidate says, "Israel Did 911" Zionists Control US Politics.

  39. President Obama was subverting the Cuban government by opening the US up to a dialog and by letting people travel to Cuba, again???? What???? Does Chomsky even hear himself? I kind of doubt it.

  40. What a vicious institution google is. On one hand it helps various regimes to spy on it's own people. Helps building code and AI which is racist and flawed. On the other hand, invites eminent speakers of truth and resistance. Lets call it a balancing act? And Googlers? Is Another branded tribe, like their counterparts on other social media platforms, involved in mostly profit maximization.

  41. The icon – Chomsky – claimed 9/11 was not a conspiracy by the Bush administration – when obviously it was. Why? Because his alma mater MIT – the Massachusetts Institute of Technology – created the inept and fake video of planes flying into – and ludicrously – passing through – the steel and concrete walls of the WTC – a physical impossibility. The Israelis – allegedly funded ,by Saudi Arabia – set thermite demolition charges months earlier – to synchronise – when detonated – with the imaginary aircraft penetrating the Walls of the WTC. There were no planes – no Osama Bin Laden – and no Islamic terrorists, An Israeli TV crew was in hand to record the catastrophe – even before it happened. Chomsky sold out – just like the late Christopher Hitchens – who supported the US invasion of Iraq – and 9/11.

  42. While we're at it, how about we mention the crimes of Social and Communism.
    And then we discuss how Capitalism is supposedly more evil than either of those?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *