Chomsky spoke sometime in the early part of on the subject of terrorism. This is only an excerpt, if you know of a full verison, please leave a comment about that. High quality audio. Topics: Chomsky, ChomskyA. Noam Chomsky - - Why Iraq? Includes short debate with Ted Sorensen. During the question and answer period, Chomsky was confronted by Theodore "Ted" Sorensen, a former senior Kennedy administration official.
Chomsky and Sorensen get into a fairly heated debate. Called Kennedy's "intellectual bloodbank", Sorensen was JFK's main speech writer "Ask not what your country can do for you On September 1,Noam Chomsky was on an interview program talking about globalization, etc. Topics: Chomsky, protectionism, free trade, free trade agreements, privitization, democracy, adam smith, Noam Chomsky spoke on his linguistic work on April 8th,when he received the Killian Award.
He takes questions from the audience after the The Crisis Of Democracy - Noam Chomsky - Propaganda And Control Of The Public Mind (CD). Topics: Chomsky, language, lingusitics, syntactic structures, cognitive revolution, brain, mind, On June 6, Noam Chomsky spoke and answered questions for over 3 hours and 40 minutes at Woods Hole on the media, etc. An excerpt of a talk given by Noam Chomsky, on April 18th, Topics: Chomsky, economics, Cold War, capitalism, U.
This program has an excerpt of a Noam Chomsky talk, in which he talks about the drug war. Chomsky's part of the program begins at Topics: Chomsky, drug war, marijuana, minorities, prisons, law enforcement, hemp. If you know where to find the talk itself, please leave a comment. Kennedy's Sphinx Radio show. If you know the correct date, please leave a comment. Chomsky appeared on Britain's Hardtalk, facing a hostile questioner, which leads to a fairly heated debate.
Audio quality is poor. If you know of a better copy, please leave a comment. The audio quality is mediocre. If you know of a better copy, leave a comment. In December ofNoam Chomsky Traveled to Brazil and answered a wide range of questions from a panel.
Noam Chomsky gave this talk on May 14, at Berkeley, in California. He talks about the American peace movement, and its role or lack thereof in helping to bring about a settlement on the Palestine issue.
Also, he discusses, in much detail, the history of the region. He takes questions from the audience in the second part, some of them quite angry. On May 29th,Noam Chomsky gave this interview for Australian media. Chomsky's starts to speak at 30 minutes into the program. On June 24th,Noam Chomsky was interviewed.
The host asks Chomsky about his background, etc. On April 19th,Noam Chomsky gave this interview on Kosovo, Vietnam and media manipulation of the public mind. Chomsky's talk begins at 38 minutes in. Question and answer follows the talks. On December 10,Noam Chomsky spoke with a few activists about the upcoming Iraq war and other matters. They discuss Anarchism as a political philosophy.
Despite the low bit rate, the sound quality is pretty good - much better than another copy that's been circulating the internet for years. Noam Chomsky gave this interview on June 8th, Chomsky, speaking in Washington DC, speaks on the subject of thought contol in Democratic societies. Noam Chomsky spoke just a few weeks prior to the 10th anniversy of the end of the Vietnam War. He covers a lot of ground in this talk, discussing among other matters, the true war aims, as revealed by declassified material, etc.
The second part, file That is a crude and elementary fact. What you speak of points to more subtle phenomena. These, though interesting, must not make one forget the dominant factors. Of course, on narrow technical questions — is the war succeeding? But I am referring to the general pattern of interpretation and analysis, and to more general assumptions about what is right and proper.
Furthermore, at times the press simply concealed easily documented facts — the bombing of Laos is a striking case. But the subservience of the media is illustrated in less blatant ways as well. Take the peace treaty negotiations, revealed by Hanoi radio in Octoberright before the November presidential elections. I do not say this only with the benefit of hindsight. The exact same story was replayed in Januarywhen the peace treaty was finally announced.
Again Kissinger and the White House made it clear that the United States was rejecting every basic principle in the treaty it was signing, so that continued war was inevitable. The press dutifully accepted the official version, and even allowed some amazing falsehoods to stand unchallenged. Or to mention another case, in an article written for Ramparts3 I reviewed the retrospective interpretations of the war in Vietnam presented in the press when the war came to an end in — the liberal press, the rest is not interesting in this connection.
Virtually without exception, the press accepted the basic principles of government propaganda, without questioning them. The study indicates quite dramatically the remarkable degree of conformity and submission to the dominant ideology among people who considered themselves informed critics of government policy. The consequence of this conformist subservience to those in power, as Hans Morgenthau correctly termed it, is that, in the United States, political discourse and debate has often been less diversified even than in certain Fascist countries, Franco Spain, for example, where there was lively discussion covering a broad ideological range.
Though the penalties for deviance from official doctrine were incomparably more severe than here, nevertheless opinion and thinking was not constrained within such narrow limits, a fact that frequently occasioned surprise among Spanish intellectuals visiting the United States during the latter years of the Franco period.
Much the same was true in Fascist Portugal, where there seem to have been significant Marxist groups in the universities, to mention just one example. The range and significance of the ideological diversity became apparent with the fall of the dictatorship, and is also reflected in the liberation movements in the Portuguese colonies — a two-way street, in that case, in that the Portuguese intellectuals were influenced by the liberation movements, and conversely, I suppose.
In the United States the situation is quite different. As compared with the other capitalist democracies, the United States is considerably more rigid and doctrinaire in its political thinking and analysis. Not only among the intelligentsia, though in this sector the fact is perhaps most striking. These issues are not alive in the United States, as they are throughout Western Europe. And the absence of any significant socialist voice or discussion is again quite a striking feature of the United States, as compared to other societies of comparable social structure and level of economic development.
Here one saw some small changes at the end of the sixties; but in you would have had great difficulty in finding a Marxist professor, or a socialist, in an economics department at a major university, for example. State capitalist ideology dominated the social sciences and every ideological discipline almost entirely.
Such a degree of ideological conformity in a country which does not have a secret police, at least not much of one, and does not have concentration camps, is quite remarkable. Here the range of ideological diversity The Crisis Of Democracy - Noam Chomsky - Propaganda And Control Of The Public Mind (CD) kind that implies lively debate on social issues for many years has been very narrow, skewed much more to the right than in other industrial democracies.
This is important. The subtleties to which you alluded must be considered within this framework. Some changes did take place at the end of the sixties in the universities, largely due to the student movement, which demanded and achieved some broadening of the tolerated range of thinking. The reactions have been interesting. Now that the pressure of the student movement has been reduced, there is a substantial effort to reconstruct the orthodoxy that had been slightly disturbed.
That is how the state capitalist intellectuals describe the fact that their near-total control of ideology was very briefly brought into question, as they seek to close again these slight breaches in the system of thought control, and to reverse the process through which just a little diversity arose within the ideological institutions: the totalitarian menace of fascism of the left!
And they really believe this, to such an extent have they been brainwashed and controlled by their own ideological commitments. It is certainly true that there were some cases in the American universities when the actions of the students went beyond the limits of what is proper and legitimate.
Some of the worst incidents, as we know now, were instigated by government provocateurs, 4 though a few, without doubt, represented excesses of the student movement itself.
Those are the incidents on which many commentators focus their attention when they condemn the student movement. The major effect of the student movement, however, was quite different, I believe. It raised a challenge to the subservience of the universities to the state and other external powers — although that challenge has not proven very effective, and this subordination has remained largely intact — and it managed to provoke, at times with some limited success, an opening in the ideological fields, thus bringing a slightly greater diversity of thought and study and research.
Many intellectuals are seeking to reconstruct the orthodoxy and the control over thought and inquiry which they had institutionalized with such success, and which was in fact threatened — freedom is always a threat to the commissars.
CHOMSKY: The immediate issue was the Vietnam war, but also the civil rights movement of the preceding years — you must remember that the activists in the vanguard of the civil rights movement in the South had very often been students, for example, SNCC Student Non-violent Coordinating Committeewhich was a very important and effective group with a largely black leadership, and supported by many white students. Furthermore, some of the earlier issues had to do with opening up the campus to a greater range of thought and to political activity of diverse tendencies, as in the Berkeley free speech controversy.
During the period when the domination of faculty ideologues was not yet at issue, the universities were highly politicized and made regular and significant contributions to external powers, especially to the government, its programs and its policies; this continued to be true during the period of the student movement, just as it is today. It would be more exact to say that the student movement, from the beginning, tried to open up the universities and free them from outside control.
It is less obvious, perhaps, but nevertheless true, I think, in the domain of academic scholarship. To illustrate this, take the example of the history of the cold war, and the so-called revisionist interpretation of the period following World War II.
This orthodoxy, quite dominant at the time, held that the cold war was due solely to Russian and Chinese aggressiveness, and that the United States played a passive role, merely reacting to this. This position was adopted by even the most liberal commentators. Take a man like John Kenneth Galbraith who, within the liberal establishment, has long been one of the most open, questioning, and skeptical minds, one of those who tried to break out of the orthodox framework on many issues.
Well, in his book The New Industrial Statepublished in — as late as that! They argued that the cold war resulted from an interaction of great power designs and suspicions. This position not only has prima facie plausibility, but also receives strong support from the historical and documentary record.
Students had read these books and wanted to have them discussed. What resulted is quite interesting. In the first place, as soon as the revisionist alternative was seriously considered, the orthodox position simply dissolved, vanished. As soon as the debate was opened, it found itself lacking an object, virtually. The orthodox position was abandoned. To be sure, orthodox historians rarely admitted that they had been in error. Orthodox historians took over some elements of the revisionist analysis, while attributing to them an idiotic doctrine that was fundamentally different from what had actually been proposed, and in fact was the mirror image of the original orthodox position.
The motivation for this mode of argument is of course obvious enough. Starting from this slightly revised basis, many orthodox historians have sought to reconstruct the image of American benevolence and passivity. But I do not want to go into this development here. As for the impact of the revisionist analysis, Galbraith again provides an interesting example: I have already quoted his book, which appeared in But the position is at least tenable, in contrast to the orthodox position, which he gave in the previous edition four years earlier — and prior to the general impact of the student movement on the universities.
Galbraith is an interesting example just because he is one of the most open, critical, and questioning minds among the liberal intelligentsia. His comments on the cold war and its origins are also interesting because they are presented as a casual side remark: he does not attempt in this context to give an original historical analysis, but merely reports in passing the doctrine accepted among those liberal intellectuals who were somewhat skeptical and critical.
We are not talking here about an Arthur Schlesinger or other ideologues who at times present a selection of historical facts in a manner comparable to the party historians of other faiths. One can understand why so many liberal intellectuals were terrified at the end of the sixties, why they describe this period as one of totalitarianism of the left: for once they were compelled to look the world of facts in the face.
A serious threat, and a real danger for people whose role is ideological control. There is a recent and quite interesting study put out by the Trilateral Commission — The Crisis of Democracyby Michel Crozier, Samuel Huntington, and Joji Watanuki — in which an international group of scholars and others discuss what they see as contemporary threats to democracy.
By the late sixties the discussion had gone beyond the question of Vietnam or the interpretation of contemporary history; it concerned the institutions themselves. Orthodox economics was very briefly challenged by students who wanted to undertake a fundamental critique of the functioning of the capitalist economy; students questioned the institutions, they wanted to study Marx and political economy. Perhaps I can illustrate this once again with a personal anecdote: In the spring of a small group of students in economics here in Cambridge wanted to initiate a discussion of the nature of economics as a field of study.
In order to open this discussion, they tried to organize a debate in which the two main speakers would be Paul Samuelson, the eminent Keynesian economist at MIT today a Nobel laureateand a Marxist economist. But for this latter role they were not able to find anyone in the Boston area, no one who was willing to question the neo-classical position from the point of view of Marxist political economy.
Finally I was asked to take on the task, though I have no particular knowledge of economics, and no commitment to Marxism. Not one professional, or even semi-professional, in ! And Cambridge is a very lively place in these respects. That may give you some idea of the prevailing intellectual climate. It is difficult to imagine anything comparable in Western Europe or Japan. The student movement changed these things to a small extent: what was described, as I told you, as terror at the university … the SS marching through the corridors … the academic intelligentsia barely survived these terrifying attacks by student radicals … of course, due solely to their great courage.
Unbelievable fantasies! Although, to be sure, there were incidents, sometimes instigated by provocateurs of the FBI, as we know now, which stimulated that paranoid interpretation. What a devastating thing, to have opened up the university just a little!
But the mass media were hardly touched at all, and now orthodoxy has been reestablished, because the pressure is no longer there. When the New Left developed within the student movement in the United States, it could not associate itself with any broader social movement, rooted in any important segment of the population.
In large part this was the result of the ideological narrowness of the preceding period. Students form a social group that is marginal and transitory. The student left constituted a small minority, often confronted by very difficult circumstances. A living intellectual tradition of the left did not exist, nor a socialist movement with a base in the working class. There was no living tradition or popular movement from which they could gain support.
Under these circumstances, it is perhaps surprising that the student movement lasted as long as it did. Students today seem to find it easier to adapt to the demands imposed from the outside, though one should not exaggerate; in my experience at least, colleges are quite unlike the fifties and early sixties.
The economic stagnation and recession have a lot to do with student attitudes. Under the conditions of the sixties, students could suppose that they would find means of subsistence, no matter what they did. The society seemed to have sufficient interstices, there was a sense of expansiveness and optimism, so that one could hope to find a place somehow.
Now that is no longer the case. Student activism has felt the effect of all this. Other factors have also played a role. There is evidence that certain universities, perhaps many of them, have explicitly sought to exclude leftist students. Leftist students also have had serious difficulties in working at the universities, or later, in gaining appointments, at least in the ideological disciplines, political science, economics, Asian studies, for example.
QUESTION: At the time of the French publication of your book Counterrevolutionary Violence Bains de Sang there was much talk in France about the fact that the English original had been censored that is, distribution was blocked by the conglomerate to which the publishing house belonged; the publishing house itself was closed and its personnel dismissed.
French television has cast doubt on this story. I have often thought that if a rational Fascist dictatorship were to exist, then it would choose the American system. State censorship is not necessary, or even very efficient, in comparison to the ideological controls exercised by systems that are more complex and more decentralized.
The real question raised was not: Did Nixon employ evil methods against his political adversaries? The answer is clear. Nixon was condemned, not because he employed reprehensible methods in his political struggles, but because he made a mistake in the choice of adversaries against whom he turned these methods. He attacked people with power.
The telephone taps? Such practices have existed for a long time. But nothing happened to those who were on that list. I was on that list, nothing happened to me. No, he simply made a mistake in his choice of enemies: he had on his list the chairman of IBM, senior government advisers, distinguished pundits of the press, highly placed supporters of the Democratic Party.
He attacked the Washington Posta major capitalist enterprise. And these powerful people defended themselves at once, as would be expected. Men of power against men of power. Similar crimes, and others much graver, could have been charged against other people as well as Nixon. But those crimes were typically directed against minorities or against movements of social change, and few ever protested. The ideological censorship kept these matters from the public eye during the Watergate period, although remarkable documentation concerning this repression appeared at just this time.
It was only when the dust of Watergate had settled that the press and the political commentators turned toward some of the real and profound cases of abuse of state power — still without recognizing or exploring the gravity of the issue. For example, the Church Committee has published information, the significance of which has not really been made clear. At the time of its revelations, a great deal of publicity was focused on the Martin Luther King affair, but still more important revelations have hardly been dealt with by the press to this day January For example, the following: In Chicago there was a street gang called the Blackstone Rangers, which operated in the ghetto.
The Black Panthers were in contact with them, attempting to politicize them, it appears. As long as the Rangers remained a ghetto street gang — a criminal gang, as depicted by the FBI, at least — the FBI were not much concerned; this was also a way of controlling the ghetto.
But radicalized into a political group, they became potentially dangerous. The basic function of the FBI is not to stop crime. Rather, it functions as a political police, in large measure. An indication is given by the FBI budget and the way it is apportioned. The breakdown of these documents was approximately the following: 30 percent were devoted to routine procedures; 40 percent to political surveillance involving two right-wing groups, ten groups concerned with immigrants, and more than two hundred liberal or left-wing groups; 14 percent to AWOLs and deserters; 1 percent to organized crime — mostly gambling — and the rest to rape, bank robbery, murder, etc.
Faced with the potential alliance of The Crisis Of Democracy - Noam Chomsky - Propaganda And Control Of The Public Mind (CD) Rangers and the Black Panthers, the FBI decided to take action, in line with the national program of dismantling the left in which it was engaged, the national Counter-Intelligence Program known as Cointelpro. The FBI had to take on the task of destroying the Panthers itself. Though there has been no systematic investigation, we can reconstruct what seems to be a plausible story: A few months later, in Decemberthe Chicago police conducted a pre-dawn raid on a Panther apartment.
Approximately one hundred shots were fired. At first the The Crisis Of Democracy - Noam Chomsky - Propaganda And Control Of The Public Mind (CD) claimed that they had responded to the fire of the Panthers, but it was quickly established by the local press that this was false.
Fred Hampton, one of the most talented and promising leaders of the Panthers, was killed in his bed. There is evidence that he may have been drugged. Witnesses claim that he was murdered in cold blood. He was disregarded as a public intellectual and rather considered a crazy madman. It is a good reminder of how going against the mainstream narrative cuts down your possibilities and opportunities. Perhaps, explains why so many celebrities do not tend to use the powerful platform they have by calling a spade a spade.
This chapter also has a discussion about India - how it has grown economically and how U. S is changing its policies w. Not very off-the mark in a way. Nobody is going to pour truth into your brain. May 27, Jian Xuan rated it really liked it. Granted that the interviews were given close to a decade ago, the material remains relevant to the modern-day social malaise afflicting countries all over the world.
By asking simple questions, Chomsky skillfully dissects the concepts that we have taken for granted all this while, which makes for really thought-provoking reading. For The Crisis Of Democracy - Noam Chomsky - Propaganda And Control Of The Public Mind (CD), the idea that uneducated people are in a way liberalized because they are free to think and construct their own ideas outside of education, a systematic and propagandistic indoctrination of the people.
I also particularly enjoyed how he cuts through the bullshit and trumped-up statistics by governments and analysts to show the truth if there can ever be one, as Mr. Chomsky would highly dispute behind the smoke screens of "economic growth" put up to distract us from the inequality and poverty plaguing modern-day societies. Speaking as a rather ignorant reader, I also found some of the cases he mentioned useful, although I had to do my own research on them because little context is provided.
Edward Herman's questions were all right although he sometimes asked the wrong questions, which Chomsky would swiftly shoot down. I'd have preferred if the book was penned entirely by Chomsky instead of a compilation of his interview excerpts, so that there could be more clarity in the prose.
Overall, a highly enjoyable and interesting read and a good start to my Chomsky collection. Jun 24, Robert rated it it was amazing Shelves: favorites. What is so valuable about this book is the manner which David Barsamian picks Noam Chomsky's mind on a wide range of topics. So I recommend this as Excellent. Classic Chomsky. Covers a wide range of his intellectual capabilities and a wide range of issues of society as a whole. Even though it was written 10 years ago, the topics are still quite relevant today.
After having read much of Chomsky's work, this one goes down as a summary of sorts for my personal collection of Chomsky. I would recommend it highly to anyone who would like to get a broad introduction to the work of this invaluable political mind. I started this book with high expectations. And it really met them but the late part of the interviews are kind of obvious.
In other words, we are almost sure of Chomsky position on a certain topic. On the other hand; the last part about the education and competitiveness is very informative and useful for the daily life.
About one out of six dollars in the whole economy is spent on marketing. That's an extremely inefficient use of funds. Marketing doesn't produce any public goods. Marketing is a form of manipulation and deceit. It's an effort to create artificial wants; to control the way people think. Aug 13, The Crisis Of Democracy - Noam Chomsky - Propaganda And Control Of The Public Mind (CD), Claire rated it it was ok.
Honestly speaking, I don't like dialogue books, even if the topic interests me, and Noam Chomsky is such an important person to know about, besides maybe Plato's Apology. Jul 27, Fatma rated it really liked it. The most clear brain ever. Yet another excellent, in depth analysis of the power and effects of propaganda.
Mar 04, Franco Romero rated it it was amazing. Enlightening and paradigm shifting. I wish everyone would read this. Feb 25, Rob rated it liked it Shelves: politics. A lot of the same topics as requiem tho. Dec 26, Mindy Stone rated it it was amazing. I discovered this book back in the early 's when I was trying to grasp the truth about what kind of country I was really born and raised in one that would allow the US Supreme Court to throw out an entire state's ballots to anoint GWB our President.
Chomsky is a difficult read especially if you are constantly dropping your jaw and hitting the mental pause button in your brain from the truths he tells. It is hard to come to the conclusion that one has been lied to so I discovered this book back in the early 's when I was trying to grasp the truth about what kind of country I was really born and raised in one that would allow the US Supreme Court to throw out an entire state's ballots to anoint GWB our President. It is hard to come to the conclusion that one has been lied to so well and so long by so many in one's society.
This book propelled me to verify the information he was sharing the info was so disturbing to me. Sure enough, there it was in a 's psychology encyclopedia book the very quote Chomsky had written and spoken about.
This book is a must read for those who want to uncover the truth about this country and how this society works against the working class for the ruling rich-not working class. I've read and re-read this book from time to time as it always has something to point out to me that I glossed over or forgot about as our society as we leave the second decade of the 21st Century spirals into a dark post-modern era.
Jul 14, Katrina Sark rated it it was ok. For Reasons of State February 2, p. There is one major exception. What was Dostoyevsky writing about that caught your attention? They need to be subordinated to mystery and magic and control.
You understood that to be the state. He was writing in Russia, remember. Aug 20, Othmane rated it it was ok. Strangely I didn't like one. This is my second time reading Chomsky, I decided to read this book after reading "Who rules the world" which I really liked. I don't enjoy reading dialogue books so that must be why this one didn't click for me.
Apart from that, there are some really interesting informations, most of them are related the horrible foreign policy of the United States. Dec 16, Chris rated it it was amazing. This is the funnest Chomsky book to read. If you find another book with evidence of the smartest communicator in the world that is not Chomsky, let me know. Several interviews that are about something bad happening in a faraway land in which America has played a part.
Trouble, trouble! Jan 26, Grant rated it really liked it. A short read but an important message of breaking through propaganda.
There are no discussion topics on this book yet. Readers also enjoyed. About Noam Chomsky. Noam Chomsky. Avram Noam Chomsky is an American linguist, philosopher, political activist, author, and lecturer.
He is an Institute Professor and professor emeritus of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Chomsky is credited with the creation of the theory of generative grammar, considered to be one of the most significant contributions to the field of linguistics made in the 20th century. H Avram Noam Chomsky is an American linguist, philosopher, political activist, author, and lecturer. He also helped spark the cognitive revolution in psychology through his review of B.
Skinner's Verbal Behaviorin which he challenged the behaviorist approach to the study of behavior and language dominant in the s. His naturalistic approach to the study of language has affected the philosophy of language and mind. He is also credited with the establishment of the Chomsky hierarchy, a classification of formal languages in terms of their generative power. Beginning with his critique of the Vietnam War in the s, Chomsky has become more widely known for his media criticism and political activism, and for his criticism of the foreign policy of the United States and other governments.
According to the Arts and Humanities Citation Index inChomsky was cited as a source more often than any other living scholar during the — time period, and was the eighth-most cited scholar in any time period.
Books by Noam Chomsky. Related Articles. There's something great about a paperback book: They're perfect book club choices, you can throw them in your bag and go, and they've been out in Read more Trivia About Propaganda and th
Lady Let It Lie, Love Me - The Cramps - ...Off The Bone (Vinyl, LP), The Salvadors / Mickey Champion - Stick By Me Baby / What Good Am I (Vinyl), The Preacher - Testament (2) - Live At The Fillmore (Cassette, Album), My Heart - Neil Young And Crazy Horse* - Sleeps With Angels (CD, Album), A.E. Frogstein - Sleepbringer - Residuum (File), Say Mama - Gene Vincent - Gene Vincent with Interview by Red Robinson (Vinyl, LP), Aconteceu - Cristina Branco - Corpo Iluminado (CD, Album), Something Aint Right - Slam Slam - Something Aint Right (Vinyl), Deadringer For Love