Noam Chomsky on The World After September 11 (2001)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 сен 2017
- Professor Noam Chomsky talked about the U.S. and world response, humanitarian issues, and alternatives to current U.S. policy.
Join us on Patreon! / manufacturingintellect
Donate Crypto! commerce.coinbase.com/checkou...
Share this video! 
Развлечения
Join us on Patreon! www.patreon.com/ManufacturingIntellect
Donate Crypto! commerce.coinbase.com/checkout/868d67d2-1628-44a8-b8dc-8f9616d62259
Share this video!
Will make a transcript and post the gems out of this speech.
"i was directed to a dark closed garage and was wondering what..." that's some dark humor
"...where to go, and when to come." Been there.
I used to have this weird relationship with a woman, or two...
What an intellectual marvel
That speech was on Dec. 8th, 2001. The war against Afghanistan had been planned before, from what I heard, which would explain the remarkable speed. Around October 20th the U.S. already bombed Afghanistan. The just paid lip service to the prosedures of asking the Taliban for unconditional surrender. I guess Cheney / Bush would have been very unpleasantly surprised if the Taliban had handed over Osama bin Laden. A public trial so he could spell the beans ?
A war is a logistics operation, that needs time. See the buildup for the Iraq war in 1990 and in 2002 where the mood was carefully influenced.
Cheney / Bush had been asleep at the wheel regarding 9/11. democrats very politely (cowardly) abstained from pointing that out (they have the same donors and those love war, and they were fearful of being called "unpatriotic", kudos to Barbara Lee that was the ONLY Democrat that voted against the Afghanistan war, on the Republican side maybe Ron Paul ?)
So the government - despite plenty of help of the useless Democrats and the subservient, war lusting media needed a good distraction.
Bill Clinton after being able to pass NAFTA (Bush 1 was not able to get it passed, it needed a Corporate democrat to screw the workforce, their own base) had prepared the China deal. They handed that over to the incoming Cheney / Bush administration. Bush signed that in January or Feb. 2002. _No big discussion_ like in 1991 when Ross Perot had rocked the boat and got almost 19 % of the popular vote.
Companies already started outsourcing in 2000, I think as soon as the candidates of both parties were clear, they knew neither Al Gore nor Bush would hinder them. China joining the WHO was only a matter of time, they were good. And that picked up in speed once China had joined the WHO and had the permanently reduced tariffs.
Before that was an annual privilege of the House, which made that into a yearly spectacle and political football. But not out of principled oppostion. Bill Clinton took the ball away from them and handed over that power to the state department. Now that was better for big biz, but not good enough.
What when another Ross Perot came along (and that billionaire had been a Republican). Or a FDR like figure ?
They were reassured by the type of candidates that won the primaires in 2000, and of course have those privileged import tariffs enshrined into an international treaty is much, much better, then hoping that always a sellout will win the primary and the elections and that the population will be easily deceived when their very livelyhood is affected.
The low wages they intended to pay after outsourcing meant those exploited workers could not afford to buy what they helped to produced. Big biz in the West only turned their back on the workforce they still needed the consumers. And if a government sympathetic to the domestic workforce would impose IMPORT tariffs, the goods would become more expensive cancelling out some of the gains (or all of them) from the outsourcing.
Therefore outsourcing ramped up fast once Bush had signed the China deal in early 2002. Around that time they tried to overthrow incredibly popular Chavez in Venezuela, and planned the war against Iraq. And 6 other nations.
See 7 countries in 5 years as reported by General Wesley Clark.
Of course the Cheney / Bush admin looked the other way when the banks pushed bad loans that helped to sustain the real estate bubble. The donors (of both parties) liked it. the prefered voters of both parties (affluent) liked it. And they had no intention to waste money on education, healthcare, investments in traditional infrastructure or renewables. The construction jobs kept the economy somewhat going.
Noam chomsky is definitely a Greatful Dead fan. I feel it in my bones.
Chomsky 20 years agoin his 70s is hard to bear - he delivers the condemning facts FAST and fluently. (He talks slowlier now, so naturally he cannot cover as many atrocities in any given time. Chomsky's older speeches with their stronger delivery also convey the sarcasm. Having workded hard to educate the public for so long, he must be utterly exasperated about those willing and lazy sheep - many are willing accomplices. In order to get their ego stroked in a boost of patriotic feels they will let their murderous governments do as they please.
And the governments indeed do as they please, they start wars to please the MIC and people in position of poer tend to their desire to be tough armchair warriors (see Cheney, Bush, Reagan - he had a cushy SAFE post in the army during WW2). Generals want to make careers with "successful" wars.
Remember when Reagan invaded PANAMA. And the Western press in the NATO member states did not slam him ? They are also undermined by the CIA.
Enough to make you wonder about humanity.
Nothing of that would be possible w/o the willing courtiers of the media that mislead the voters - admitted in 2001 one could be fearful of losing the job and livelyhood but it got better fast with the internet.
The likes of Chris Hayes and Rachel Maddow could be forces for good, they have the millions on the accounts, they are set for life and could use their privilege to be trailblazers for wakening up the sheeple.
Those that want a comfortable (upper) middle class life by working in media go along gladly and remaine gladly in their brainwashed state (Emily what's her name is a good example. The typical clueless "conservative" it was glorious how Ryan Grim from Rising (The Hill) schooled her.
She seems to be a nice lady in person, but intellectually lazy, brainwashed, and despite having an "education" no clue whatsoever. But she feels qualified to comment on politics and to a wider audience no less (Krystal Ball and Saagar Enjeti had built the youtube channel, they had 1 million subsribers. Now Saagar played the role of the inconsistent, biased conservative before, but he was a little better than Emily, more knowledgeable and less favorable of the war machine.
It's no coincidence that Chomsky used to be a acknowledged intellectual and frequent guest on the mainstream media during the 60, 70 , and then slowly but steadily got ignored. The last decade and a half he's almost only seen on the internet. People like Hayes and Maddow do adres extremer problems and obvious corruption in society, but always from some 'honest woke capitalist 'point of view. They will never promote any real leftwing argument, because they make millions within the current system. And indeed.
Interestingly Chomsky has never attempted to imitate eminent thinkers such as Schopenhauer, Kant or Sartre, moreover he simply turned out to be brilliant eminence himself that surely is going to survive even the utmost religious uproars following his death.
This rhetoric is being surveilled more and more every day. The only reason it's still allowed is likely for big data to quantify and thus predict dissent.
Q&A?
Noam Chomsky has the intellect, the tenacity (the time), and the protection plus platform provided by a world renowned academic institution. Who will effectively shine this beacon to illuminate the details and hypocrisy of world powers once he is gone? And we should remember that the types of abuses of power of which he speaks are not confined to the USA. Similar episodes of demagogy have been carried out by Britain, by France, Germany, Russia, and increasingly by China. My question is not rhetorical! Where do we go, who do we turn to, to learn about the real motives and the real behaviors of world powers?
Look at someone like Snowden, interestingly enough, he also comes from a field that has nothing to do with the liberal arts/humanities. It's a stain on our country that we have kicked him out of the country. I suspect if people knew all the facts 90% of the population would want him to be allowed back in the U.S.
@@angelslovodan647 I think back in 2017 a poll found that around 33% of Americans wanted him pardoned, and a couple years later close to 50%. But yeah, if the government had less secrets and power, many more would support Snowden.
@@Jacob-qr8pl I think a poll also showed only like 1/3 of Americans had the most rudimentary knowledge about the bill of rights. So your numbers, assuming they are correct, don't say much. I'm pretty well informed and I didn't even know what Biden's plan was about Afghanistan until after it happened and it was too late to do anything about it. On it's surface, pulling out troops and letting Taliban take over the country, was a dumb idea.
1:01 So true
Excellent. I had to watch over two days because the truth is so disturbing.
A
Why is everyone just adoring Noam and no one is talking about how they are planning to organize and challenge the State Capitalism that is ruling the world? I, for my part, go to every City Council in my little town and demand a resolution to stop military aid to apartheid state of Israel! What do you do?
Getting more laughs than Billy Burr here 😆
9/11 must be mission impossible staring George Bush and his allies. 😁👸🙈🙊🙉
Epsteins good friend lectures us about who is good/bad and promotes one of the two murican aprties
Speak English dumbass 😂
Cliche after turgid cliche.
Noam’s ‘talks’ are an endlessly monotone extrusion of polemic verbiage. They sound intellectual, but are ultimately meaningless.
On the contrary, he has been trying to expose the deep seeded corruption and the ideas that money and power are always justifiable.
Your comment is a soup of big words that are put together to sound smart, but it’s ultimately meaningless.
He’s criticizing us foreign policy and calling attention to the fucked up realities of how the world works. Extremely eye opening to me. Some of the ideas he’s introduced about how the propaganda system works have been revelatory to me. Why don’t you explain what you dislike about his lectures instead of just lambasting them without even giving a bit of justification?
@@DirkVaughan haha… of course, just like dear Noam’s methodology . Glad you noticed