Noam Chomsky on Newsnight BBC
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 11 мар 2011
- (2011.03.08) Jeremy Paxman's interview with Professor in linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), philosopher, cognitive scientist and political activist, Noam Chomsky.
It'll be a sad day when this man dies. Great great man.
U.S. Major General Smedley Butler: " I spent 33 years and 4 months in active military service . . . And during that period I spent most of my time as a high-class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. Thus, I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927, I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Our boys were sent off to die with beautiful ideals painted in front of them. No one told them that dollars and cents were the real reason they were marching off to kill and die.”
www.americanswhotellthetruth.org/portraits/major-general-smedley-butler?fbclid=IwAR18mjqIVZZOqQS8g6VmTeTWEpHtoIv5AnkNC2Nef5yIaMF38I67RjHkNQ8
Noam is a true intellectual and I as an American am so proud of his scientific and political work.
Jeremy Reagan You’re proud of something that you’ve had no part in achieving. That makes no sense at all 🤣
@@all_is_1485 Mmm, can you imagine NOT feeling proud of something despicable you had no hands in bringing about...i hope you can because it's pretty obvious pride is not necessarily something you yourself have to bring about personally, either in it's positive presence or it's negative absence. simple example; I'm proud of the NHS in Britain but was neither responsible for legislating it into existence, nor do i work in it. Moreover, I don't regard myself as personally responsible for the many homeless persons who live on the street in my country but I'm not proud of living in a nation whose socioeconomic policies greatly increase the likelihood that my peers might suffer that fate.
You're proud of a z- gatekeeper?
Paxman came all guns blazing. Little old chomsky Bruce Lee'd his ass big time.
+kadir bashir I have the same sentiment but not the skill of metaphor. Paxman uncharacteristically out of his depth.
Lol. Thank you sir
I love Chomsky - can we freeze him and keep him forever please?
Yes, his beliefs in independent thinking and human freedom will be taken over by each and one of us.
He's still going strong.
Whatever, he is ALREADY a man for all seasons. His views and his unique capacity of analyzing any situation from such a global prospective - as if it was observed from the Moon, so to speak - is definitely univeral. A true treasure for the human species, just like Socrates’ teachings. The saddest consideration about it is that, even if he hadn’t been kind of ‘cancelled’ for half a century by the mainstream ‘system’, only the (un)happy few will ever feel concerned by what he’s got to say. 🙏🏼🙏🏾🙏
Nobody is going to be able to replace Chomsky D:
QUIT GETTING OLD WE NEED TO HEAR ALL YOUR STORIES
This one of the first times I've seen Paxman show some fucking respect.
Chomsky is usually interviewed on radio or by other academics in front of a student audience. But I just love it when he quietly takes apart smart-ass journalists like Paxo -there's another good one here on youtube with Andrew Marr. Chomsky's light years ahead of them intellectually but he never humiliates them, just makes them looks like smallfry. Keep it up Professor!
Of course it's only because Chomsky speaks the truth that he doesn't have a column in the New York Times and the London Independent.
itsinmynamechap
Yes it's embarrassing (or perhaps I should say it would be, if it wasn't so typical) how many people feel qualified to comment on journalism and journalistic technique, without having the slightest understanding of either. The true purpose of questions is to facilitate the giving of answers that will illustrate the interviewed party's opinions for the benefit of the audience; not to be overtly hostile towards them or (worse) be overly friendly and allow any individual to present their views as received wisdom, or common knowledge.
The vast majority of the people on either side the major political divides will never understand that point though. They have "with us or against us" mentalities, because their opinions are based on simple minded tribalism, rather than serious consideration.
Have you never seen paxman interview someone? You do realise he's not expressing his own opinions when he interviews people right? He's trying to play devil's advocate in such a way that he covers the most popular objections to any particular view.
chebob2009 hmmm....well he certainly likes to put across that he knows it all
splinterbyrd If you compare Paxman to his successor, Evan Davis, it seems he is a know-it-all after all. Did you see Evan's woeful 5-minute interview with Chomsky last week? Also, I've already seen a few other interviewees steamroller Evan to stuttering insignificance. He's simply too much a nice guy. Please BBC, pay Paxman to return, or find a proper successor. Please.
Thanks for the tip on the Andrew Marr interview. Brilliant.
truthhiddeninplainsight.tumblr.com/
People shouldn't give the interviewer a hard time. He poses questions that Chomsky's detractors pose to let Chomsky answer them and debunk them.
He is doing his job and helping chomsky elucidate his opinions.
Yeah real elucidating to ask "why do you care about stupid people?" which just makes Chomsky have to re-iterate his entire point about Congress. Again.
@@davidwest6019 I don't agree. It gave Chomsky the opportunity to contextualise what he's saying which is particularly valuable for audiences who may not be that familiar with the American system.
Agreed. The most antagonistic interviewers are always the best for Chomsky. Everyone who is sympathetic to Chomsky is sympathetic in the same way, and they get him to merely rehash his basic views. But every antagonistic interviewer tries some different line, and has some unique flaw, which Chomsky will dismantle thoughtfully and thoroughly. You end up learning more and being more surprised from the antagonistic interviews.
Although I agree that the "stupid people" question is an absolute embarrassment for Paxman and wasn't productive.
@@bubblepopshot6891 tbh I don’t think we should criticise antagonistic journalists, and we should go “this person SLAMS journalist”. If they do ‘SLAM’ a journalist, it usually means the arguments which a journalist puts forward, which tends to be contrarian to an interviewee’s point of view, is ‘slammed’. Therefore a journalist has done their job, which is to challenge an interviewee and ensure that they can respond to counter points. Obviously there are limits, such as Piers Morgan, but for the most part we’re very hard on journalists, unfairly imo
Notice how Paxman remarks "Why are you worried about stupid people, though?" - It's almost as if he holds the belief that there is some all-pervading metaphysical platonic force that dictates that the powerful must be of superior intelligence by virtue of their position, and the unintelligent must by nature have less power,as if power chooses to confer itself on people based on their degree of moral and intellectual edification. Typical unintelligent, ignorant, totally non-empirical classist assumption.
Another Intellectual spanking by Chomsky, The facts and figures he remembers is just amazing and then to put that all together, yet to hear any Journalist stump Noam!
Chomsky's smile when he's asked "Why haven't you mellowed?" - one of an optimist.
The comparison of the fanaticism of religious fundamentalists to Free market fundamentalists at the end...was fucking brilliant.
Yes I agree, the end is just amazing, paxman says "thats great"
I have never heard Paxman say "that's great" at the end of any other interview he's done in his long career.
Friend him on facebook? sod that, I want to just give him a big hug. People like Noam who will openly and honestly stand up and criticise power are rare, we need more of them and we should listen to them and appreciate them far more than we do.
16:27 I laughed so much. Chomsky has such brilliant yet subtle wit.
oh i love you chomster.
Love this guy
Chomsky, you are my hero!
Great interview from both of them, both at the top of their professions. If there is conflict in the discussion it only helps to illuminate what is being said. It is strange to me to see so much criticism on YT of high-quality work. Could anyone here do it better? Why not criticise the bad stuff, there's plenty of it around.
Paxman is an intellectual ant, compared to the giant intellect of Chomsky. I don't always agree with Chomsky, but the BBC bought an intellectual knife (Paxman) to a nuclear bombardment (Chomsky).
@@utubecomment21 it's an interview, not a debate. If Chomsky is able to "trounce" Paxman's questions, that's a good thing. Paxo is there to instigate Chomsky's responses, not score points.
18:57 six simple words and the best answer ever, chomsky is a hero
Anarchy is peace. There is no authority but yourself.
Paxman lives in our neighbourhood; he will see one of us on his doorstep sooner or later! Hopefully sooner than later
That BBC interview technique: it's hilarious when it's used on someone you dislike and teeth-grittingly annoying used on someone you think makes sense :D
Did Paxman say 'that's great' at the end?
I do !
Starting at 19:45
Interviewer:
‘But why do you care about stupid people?’
Chomsky:
‘Stupid people… these people have power. And they are carrying out actions.’
20:26 "why do you care about stupid people?" you have yo love Paxo
This interview would be so much better if it ended with Noam stabbing Paxman in the leg with a pencil...no particular reason
Hah, always good to see Paxo put in his place, I love U the Chomsky, adopt me please.
Hope this guy learned a thing or two from the world's smartest man.
I dont have facebook... just like I have no TV... iam 23.. its my free choice and I think its the way to go to stay aware and sane.
What ever you're doing kiddo keep doing it.
It's all about feels for the douch.
a chain is only as strong as its weakest link, or put another way the whole is the sum of all its parts.
00:58 oh I think its wonderful EPIC.
Hope people would stop saying they will loss him.
?
Definitely. Would love a chat with him...not Mr Paxman so much though
@rjjk91 It's because i've seen him interview many people. He has a fine sense of when to press a point, and when to just let an interviewee do their own thing.. which in Chomsky's case is never a bad thing. This wasn't meant to be about Noam personally, this was meant to be about his thoughts on the uprisings in the middle-east/north africa. It certainly wasn't meant to be a debate.
By 'the host' you mean Jeremy Paxman, I think- he tends to do that a lot.
"Stupid people have power."
A repugnantly accurate aphorism.
I would, but I'm not on facebook.
Quite right, additionally, Chomsky must've made it very clear over 60 years of oeuvre that you cannot predicate broad statements on states or institutions unless you clarify who makes the actual decision; another related point is that states only operate on the basis of power-hegemony-domination, not on moral grounds
2:43 “First of all it didn’t happen. 😂
@lo2enge why do you strongly disagree? He asked mundane questions and clearly had no interest in having a serious discussion or ask deep questions. He basically just asked Chomsky to explain himself
Notice how one of the first questions he was asked about Lybia was if we should get militarily involved. Also note that whenever the interviewer mentioned "getting involved" he was referring to military action, not diplomacy. Thats a huge red flag that this guy is drowning in the cool-aid.
Absolutely, Friedman's hypotheses are a case of blind faith.
Older generations are more left than the youth.
Matt Biden cause the youth are kept stupefied
I think it has more to do with communism being around during there era and still believe in it.
+Matt Biden nah
Niko060688 Most hard core leftist are from the baby boomer generation. Look at the 2 front runners in the democrap party. Old socialist.
+Matt Biden He was always an anarchist, as far back as the mid fifties if i'm not mistaken, and people at that time were completely raging under the Red Scare.
I would rather have paxmen interview people I respect. I don't like his political views but he's a strong intwrviewer and he should make people elucidate their points
You do not respect Chomsky?
Two wrongs do not make a right!
haha
The best thing about the internet is Porn. Oh and YT of course.
His comments on internet freedom shout loud now don't they.
@rjjk91 What do you mean? If you mean scary, that's his persona.. if you mean unskilled, well.. you don't know his work, so i shan't flame you for that opinion, but i strongly disagree.
paxman asked some foolish questions like why chomsky should care about stupid people which chomsky reminds paxman of the power these stupid people have. paxman clearly sees politics as something we should observe but not care more about other than saying they are stupid people.
The implication of Paxman's inital questions is that Chomsky would be upset by people in the middle east uprising agains their Government. This shows Paxman's shallow understanding of Chomsky's criticism's of the USA and of his profound ignorance of world events. Paxman was totally out of his depth.
All of that unrest paid off. Finally, peace in the Middle East. Praise god and allah.
😮
Agree, the war will not end till they retirate of there, but, who then will guarantee that people there can live without religious fanatism and extremism?
Flat-out factually wrong; the UN Genocide Convention MANDATES ACTION BE TAKEN as soon as the information of potential genocide identified to either "prevent or punish" any sate guilty of such an act. The convention has mandatory signatory powers, too, meaning any nation that's a signatory can take military action. It works on the same principle as NATO; one NATO member is attacked, all have to/must respond.
@fpscockyboi It's no secret.
1/2
Christopher Hitchens on Chomsky;
"He [Chomsky] has now been impeached by his own standards, since scrutiny of the evidence does not bear him out on Serbia or Afghanistan or Iraq. It didn't bear him out on Cambodia either, though he was never a "Holocaust denier" or anything like it. And he has, I think, ceased to be of any use to young people who might pardonably doubt the official story." Continued...
Hitchens vs Galloway, enjoy. What a hack Hitchens was...
It's the interviewers job to be as adversarial and difficult as possible. Don't get upset when your favourite gets a hard time by the interviewer.
Yo, you're right of course - Wiki provides sourced material so you can check it. However stuff on important political issues seems biased. Robert Fisk documents Western support for Saddam - wikipedia doesn't. On the other hand the science pages of wiki seem robust from creationist influence. Are propagandists effecting the political pages but not the scientific?
Turkey proved to be the fifths column of the NATO in Syria!
yeah,noam seems to tell the truth,he just doesn't seem to care much about anything -it's all very formatory and matter-of-fact,his lectures and monologues--surely if his advice were ever followed,we'd've been so much better off
at 18:57 the host plays the age card & asks why has Noam not mellowed. IRRELEVANT.
the Host is actually saying why hasn't NOAM shut up already. Said host has been bludgeoned by logic and is miffed he could not control the interview.
Why wont Paxman shut up about the internet
I wonder what this interviewer would say about how well the West did in their “obligation” to interfere in Libya on behalf of the rebels. Is he now less naive when it comes to overthrowing seemingly cruel dictators in third world countries, or is he still completely unaware of the consequences of destabilizing poor regions? They went from being one of the most developed African countries to having widespread warfare, child slavery, becoming a haven for ISIS, etc. Does he honestly believe they’re better off?
What are you implying? Chomsky is also Jewish.
13:53 Chomsky pulls Paxman up for his interpretation of what he said but here is proof he did once say it ruclips.net/video/xIbfl7OQ0y4/видео.html
I think his overall point is the same.
Quietly and calmly takes apart Paxman who is clearly getting frustrated because he can't get Chomsky to bite.
Right, but no need to consult with Wiki in the first place...
@peoman2 He is - Paxman's 'great quality' is his cold egotism. He has confidence in front of a microphone - good for £1,000,000 per year , huh?!
Interesting but Chomsky's use of the word "west" is contextually the same as the west's use of the word "Islam". France is the west, Britain is the west, but Britain and France walk different paths so while being the same when described as being western, are in reality as similar as Iraq and Iran.
both France and Britain illegally bombed Syria haha
@peoman2 This is the first time I've seen Paxman tentative and humbled in interview.
Paxman, you should be embarrassed!
Yer can't rely on Wikipedia.
Excellent point. I have found deliberate misinformation on topics related to our economically driven wars of intervention and the white helmets, uzmynem. It makes me think it likely that they publish other lies that I do not see.
BLACK BLOC
Paxman keeps asking, what should the west do? This is like asking what the Mafia should do about the crime problem in america.
3:00- 3:25 What he said about Frank Wisner is inaccurate. Wisner deviated from the administration's views and suggested out of his own [possible] self interest that Mubarak stay in power.
I doubt Obama is so stupid [I don't really like him] that he would make a diplomat say such things. But yes he is right in that Wisner is a lobbyist for Mubarak.
God this interviewer is horrific
2/2
"anyone who supports the war in Iraq of 2003 is an ignorant fool who does not care about international norms and laws because those prevent preemptive self-defence and yet Hitchens stood behind Bush when he went in there without any evidence because there was none"
So, I guess the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treat and the UN Genocide Convention, which Hussein violated, aren't "international norms" to you. Hitchens had his own (correct) arguments for the 2003 liberation.
Hitchens was already destroyed by Galloway. Very enjoyable video. Hitchens was a neocon zionist, that's why he supported illegal war of agression based on lies.
Seriously why is he asking questions about the internet as though Chomsky might be anti-technology...He seems to be assuming Chomsky thinks EVERYTHING from the West = Bad. Which he doesn't. At all...Paxman's actually pretty stupid.
Jeremy Paxman comes across as someone that doesn't understand history.
Interviewer is a nuisance, a sort of prized goof.
He is a Jew!
Got em! Was that supposed to be a secret or something?