Noam Chomsky interview on his Life and Career (2003)

Well, part of this I do because I find it intellectually challenging, exciting and demanding, and part of it I do because I simply feel that it needs to be done so that you know that people are suffering bitterly all over the world. There are many things we can do. about it and that seems to be a responsibility that comes with the privilege and freedom that we have to an unusual, perhaps unique degree, to engage in these issues. What do you think of the United States? I think it is a complicated country, it has wonderful achievements. in some areas it has gone beyond the protection of freedom of expression of any other country in the world, for example, many other freedoms, it has tremendous, incomparable advantages, it had the largest economy in the world more than a century ago, yes, I don't think I used them properly.

I think many of the actions the US government has taken in the world are deplorable and should be stopped and reversed and you can't really comment on one country, there are just too many facets to it, there is a society, there is a culture. I mean too many things when I take my grandson to a baseball game like I did last Sunday. I enjoy being part of mainstream America. When I look at the US government's foreign policy or highly regressive domestic policies. I am extremely critical of Noam Chomsky. You'll be with us for just under three hours and we'll talk on the phone in the next few minutes, but for the first part of his show we want to chat a little bit about his

life

.

Philadelphia played an important role in your

life

. What year were you in? I was born I was born in 1928 in Philadelphia to a first generation Jewish immigrant family my parents were very involved in fact immersed in the Jewish community Hebrew culture my father was a Hebrew scholar he ran the Hebrew school systems my mother taught in them deeply committed to Zionist Zionism we have I have to remember that that was a little different then than it is today and, in fact, I grew up in a community where we were most of the time the only Jewish family in a mostly German and Irish Catholic community and a lot of problems that by the way my parents never knew but the streets were complicated places problems for you that they never give us a good example as I say there was a lot of anti-Semitism of that kind this is the 1330s deeply anti-Semitic period the I I don't like to say it, but I grew up with a kind of fear visceral to Catholics.

I knew it was irrational and I got over it, but it was just the street experience and there were periods during these were periods of complex ethnic conflicts in the cities um, there were times when I was a young teenager when in Philadelphia there was a curfew. , I think a seven or eight o'clock curfew for teenagers, if we wanted to go out at night we had to have parental authority, there were times when the path from the subway station to the Hebrew school was under police surveillance and it wasn't just Jews, you don't know, there was a lot of anti-Semitism, but a victory in all directions.

In fact, some of the novels written about the period describe urban ethnic conflicts that are complicated and real. I grew up in the midst of them. Where did your parents come from and what were they like? My father had come from Ukraine just before the First World War escaping the army. tsarist My mother had come from what is now Belarus her family came when she was a baby actually, but both families were first generation immigrant families, what would they like in your parents' lives? Well, I had a very warm and loving child that I looked back on.

It was a lot of warmth and affection, we were both working, they taught Hebrew school, so I was at school all day from when I was about a year and a half and I was actually in the early years through high school. school in an experimental school that was run by Temple University a wet eye in a school a wonderful place I don't know if there is anything like that today it encouraged creative activity there was no competition I didn't know I was a good student until I got to school secondary because the question never came up, you know you weren't graded on your achievements, I mean I knew I skipped class but I didn't think of anything in particular, others didn't or someone else did. a very healthy and exciting intellectual and social environment, why did you decide to go to the University of Pennsylvania, where you obtained?

I think your bachelor's, master's and doctoral question never came up, you didn't entertain the idea of ​​making it public, leaving home was inconceivable, yes. We were working students, both my wife and I, you went to the local school at home, I worked in the afternoons and the concept of going to university just wasn't there, it wasn't in it, you know, it didn't exist. The question never arose: when did you first become interested in linguistics? That was kind of an accident. Well, it's complicated. Actually, my father was a Hebrew scholar. He worked on medieval and grammar when he was a child.

You know, I read his manuscripts and the drafts of the book and so on, I was a little intrigued, but then through political contacts I met Zelich Harris, who I later found out was the most important and influential linguist in the country and who was teaching at the University of Pennsylvania. In reality, he was about to drop out of college at the time. I was pretty bored because I came in at 16 and there was a lot of anticipation and excitement, and for the most part it killed me in the first year and I wasn't really committed to staying.

I met him and he lured me back to college. I suspect, in retrospect, that he was doing it on purpose, but I don't know how I started taking his graduate courses and, through his influence, others as well, mostly graduate courses in other fields, and he was an extremely person. brilliant and exciting in many ways and my interests developed through those contacts and from there, when did you meet your wife Carol? She was about 2 years old and I was about four years old. I guess they were close-knit communities that she was also from. a Jewish community or the father and the mother were from European immigrants and the families knew each other and we had met as children and they went through a similar kind of history, you know, Hebrew schools, Hebrew camps when we were teenagers, we interacted in a In a different way, we got married very young, she was nineteen, I had just turned 21.

There are people who say that there are two Noam Chomskys, since you know the language and the political activists, which one do you prefer? I really can't say if the world would go away. I would love to continue with what is called my professional work. Linguistics. Philosophy. Cognitive sciences. on the other hand, the other activities in their own way or difficult, rewarding, complicated, also challenging and necessary again, if you have just joined us, our guests for the next two hours and 45 minutes, Noam Chomsky, who is now in the MIT, how long have you been there? 50 years, what year did you go there and why did I go there in 1955?

And actually, I had just been at Harvard for four years on a graduate fellowship and I had just gotten a PhD from the University of Pennsylvania, where I hadn't actually been for four years, I didn't have a recognized academic field, the work that I was doing I didn't fit in anywhere, I had no academic home, and I had no particular expectations of pursuing an academic

career

because, for one thing, they didn't fit. There did seem to be some possibility, but I received an invitation from MIT to be in the electronics laboratory. I practically don't know a telephone recorder and I don't know anything about electronics, but I was in the electronics laboratory at the time and it was headed by Jerry Wiesner later became Kennedy's scientific advisor, who was personally quite imaginative.

If the lab itself was a mix of all kinds of exciting activities, much of MIT at the time was in a transition from being primarily an engineering school to becoming primarily one. In fact, it is an entirely science-based university, It's a ten-year transition that had a lot to do with things happening in American science and technology, etc., and the electronics lab where I was was the center of a lot of these activities: biology, neurophysiology, mathematics, linguistics. The acoustics went on and on, many of these were experimental efforts, it wasn't entirely clear if they were going to go anywhere, some of them were very successful, some of them failed, but it was a great ferment of intellectual enthusiasm, interaction and challenge, now that there were others. places like this at the same time, for example, the laboratories and since I was mainly in the electronics laboratory in a research position, but I was also asked to teach something, I was able to teach introductory courses in linguistics and philosophy, the first in these areas that had been taught there but mainly my service to the university was to teach intensive courses in French and German to graduate students who in those days had to pass a reading exam in French and German, which they considered a total loss of time because I knew that they were never going to look at anything and that there was a technique to help them pass the exam, essentially teaching them to fake their way through the exam and that, of course, while I was teaching the first years on the screen there are some shots of Massachusetts Institute of Technology, which is on the Charles River, right across from Boston, in Cambridge, Massachusetts, how many students are there?

I think the last time I looked, approximately, it was about four thousand undergraduates and I think maybe twice as many graduate students, roughly that order, my background on you says that you have published 65 political books and 33 linguistic books out of a total from 60 different publishers. We have been doing book exhibitions here for many years. I've never heard of anyone who has published 98 books, well, a lot. Those books are collections of talks,

interview

s. If you look at the ones I actually sat down and wrote, you know it wouldn't be anything like that. What was your first first book?

The first book was called syntactic structures and was not actually intended for publication it was notes for an undergraduate linguistics course at MIT which at the time this material was basically unpublishable it did not belong to any recognized field I had submitted a couple of papers to journals that were returned and had submitted a book for publication and it was returned by MIT Press with the sensible comment that it didn't seem to belong anywhere and they should wait until the field exists before attempting to submit a book, which was not an unreasonable comment, it already came out 20 years later. the field was established the first syntactic structures were actually notes which Dutch publisher visited, so I sat down at my desk and asked if I could put it together and let them publish it as a monograph, then they did what was their first policy.

The first political book was American Power and the New Mandarins, which was a collection of essays, came out in 1969. It was just reprinted, they were essays and they were mostly taught, many of them based on talks during the 1960s. 1960s which started around 1963. I started. I became practically involved in the issues of the Vietnam War and was giving many talks, usually to audiences of two or three people, there was absolutely no interest at the time, but over the years it had built up until , in the late sixties, there were many more invitations and opportunities that I was able to dedicate myself to.

I was also directly involved in activism and resistance. What do I have to say? Four years every time I came to Washington the first thing that came to mind was the smell of tear gas inside and outside the demonstrations inside and outside the prison. several times and the essays were a collection of in the book were a collection of talks, comments, discussions based on these activities. I have on my lap here a book by Norman Mailer called Armies of the Night and above is a picture. Of you in 1967, what were you doing there in the Pentagon?

It was a big demonstration at the Pentagon and let's say it was October 1967, one of the first large-scale national demonstrations, not the first of the largest national ones, actually Miller and I ended up in the adjacent cats and in a center of detention somewhere after we were arrested over the years, a lot of controversy, a lot of books, we'll call the phones in about ten minutes and you'll have a chance to deal with these, but the others. The book that I have on my lap and I have many of your books is one that is small, it is called 9/11 and it was a bestseller.

What was the main point of this book about 9/11? that book is a collection of

interview

s, it is not a sample of interviews and it turns out that they are only those that are stored electronically, so for example it does not include the interviews on BBC II and so on below the right after. On 9/11 there were massive requests from the United States and around the world to discuss the events, their background, what they meant, where they were going to lead and this is onelightly edited collection of several of those interviews. There is only one point at which we must be aware of the role we play in the world.

What happened on 9/11 is a horrible atrocity. It is probably the worst act of large-scale terrorism that has ever taken place. I don't think there is another. unique case where thousands of people died in one act, on the other hand, in much of the world, the response to 9/11 was welcomed into the club that we have been through this and you did it to us often, so For example, the forgotten yes I cited it there, but the research journal of the Jesuit University in Managua Nicaragua, which is one of the main research journals in Central America published an editorial immediately after 9/11, describing it as everyone did as a horrible atrocity, expressing sympathy for the victims, saying you could call it Armageddon and then they added, but we have gone through our own Armageddon in slow motion under enormous pressure. organized and directed terrorist attack by the United States that caused the death of tens of thousands of people in the country that was practically ruined and may never recover, so we sympathize with the terrible atrocity that was carried out against you, but we do not It's foreign to us and it was a reaction in much of the world now, which is why if you look at there was an international Gallup poll done shortly after 9/11, I think it was around September 20th or so, about a week. after asking, this was at a time when the bombing of Afghanistan had been announced but had not yet taken place, so it was in that interim period and the question being asked around the world was: do they support If what is really being said is that the perpetrators of the terrorist attack are identified based on that assumption? you would be in favor of bombing the place where they came from their shelter and then there were two questions if it attacked only military targets second if it also hit civilians well it was never published in the United States but the answers were interesting there was very little support for the policy that was actually carried out and by the way we must say that they had not identified the perpetrators but in Latin America, which is the region with the most experience with the US, responses of domination and intervention, support was extremely low, it ranged from approximately 2% and support in Mexico at approximately 11%.

I think in Colombia and Venezuela the only marginal exception was Panama, which has a very angular American component there and even there 16 percent supported I think 80 percent supported diplomatic means for extradition efforts and that reflects a long experience , so yes, around the world there was overwhelming sympathy for the victims of the horror of the terrible atrocity, but also a recognition that life is more complicated than ours. We've been on the receiving end for a long time of European imperialism, which was violent and destructive, and of its American variant, and I think it's just the first of all, it's the most honest way to deal with this, but if we're interested in reducing the threat. of terrorism, which is a huge departure if you really want to be afraid to read the recent Heart Redman study, a study sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations on terrorist threats to the United States and they are pretty impressive, well, if you hope to reduce and diminish these threats, a crucial distinction must be made between the terrorists themselves who are carrying out criminal acts and treat them as criminal acts and the reserve of what concerns them, their message resonates even among the people they hate and despise. them, but they still recognize a certain authenticity in what they say and that is that a reserve of you can't really call it sympathy, but understanding where the real grievances lie that need to be addressed, that's true, no matter what kind of terrorism you are facing if If you want to reduce the threat, pay attention to the grievances that arise and whether they are legitimate, and then often make a deal with them on the one hand, because they are legitimate on the other, because it is simply sanity if you hope to reduce. horror these are topics discussed in the book can Jess interview our Justin and Noam Chomsky guests and let's get to the phones.

We have a call from Maryville Illinois first, go ahead please, hello dr. Tomsky um, I came across your writings and works as a student about four years ago at the University of Illinois and I was intrigued by you know, because of the simplicity that you had in your writings and I read them for the first time on V net and anyway my question is a two part question, they are not related. My first question is to what do you attribute the incompetence of the current leaders in this country compared to leaders like FDR and early 20th century men of distinction and honor.

I know you know presidents like Andrew Jackson and some others who are not very honorable, but what would you attribute to this? I mean, it's been decades where we've had leaders that you know, one after another. the other just promotes these policies and enacts these, you know, these wars and these, you know, what do you attribute to a nice car being good? Well, I'm not sure if I would use the word incompetence, I mean, I think they are very competent. They know what they are doing, they are dedicated, they are committed, they even tell us very frankly what they are doing, for example, the national security strategy that was announced last September was a very clear and brazen declaration of a program to sustain world dominance. by means of force and announcing the intention to rely on force to suppress any potential challenge to that dominance, that is a big change as a political statement and sent many shutters around the world, including foreign policy, a hint at home , but there is nothing incompetent about it, it is a very clear explicit statement Frank statement of why they are applying those policies.

Well, we can analyze them, but if we take an honest look at the past, it is not very pretty. I mean, we can ask, for example, why we were sitting where we are sitting. After all, there were people here, a lot of them, you know, millions of them, what happened to them, well, the founding fathers were pretty frank about it, they knew what they were doing, so John Quincy Adams, for example, many years after his ugly contributions to this ended. he did change his mind and condemned what they had done in what he called exterminating the hapless race of Native Americans with ferocious cruelty or words more or less like that they understood what they were doing they cleansed the continent they conquered half of Mexico in a war that was bitterly condemned within the country correctly it was a terrible war a century ago the United States conquered the Philippines killed a couple of hundred thousand people a good part of the military command ended up facing trials for war crimes later there was bitter condemnation of that for Mark Twain, for example, the leader may be the leading writer in the United States, he wrote very bitter sardonic essays against the war and, and we can continue, history has not been pretty and that is why after the territory was conquered national power spread.

The United States was not a major player on the global stage until after World War II, but it was regionally the dominant power in focus in Central America, which extended to Hawaii, and which was taken from its own citizens by force and the cunning Philippines, but particularly in Central America and the Caribbean, and those are not, if you look at the record there, Washington DC is not at all attractive to Noam Chomsky, good morning, good morning, well, there are over 300,000 Philippines and That is my point and my disagreement with Mr. Chomsky is for general mr. Chávez be specific as a prosecutor on the facts and the facts are known, the body counts are well known and everyone quotes them incorrectly, that is my disagreement with him.

I really like working and many people follow him, but I think it is necessary if Hussein is a criminal to be prosecuted then our involvement and involvement in Helmut Kohl ATS involvement is also an indictable offense and also our war crimes with uranium or the wars in Ethiopia James Baker restarted in 91 and not 20 million Ethiopians run the risk. risk of dying of hunger and there is a lot of food in this world there is no famine without war this is the crux of the matter and the generalizations are further away from that and look at their faces look at them and thank you for your time well, I certainly agree with you that you have to be factually precise and if you want to ask some specific questions about the facts, feel free to respond to think about them and if you know I made a mistake in correcting it, you are right about the tremendous suffering and agony around the world, A large part of them is by no means the entire result of American policy, obviously the problems in Africa are not extremely ugly and complex, in the Congo alone, several million people have died in recent years in wars that, however , they would not be easy to handle and face.

A lot could be done about it, there is a lot of famine. I don't think war is the only factor behind famine, that famines often occur when, as you say, there is plenty of food, but the social and political conditions are such that the food is not getting to the people who need it. need and there is a lot that can be done to prevent the AIDS epidemic from devastating not only Africa but many other parts of the world and there are resources there, there are treatment methods that do not require large sums of money and We could dedicate our share of our resources to deal with it, we have ample resources, many of them used destructively, but your point is correct, there are all kinds of horrible things happening in the world that some of them were responsible for and there we are.

We have a direct responsibility to stop what we are doing and improve the situation, others are things that we could help and, to the extent possible, we have a responsibility to do so, there are many others that will be out of our control, this book is called Middle Eastern Illusions it's in bookstores right now by Noam Chomsky as we go to North Andover Massachusetts you're next, go ahead please Oh, Professor Chomsky, good afternoon. It is my honor to ask him a question that I had when he told his grandson that We were able to enjoy a baseball game last week with his love of words and his love of linguistics.

I was just curious if you ever had the opportunity to have any connection with mr. Edward L. Bernays, who resided in Cambridge for the last 40 years of his life, was first in New York City and for almost one hundred years was very powerfully connected with the public work of the American tobacco company that worked with Guatemala in a war that almost started because of bananas in the '50s and all of these different media actions that I think have really contributed to where we are now in our worldview that we have a corporate mentality of destroying what we don't like and taking on the manipulation. of this because his appeal to his uncle Sigmund Freud was used to the best of his ability to twist people's views of what was good for them in order to sell them products.

Thanks to the person he calls, Eddie Bernays, actually, you're never right, he lived in Cambridge. They weren't that far away, I never actually met him, but all the other PRs, yeah, but I've written quite a bit. I've seen a lot of his work and, in fact, I suspect I've written quite a bit about him. that it was not his Freud who had the great influence on him, but rather exactly what he said, he said that the greatest influence on him was his participation in the first state propaganda agency in the United States, Woodrow's Committee on Public Information Wilson, which was established to try to galvanize a basically pacifist population to support the war that Wilson very much wanted to get into in Europe and was successful in a short period of time in the propaganda efforts that were called propaganda in those days, He was more honest. use of the terminology, the propaganda efforts of the Committee on Public Information, a very Orwellian name, managed to drive a pacifist population to drive Andy German fans crazy, you know, to the point where the Boston Symphony Orchestra couldn't play to Beethoven things like that.

The country went into a kind of hysteria and among the participants in that committee were many people of great later distinction and influence. Edward Bernays was the other was Walter Lippmann, the leading public intellectual of the 20th century and the most important figure in American media. They both went through the experience and learned from it and wrote about what they learned from it, what they learned, as Bernays put it in a famous book of his called propaganda from the late 1920s. I think he said we have learned that minorities intelligent people can engineer consent by using manipulation propaganda and control and we should do it for the benefit of the public it is for the benefit of the public that we should control them and engineer their consent Lippmann said more or less the same thing and also relied on thewartime propaganda agency experience who wrote important essays on democracy in the 1920s called progressive essays and democracy both were liberals sort of wilsonian progressives said well we have learned that there is a new art in the practice of democracy the art of what he called manufacturing consent ranae's his term was consent engineering and this is very significant because the public should not be participants in the democratic process, they should be spectators, not participants, they are ignorant and interfering outsiders, as he put it , and for their own benefit, we, the intelligent minority, the responsible men must control them.

Bernays has a particular significance, he had all kinds of influence everywhere except intellectual culture in political science etc., but Bernays this particular influence was exactly as you say and he was one of the founders of the modern media industry. public relations that grew. in a massive industry right in that period if it had existed before, but it became very important after this moment and its objective was to control attitudes, beliefs to marginalize people and induce them to lead them towards what was called the superficial things in life , like fashion consumption. and keeps them out of the public arena where they don't belong Bernays - his first big achievement was a show that convinced Women smoked cigarettes Women didn't smoke in those days, but he had an elaborate public relations show that included models walking down Fifth Avenue , you know, to show us with cigarettes what modern women are like and managed to turn women into smokers. with the tool that we don't need to discuss the Guatemala case, you are right, he was the PR, he ran the PR for the propaganda effort to support the overthrow of the democratic government of Guatemala, which led to horrible atrocities that the country still suffers. one of the examples that we shouldn't be proud of and in which he played a role, you know, he did a lot of other things.

He is famous in Cambridge for a campaign to save the Sycamores on Memorial Drive, which again was a successful public relations programme. campaign that many people admired in Springfield Massachusetts by

noam

chomsky

hello good afternoon professor Chomsky my question for you is: do you believe that a nation should suffer a tantrum and a detrimental cost to compensate for the mistakes made by the governors of that nation in segments close to that nation? nation in the past. I'm not sure what exactly the question means: do we respect your way of living? Let me see if I can understand it.

Suppose you are living under a dictatorship and the dictators carry out some horrendous law, so you are living in Stalinist Russia, let's see, and Stalin commits horrible crimes. Are the people of Russia responsible for those crimes only to a very limited extent because living under a brutal and harsh terrorist regime there is not much they can do about it? They might think that there is something they could do and to the extent that you can do something you are responsible for what happens. Suppose you are living in a free democratic society with many privileges enormous unparalleled freedoms and the government carries out two violent acts and brutal are you responsible for Yes, it is much more responsible because there is a lot you can do about it and therefore the cost of if you are responsible, if you share responsibility in criminal acts, you are responsible for the consequences.

Jacksonville, Florida, good afternoon, hello Professor Chomsky, it's an honor. I'm speaking to you, sir. I would like you to address the idea of ​​9/11 being a false flag or letting it happen on purpose. It is an unprecedented situation. I mean, it's not exactly unprecedented in American history or world history, especially given the blueprint for the American century where Paul Wolfowitz said it would take a Pearl Harbor-like attack on the United States in order to implement your plans and could you please address that? Well, I know it's a widespread belief, frankly, I personally am. I am extremely skeptical about this.

I don't think there's any chance that an action like that could have been planned and I really don't think there's any historical precedent for it. If the White House had been involved in any way in planning this, it would have been done. It would have been an act of absolute madness on his part, but on the one hand you could never know where he was going to go, on the other, it would certainly have been leaked in his inconceivable that a plan of that nature would not have been leaked and it just doesn't make any sense. in my opinion and I don't think the evidence is convincing at all.

I have read what is there, you are absolutely right about the exploitation when it happened, it was exploited not only in the United States but throughout the world, so for example the Russians were exploited on September 11 because they saw it as a window of opportunity to intensify their truly brutal repression and violence in Chechnya, claiming to present it as a fight against terrorism and hoping to obtain authorization. Since the United States is the world ruler, what actually happened, Israel took advantage of it as a window of opportunity to intensify repression and the occupied territories, stating that it is a war against terrorism.

China did the same in western China, where they are again carrying out harsh repressive activities against Dissidents sometimes rebel groups were again waiting for our authorization, which they obtained around the world. Governments, including the most democratic ones, used it as an opportunity to impose more discipline on their own populations, so yes, state power recognized it around the world as an opportunity to increase. repressive actions that were underway or to impose discipline, etc., but that doesn't mean that all those countries planned, they just recognized it as a window of opportunity and I think the same thing happens here, if you join us, we have about two hours . and 15 minutes left until our in-depth program this Sunday afternoon with Noam Chomsky next call tre Illinois hello hello I would like to question the effectiveness of protests and especially civil disobedience in effectively changing US policy in the Vietnam War, which lasted for 17 years public opinion turned against the war in 1968 if the war lasted for seven more years and the push of the PIA and public opinion research showed that the public, although they hated the war , hated the protesters even more so they just prolonged the war like we have a march here in Peoria against the war in Iraq we had 200 protesters we have five inches in the newspaper a little inch of new information why people should be against it of war where you will never be able to demonstrate on the street to get coverage like that and get your message across, you have to go directly door to door, dropping literature, stuffing doorknobs or campaigning to the door to get your message out with a full sheet of paper with all your arguments, the media is I'm not going to do your job because you didn't get your message across with the detail and full expression you'd like to see, maybe let us make the mistake even more effective than the demonstration because the demonstration is only one inch and the letters you only get maybe four or five inches of full explanation of what you're doing and Illinois during the Vietnam War we're much more effective in electoral politics with McCarthy and George McGovern, in fact, the Congressional Democratic caucus in the House voted against funding the war despite the fact that McGovern lost that McGovern had just demonstrated enough strength in constituencies across the country at the grassroots level of africanus Minh knew that next time they would see challenges to Congressional seats in the congressional districts with McGovern successfully elected delegates they saw.

The letter in the district voted to defund the Democratic caucus in the house and the next day Nixon signed the peace treaty and ended the war, so that was the effective form of electoral politics, but here, people to the one I went to Chicago to teach. peace and justice, yes, essentially, and then laugh at over 10,000 people blocking a street in Chicago and use it as a huge victory, but boy, you can easily use an alternative to running tanks down the street to mow down people, That is a totally symbolic victory in these demonstrations. Don't accomplish anything here in Illinois.

I will let you go thanks to the axe. Well, you are part of what you say. I completely agree with protests that are not related to ongoing day-to-day education and organization. The activities are meaningless, but take the case of the Vietnam War, which was prolonged in that case. I think there's pretty strong evidence that the protests were very effective, they were part of exactly what you suggest should be done. part of every day organizing educational activities and the demonstrations that emerged from them stimulated other people to join made other people understand what was happening contributed to activism that eventually, after many years, led to the emergence of political figures willing to becoming, you know, the leaders of the official leaders of what was then a mass popular movement and that was after years and years of very hard work, including demonstrations, and I think there is very strong evidence that they were successful if You want to have some direct evidence of this in 1968, after the Tet Offensive in January 1968, the business world turned strongly against the war because it was becoming very costly for the United States.

It was becoming costly because Lyndon Johnson was never able to call for such a national mobilization. that was called during World War II, which led to a very efficient economy, they couldn't do that because there was too much discontent, they had to fight what they call the gun and butter war, which led to stagflation and economic problems, the discontent. It was the result of activism, including protests. Johnson was essentially a real power play by the business world. They basically told him to call off the war after the Tet Offensive, indicating that he was going to continue for a long time.

He wanted to send 200,000 more tours to South Vietnam, the Joint Chiefs of Staff opposed, the reason they said was because they thought they would need troops to control civil unrest in the United States. We are large segments of the population that are getting out of hand. Now they mentioned the women. youth minorities others this is in the last part of the Pentagon Papers it is worth taking a look the disorder and discontent were revealed in many ways the demonstrations were a very visible part but much more than that and the appearance of politicians Eugene McCarthy is a good case.

It was much later and only when there was a mass base for it, then the politicians appeared, but not before there were few smilers and Morse too, but very few until a mass popular movement developed and really I disagree with you about the Diamonds can be funny if not done correctly, yes they can be destructive. You can say that about anything. The February 15 demonstrations around the world were like this and are the largest mass demonstrations in history. I guess they were so significant that actually The New York Times is a little sad and there's a commentary on them that says a day later that there are now two superpowers on the planet and one is the United States, that is, the US government.

U.S., the other is world public opinion, well, you know, world public opinion was visible on February 15 and that led to the recognition that there is a powerful force there that has to be dealt with, it did not stop this war. , but you know there have never been protests like this against the war at that time, you are absolutely right in your account of how long it took to build up protests against the Vietnam War, which actually started in 1962, this protest was before the war will actually begin, which indicates an important change, awareness and understanding in the country and I believe it is the basis for the development of important popular development. movements that will prevent and help reverse the use of violence in world domination and control, but it doesn't happen in a day and your point about explaining day to day life, work, leaflet distribution, etc., is absolutely correct unless it is a central part of the activity. protests mean nothing jerusalem rhode island good afternoon sir, the anti-terrorism bills were rushed through congress in the days after the Oklahoma City bombing and have been extended since 9/11.

The problem is that clearly some of those bills had been drafted and printed before the bombing, the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force had already issued pamphlets urging the public to request information about possible terrorists, defenders of the US Constitution. USA and those people who would donumerous references to the Constitution or they would try to monitor the police and lend people. I think this undermines basic democracy, and I think the FCC's proposed June 2 rule change that would allow media companies like Clear Channel Communications to be able to buy newspapers will limit Free Press as a novelist. I think you're probably also in favor of not allowing these big media companies like Clear Channel to be able to buy newspapers in addition to radio stations, since six big media companies reach two out of every three homes as a novelist, right?

Do you support the Free Press or do you support this media rule change? That um, that mr. Powell Michael Powell, who was the son of the Secretary of Defense: Powell, for some unusual reason, but he has eluded himself through Alice in Wonderland in the World Trade Center disaster, written by David Icke, what is the relationship between Mr. Powell and Michael Powell and the government's hidden agenda to eliminate basic civil liberties are: Do you support this media rule change by the FCC? Thanks to the caller, yes, well, on the specific question you raised a lot of interesting points on the specific issue of the FCC ruling.

I am on your side, I do not believe that the planned decision will increase the monopoly, the trend towards centralization and monopolization of the media, which is a very bad thing that has been happening for years, apart from this, the main observer of the study who regularly publish a study that deals with this goes back to Dickens's book, the media monopoly. I think the first edition must have been about 20 years ago and then it identified, if I remember correctly, about 50 major media concentrations in the country. In the last edition, which was a year or two ago, I think it was reduced to less than 10 and the FCC ruling will reduce it even more and not in print media, but by including print media, in fact, I think It is a very bad thing for us to want.

As diverse as we can have diverse oppressors. I don't think that's the only problem with the press, but it's a problem with the other issue you raised here about anti-terrorism legislation and civil liberties. I think we have to be. Take some caution, terrorism is a serious issue. I mean, personally, I don't object when I go through security at the airport. I think that's what you know. I could argue about the details, but there is something that should be reviewed. It makes sense. On the other hand, the Justice Department. The Bush Justice Department has demanded rights that are incredible and if implemented it would be a major attack on civil liberties and to some extent.

They have been and to some extent they have even been confirmed by the court, I mean, they have stated that the executive has the right to imprison people, including citizens of the United States, to hold them without trial, without charge, without access to family members and lawyers, and to do so indefinitely until the president declares that the war on terrorism is over, which means that a new law is being discussed indefinitely. Patriot Two, it's sometimes called, which includes provisions that would give the Attorney General the right to withdraw citizenship, rescind citizenship in what's called inference, the Attorney General's inference from some pattern of behavior.

For the person to support terrorists under this completely extravagant no free and democratic society should tolerate anything remotely like this. What is happening at Guantánamo is absolutely shocking and has been condemned by all human rights and civil rights organizations around the world and is perhaps getting worse. I don't know, I can't authenticate it, but there are now reports in the British and Australian press that there are plans and it is Bennett, the British Foreign Office agrees that it is correct that there are plans to have execution chambers in Guantanamo where people can be executed without anything remotely resembling a fair trial on charges that and without proper legal representation or anything, these moves are really shocking and we should be right that we should be deeply concerned about them, might I quote I can remember the wording of a comment by Winston Churchill about the bust of Churchill on George Bush's desk.

I looked at it every day. Churchill described it and said that something like this, putting a man in prison without charge and without the trial of his peers in a fair trial is in the highest degree odious and the basis of all totalitarian governments, whether Nazi or Communists, Churchill said that in 1943, when he opposed efforts to institute preventive detention for supposed intelligence purposes, and in 1943 Britain was in a rather desperate situation, it was under attack by the most cruel and murderous military machine of history and its survival was not obvious, however, he took that position that is correct and right, what is now proposed and partly implemented is to the highest degree odious and the basis of all totalitarian societies, whether For your communists, and we should be deeply concerned about that, here are some of the ninety-eight books that Noam Chomsky has published in recent times.

Guess what we are talking about almost 50 years of American power and the new mandarins and their advancement. by hards n this was in 2002 when it was republished which was called Noam Chomsky's Old and New World Order remember the year it was first published in 1994 and there is an expanded edition in 1996 and here is another one that deters the democracy was a national bestseller you still buy this one in stores, it was a national bestseller. I doubt that's what rap all the way to the top says. You should know that you should never believe anything an editor says.

He covered that it was 91 extended 92 most of these are still in print, yeah. Carlsbad California, go ahead, thank you, yes, sir. I'm a military officer with 25 years experience who read Mark Twain's Extra Prayer and I have a couple quick questions for you and I'd like to know if you think it's perfect or not. It is natural for a country to protect its borders and protect its national interests, whether by protecting a population against terrorism or securing economic interests, and in the case of radical Islamic terrorism, we could have had the first terrorist bubble in a failure in the wake of a failure of diplomacy and that that was not necessarily our failure to analyze its motives, intentions and consequences and that that is the first part.

If I could come back to you, if a country had the right to defend its population and its economy, I certainly don't think it's a question. I didn't understand exactly what you meant by Islamic terrorism, given the war in Iraq, we were there, perhaps facing radical Islamic terrorists. No, there is no appearance that it was an invention. There is no evidence whatsoever, I mean, Iraq was a horrible monster under Saddam Hussein, just as it was when it was supported by the United States, the people who were now in power in the 1980s, they were a horrible monster.

Osama bin Laden is another horrible monster, but there are different monsters. and they hate each other and there is no evidence of any significant evidence of a connection between the horrible regime of Saddam Hussein and the network like Al Qaeda. They despise each other and have had no known connections. The only effect of the war in Iraq on terrorism. is that, as predicted, recruiting for al Qaeda has increased, so the terrorist threat has increased exactly as the intelligence agencies of the United States and around the world and other specialists predicted, but the idea that attacking to Iraq had something to do with the war on terrorism.

This is just a lie, quick follow up Carlsbad, yes sir, thank you regarding foreign policy and the potential for peace in the Middle East. Do you believe that first world countries that have a tremendous capacity to provide resources and aid to developing countries can promote peace in the face of Arab humiliation and better overcome the Israeli defensive, we have to ask for a test. I think we could listen to the leading specialists on the subject, that is, from Israeli intelligence, so the head of the former head of Israeli military intelligence simply noted in a book in Hebrew that until the Arabs, until Israel is willing to treat Arabs with as decent respect as human beings with rights, there will never be an end to terror twenty years earlier, a former head of Israeli military intelligence Oh, show that Harcavy said essentially The same thing he said until we address the legitimate grievances and demands of the Palestinian people under military occupation, there will always be the threat of terror that he was writing at a time when Israel was virtually immune to terrorism within the territories just in the year In 2000, the head of the Israeli secret police , Shabak, the general security services that controlled the occupied territories said essentially the same thing that they said until we address the legitimate grievances and demands of the Palestinian population under occupation, we will never end the terror that So, the humiliation is there and the degradation is there and the repression is there and yes, sometimes it leads to terror, certainly to the opposition and, by the way, if we want to look in the mirror like we should, this goes back a long time, George Bush is not.

The first president to ask why they hate us almost 50 years ago, President Eisenhower, in internal conversations with his staff that have since been declassified, discussed what he called the hate campaign against us in the Arab world, not by governments that are on our side, but by the people and their National Security Council gave an explanation in this regard, they said that there is a perception in the Arab world that the United States supports a corrupt and oppressive regime that blocked democracy and development and that We do it because of our interest in controlling the region's oil reserves and they also said that the perception is correct so it is very difficult to counteract and they said yes, we have to continue doing it.

You hear the same sentiments expressed today even by wealthy Muslim managers of multinational corporations who perceive the United States. correctly as supporting brutal and corrupt repressive regimes that are blocking democracy and development and yes, that leads to antagonism and often hatred, it is not the source of some charged event, but it is the stockpile of background that military intelligence chiefs Israeli and secret police we have. We're talking about how we have to take this seriously if we want to stop terrorism. The same thing happens in other places. A northern island is needed, as long as the British respond to our terrorism with a simple escalation of violence.

Terror increased when he reached the point of beginning to address legitimate grievances. It greatly improved the situation. Lee, it's not a utopia, but it's much better than 10 years ago. Stamford Connecticut for our Noam Chomsky. Hello, yes, Chomsky. I share your views and your repulsion towards many things. of US foreign policy and I think you're right once you understand it, it's irrefutable that I rule evil and I'm ruthlessly selfish in many, many many cases and I find you to be an invaluable voice of criticism and dissent, but Your views are almost never featured in the mainstream media.

Do you feel that you are censored at some level by the major bodies of this country? Well, I wouldn't call it censorship, you're right that I don't appear in the mainstream media and not just me, but also the other critical voices: the media actually reflects a fairly rigid spectrum of opinion and, I think , narrow, and if you don't belong to it, you know that if you are there it is not censorship, it is your choice and decision. Sharon Pennsylvania you are all with Noam Chomsky good afternoon good afternoon. I have some disagreements, but I agree with you the most and one of them is the point where I feel like you don't go far enough, for example, just on the last point, for example, NPR I.

Read that even when you are speaking to a smaller audience at American University than NPR host Diane Rehm. She shows that you have been excluded from that program even when it is very convenient for you to be interviewed and I think that has a lot to do with it. with the fact that the head of NPR is the former head of all foreign CIA propaganda broadcasts and the head of, say, PBS is the former head of US voice, now that there is supposed to be an alternative to the corporate media, a large corporate media that is interconnected and owned by military-industrial weapons manufacturers and that is in collusion with the CIA.

I think there is a lot of censorship and other things. I read your stuff on Z mag dot org as a previous caller and that's very helpful. think, but it doesn't go far enough in many cases, your wealth, you claim that it is somehow implausible that the administration or a faction within an intelligence that supports the administration had prior knowledge and saw that the only one who would benefit of this attack on 9/11 would be the war mongers within the Bush administration and the police state factions within Ashcroft's Justice Department. I think the fact denies it, and this reaches the media, sothan James Bamford, the top NSA expert who wrote the book "Body of Evidence." points out in declassified State Department and Pentagon documents that in the early 1960s the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Under Secretary of Defense had plans to terror bomb American cities, murder American citizens, even bomb an American ship in the port of Guantánamo to incriminate Cuba and blame Cuba for these us The government planned bombings and then used them as a pretext to invade.

Now there is a real precedent. It was only canceled by the Kennedy administration because they apparently realized this. You know, Mike. It could go wrong, but it shows that these clones exist. of this very fanatical far-right faction almost doubles at that time within the high levels of government that correspond to this Bush administration with these plans for world domination. Thank you sir he calls. Johnson, well, what you are referring to is Operation Northwood, it may be declassified, you can read it if you wish, it was a contingency plan called at the request of the Department of Defense and it had approximately the character that you describe, but if you look at plans contingency plans are everywhere, they have plans for everything and it was not implemented and it was not the only one.

There were other plans that came from the most liberal sectors of the Kennedy administration, for example, plans to organize what would seem like a Cuban invasion of Haiti that would later could be used as a base to invade Cuba. Actually, that one came from Arthur Schlesinger on the liberal end, but looking at the governments' contingency plans, I don't think it could be done. We cannot conclude much about the event of 9/11. A crucial distinction must be made between two things. The previous question, at least as I understood it, was whether the Bush administration was involved in planning for that.

I think the question you ask is crazy. What we are asking is whether there could have been prior knowledge of it, that is conceivable, but we have to be a little cautious because we remember that in 1993, almost 10 years before, there was an attempt to blow up the World Trade Center that came very close to having success. and if it had been successful it would have caused tens of thousands of deaths. Since then there was no doubt in the intelligence community that operations of this type were possible and could be carried out if there was any prior knowledge of it.

I have not seen any. There is compelling evidence for this, but it is conceivable that in a moment we will go to take a break with our guest. Noam Chomsky graduated from the University of Pennsylvania with a bachelor's and master's degree and a doctorate he earned there in 1955. He's been at MIT since 1960. 9550 actually. 55 and he has published a total of 98 books over the years. You have three children, Diane Avi and Harry, that's right, where is each of them today? What are they doing? Ivy, the oldest, is teaching at Salem State College, near Boston. Latin American specialists in Latin America. history teaches history Diane, our second daughter, is in Mexico at the moment, but lives mainly in Nicaragua, where she has been for about 15 years with her family there, our son Harry, the third child, lives in the Area of ​​the Bahia, work and software engineering, this kind of thing.

We have about an hour and 45 minutes left and we'll be back with Noam Chomsky and more. and your calls at just one point about ten years ago, the United States had the highest wages in the world, which is what you would expect, this is the richest country in the world by far and it has absolutely incomparable advantages, real wages, of In fact, they have stagnated. or even declined for most of the population from its peak about 25 years ago, but by the mid-1980s, the effects of the Reaganites' so-called double-edged conservatism, namely markets for the poor and state protection for the rich , which had not yet had its full impact in 1993, the impact was quite obvious, the Wall Street Journal was able to extol what it called a welcome and momentous development, namely, US labor costs had fallen below all the other leading industrial powers apart from England, we had to fall below England. for a while, but then Margaret Thatcher managed to bring down the workers and the poor even more efficiently than we did, meanwhile profits were rising to new heights earlier this year, every year Fortune magazine has a fortune review. 500 you know the top 500 companies and this year earlier this year they reported eye-watering profits, that's your word for the top 500 corporations even though sales were stagnating, so wages are going down, Sales are stagnating and profits are approaching dazzling heights, which is sometimes called a paradox in In fact, if you look at Social Policy, it is not terribly paradoxical to see Professor Chomsky there since 1994 and he is here in our studies for the next hour and 45 minutes and we have calls waiting to speak with him, this one from Omaha Nebraska. in the air Omaha, please go ahead.

Yes, I appreciate the opportunity to ask a question. I think it's in line with what was just shown. You know, you're getting small talk about economic issues. I've been quite interested in socialism. the last twelve years and you know I keep hearing you know socialism is on the rise again in the US at least within the universities and those things that they say they always say that now all the faculties, you know, how it was used at Westar , they were increasingly socialist and yes, I think I see that all the evil is a bit rude, all this, you know, imperialism and capitalism, the economy creates everything. these um, you know, wars and terrorism, blah, blah, blah, I'd just like to hear more of your comments on the potential or what's happening, you know realistically now in the US and the world in terms of a kind of true socialism. movement, you know, in terms of the working class actually taking over the economy potentially, rather than all of this, to me is what ruins the versions of what is called socialism, what you know through cuts to taxes and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, you know they're going to To read this is true, you know that's what you tell the mainstream media that they're going to create tax cuts and redistribute that rug, so That's what they call socialism.

Thank you so much. Well, tax cuts are a curious kind of socialism, I mean the tax. The cuts are intended and have the effect of redistributing income to the rich even more than it currently is. In fact, the tax cuts are clearly part of an effort to destroy the progressive legislation of the last century, including social spending more generally. Social Security Medicare/Medicaid, progressive taxes and so on, that's pretty much granted. I don't know how closely we've been following the business pages in recent days, but it has been revealed that the former Treasury secretary, before he was fired, commissioned a study by the government's top economists, the Treasury Department during the budget, etc., to estimate the likely effects of the Bush administration's economic programs that include a large increase in federal spending primarily for the military, meaning high-tech industry in general, and targeted tax cuts . mainly towards the richest sectors huge tax cuts estimated deficits on the order of forty-four trillion dollars trillions of dollars that is a lot of money that was supposed to be put in the February budget proposals but did not appear there is a debate about whether that Whether it was intentional or not anyway, it's now been revealed and admitted that White House spokesman Ari Fleischer was asked about it at a press conference a couple of days ago and he said yes, the numbers are correct and then , paraphrasing, said something like this, he said this means that Congress will have to be responsible for reforming Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

Now the type of reform he talks about is not to finance it by reinstating progressive tax measures, but to basically eliminate it. They know that they cannot approach the population in an election with a platform that says we are going to eliminate social spending and transfer wealth to the rich even more than it is today, but they can, and I think they intend to do so, push the country and through it, several economists have called a fiscal train wreck that will then have the effect of eliminating social spending, so this is as remote as for many, this is you, it is government intervention in benefit of the rich now, when it comes to socialism, that term has been so emptied of content over the last century that it is difficult to even use I refer to the Soviet Union, for example, it was called a socialist society and that is what it was called by the two main propaganda operations in the world, the United States. the western and the soviet both called it socialism for opposite reasons the world population in general, but this was as far from socialism as he can imagine.

The central notion of at least traditional socialism is that what you mentioned is that workers have to be in control of production. and communities have to be in control of their own lives, etc., and you know, this is because the Soviet units, the exact opposite of the workers, had no control over anything, they were virtually slaves and the collapse of the Union Soviet is, in fact, In my opinion, a small victory of socialism removed one of the main barriers to socialism and should have been recognized as such, but the term, as I said, has lost so much meaning that it is difficult to even use it if we use it in the traditional sense that That was mentioned, you know, that goes right back to American history, you read the working class press and in the mid-19th century, you know, the press published by artisans and what we call factory girls , young farm women working in textile mills and Eastern Massachusetts, which was the center of the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, their press asked them to say that their theme was that those who work in the factories should own them.

The wage labor that was called wage slavery was considered by most Americans to be not much different. of slavery, even the Republican Party considered wage labor only an advantage, at best a preliminary to free labor, but intolerable because it is a kind of servitude. A large part of the northern population fighting in the civil war fought under that flag. This extends directly throughout the 20th century. idea that people should be in control of their own destinies and lives, including the institutions in which they work, the communities in which they live, etc. Call it what you want, but that is traditional socialism and today there are attempts to describe a kind of detailed vision of the future based on these notions, the most extensive and detailed that I know of is that of Michael Albert, Zenith, where you mentioned the participatory economy and there are other similar proposals, but I think this is deeply rooted in people. understanding and awareness and just below the surface, it is in fact a call for an essentially extension of democracy to the industrial sphere and also to communities.

We should also keep in mind that the prominent American social philosopher John Dewey I was as conventional as apple pie. His main work focused on democracy. He pointed out again and again that as long as we have what he calls industrial feudalism, which is tyrannical control, the private power that controls production, trade, democracy will be very limited, we have to move. what he called industrial democracy if we hope to have a meaningful democracy in terms of politics, his position was that until that happens, politics will be the shadow cast on society by big business and I think the majority of the population recognizes that and accepted the good of the city of New York. afternoon good afternoon yes hello dr.

Chomsky, I heard you refer to your first experiences with Zionism. I imagined a more universal and idealistic Zionism of that period and I was wondering if you could talk about the evolution of your relationship with Zionism and the State of Israel and also maybe if you could talk. about what his vision for an Israel might be perhaps based on that more optimistic early Zionism and how the process of arriving at that vision differs from Oslo Clinton and Barack in 2000 and now the road map well, this left me brief, but in this book that was I mentioned the Middle East delusions before, there is a lot of discussion that some of the essays go back over 35 years to the present, but to try to put it briefly at the time when I was a Zionist youth leader and an activist.

You know, in the 1940s, but for me ZionismIt meant opposition to a Jewish State and that was a recognized and accepted part of the Zionist movement, why does it not mean a majority, but rather it was a position within what was called the opposition of the Zionist movement to a Jewish State and I think the reasons Why we are good are the same reasons why I would oppose a Christian state or a white state or an Islamic Republic. The same reasons why a State should be a State of its citizens and not of some privileged category of its citizens. citizens and the State of Israel, by the way, according to the ruling of the High Court, is the State of the Jewish people in Israel and in the diaspora, but not of its citizens, and I am opposed to that.

I have always been opposed to it, so I respect my views. wouldn't have changed, if this were simply a matter of symbolism it wouldn't matter much, so the fact that the United States has a day off on Sunday, okay, it doesn't make it a Christian state in any meaningful sense, but if If there were privileges for Christians or whites or others it would be a different matter, so I think we should oppose it and that is true in Israel after the establishment of the state in 1948, where the question of Israel's existence had essentially ended in what I'm concerned.

I am concerned that it should have the rights of any state in the international system. I don't think states have many legitimate rights, but that's another story, but whatever rights you accord any state in the international system, fine, Israel should have those rights. democratic internally, that is, the status of its own citizens, not that of the majority of them and other Jews elsewhere after 1967, the situation changed radically in 1967, Israel conquered the West Bank, the Sinai, Gaza and the Golan Heights and since then it is the 36th year of a fairly harsh and brutal occupation at which time Israel by that when I say Israel I mean the United States and Israel because almost everything Israel does is for us. authorization and with the diplomatic, military and economic support of the US they cannot go much further than what the US authorizes and what they have done is act to integrate the West Bank, particularly in Israel, to the extent who want it, so that there are massive settlement programs that have effectively divided the West Bank into tons of cans and, to quickly get to Clinton Barack's programs at Camp David, were a strange map of what was proposed, it is quite surprising that while there was a lot of talk about how magnanimous and generous the offers were.

You can't find a map. I don't think any maps have appeared in American media, they were available, they were in Israeli media and standard academic sources from Europe, etc., but they didn't appear if you look at the map. I can understand exactly why the agreement was completely unacceptable to the Palestinians: it effectively divided the West Bank because it virtually separated the north and south center of Canton with a small part of East Jerusalem, the center of Palestinian commercial, industrial and cultural life, separated from the three practically by one There are few connections, but they are difficult, and that program has continued rapidly under Clinton and Barack, continues even more under Chevron and Bush and is undermining the possibility of a meaningful political agreement if one asks what it should be the future.

In my opinion, I agree with about two-thirds of the population of the United States according to polls and with almost everyone, there has to be a preliminary preliminary agreement approximately at the international border, that is, the border before June of the 67, with some adjustments because of changes since then but mutual adjustments actually Clinton's chief negotiator, Robert Maui, discussed this in Foreign Affairs, the establishment's main newspaper, and said that it makes sense. I think there has to be effectively one-to-one land exchanges, which would be the basis for at least a political agreement that would lay the groundwork for ending the violence; integration of a peaceful integration of Israel into the region as the main industrial and financial senator, but only as part of it without further conflict, if that stage can be reached and there is an overwhelming international consensus. consensus on this and strong popular support in the United States.

The United States has been blocking that for 25 years is part of the illusions spoken of in the title of that book. If we can get to that stage, then as more questions arise that you ask, what if there will be? serious problems of democratization both in Israel and in the new Palestinian State. My sentiment is still quite conservative. It's what it was 40 or 60 years ago. In the long term, I don't think it makes much sense to divide that territory into two parts, if you know. the area or whether to travel there can be seen to be terribly artificial and harmful in the long term.

I think ultimately there should be a move towards some kind of federal structure as relations, hopefully, improve between people and nationalist sentiments subside and hatreds subside. towards closer integration and circumstances ferment strangely at the halfway point with our end with Noam Chomsky. He has a professor at MIT and Cambridge. Here's a look at the outside of the office building where he works and you'll eventually see where his office is on the inside. How much time do you typically spend there three full days a week? Well, for some reason, classes for many years have been on Thursdays, so Thursday classes, Tuesdays and Fridays, appointments, interviews, other things, how many classes a year are different courses a year?

Well, technically I've been retired for the past few years, but this year I had two courses at MIT and a half course at another State University of New York. How much are you talking? I can't even remember it almost constantly. I mean, have you traveled much yet? I designed that schedule so I could be on the road, obviously fun days, but I don't have a fair amount of commitments at work. Yeah, I want to take a number of calls, if you don't mind, take some notes here so we can hear some voices from the people who are watching and we'll go over a couple of them here and then we'll come back to look at and have you resolve some of the comments. about your calls new york city next go ahead please yes dr.

Tomsky, a couple of things, sorry I'm doing this quickly, but a couple of challenges that you pointed out: the United States is the only superpower and has a much larger role and responsibility in the global community, some of the changes that need to be made occur and Going back to the earlier colored points about a kind of socialist philosophy, I mean, well for everyone, is the way I would see it, which seems almost to oppose the basis of the United States being more of a capitalist system driven for profit and maybe I'm making too many assumptions, but it seems that we are more than plutocracy and democracy and many of the people who are in a position to make those changes on behalf of the United States also have special interests in their ears from the industrial society or that prevails, propagating much of industrial feudalism as you mentioned and therefore also creating some frustration, antagonism and resentment against the United States that results in terrorism as we have seen, so how do you see that something How this changes when you have a kind of disinterested public or a public that remains outside the entire process and is about to become even more so with more consolidated meetings.

I was just curious to hear your thoughts on us going to Fall River Massachusetts, what? His question comment, yes, Professor Chomsky already answered my question, it seems to me that he is really applying a double standard to Israel. It doesn't say anything about the fact that no Jew can live in Saudi Arabia or Jordan, but it requires Israel to meet that standard as well. Jews can't visit the Temple Mount, but when Jews control religious areas they are supposed to. make it available to everyone, so could you address that? Why do you impose a double standard on Israel?

Thanks Denver Colorado, what do you have to say today? Yes I I I just want to thank you so much for having Noam Chomsky on the show. He is a great honor and one of the most important writers in history, but I just want to present a hypothesis and I would like him to address us. Do you think Sharon's recent decision to refer to the old words as people say and see what seem to be all the roads that lead to Tehran when it comes to military action. Do you think that in the depths of Tostan you will see?

You'll see the point I'm making. I think the stoning ban model prevailed in Israel and do you think this was not the case? It is an effort to neutralize the Arab opposition because I think it seems to me that the inevitable movement for military action will be against Iran, probably within the next year or so last year and then we will come back to dr. Chomsky let's go to Palo Alto California good morning Professor Chomsky our I guess it's in the afternoon where you are yes, I have a couple of questions about 9 1 111, the terrorists somehow prevented the US Air Force fighter planes from The US were deployed in the normal ten minutes and they caused the 75 minute delay for the fighter jets to be dispatched and they hit the Pentagon with a guided missile because if it had been one of those planes there would have been about a hundred thousand pounds of aluminum album there and that couldn't possibly have been vaporized the way the government said it did and somehow the terrorists arranged those calls to cell phones and it's been proven by experiments that it was impossible and somehow those terrorists They planted explosives in the World Trade Center buildings because Columbia University seismographs showed pulses that could only have vaporized. have been caused by explosives at the beginning of the fall of each of those buildings, not as they were actually falling now, all of these things can be read for example in the cosmic calm of the penguin which has links to 55 websites different ones that contain information about these facts.

Alright, thanks, there's a lot of stuff there, yeah, maybe you can summarize some of it. Well, maybe these ways to go back. Okay, yeah, well, the last caller made a number of technical observations that I'm completely incompetent to comment on. I have no idea if there were seismographs that showed there were explosives in the building and, frankly, I'm extremely skeptical. The fact that a large amount of material appears on Internet sites is not very convincing. The Internet is a very valuable instrument from which you can learn many things, but anyone can put on the Internet whatever they want that is part of its value and the information must be evaluated.

I haven't checked any of the technical issues you've discussed, so I can't comment on them, but I must say that I have extreme skepticism about them at Sharan. I ran a quarter just before Sauron, the O word, that is, occupied territories that you have already used as conquered territories, which is quite strong and precise, and the road to Tehran and the efforts to neutralize the Arab world here. I think we have to be extremely strict, we have to look closely at the Sharan plan and the Bush plan, as far as we have information about them, it is simply a continuation of the bantustanization process, if you read the Israeli press, which has excellent reporters like the from your country.

And not you, madam, who writes about this all the time, what they are describing and what you see if you go to the West Bank is simply dividing it into Canton, I mean the separation wall that goes from north to south. It has already surrounded a Palestinian city it estimates and is practically destroying it it has just been announced that it will go east towards the settlements to the east Arielle and Amano well, today there is a story in The New York Times about the settlement of Itamar which is even east of That, whether it will be included in the separation wall or not, we do not know, but it is a protrusion that was in Clinton Barack's plan that basically cuts the northern sector from the rest, there is no doubt that the separation The wall or some equivalent will include the vast settlement and infrastructure programs east of Jerusalem that extend almost to Jericho, cutting it off again.

The city of Minos is a growing city they call Ramallah, which was established mainly in the Clinton Barack period, more or less for the purpose of dividing the West Bank and has infrastructure connections with Israel that essentially divide the Palestinian territories, that plan, as far as we know, George Bush's vision, as he calls it, as far as we know anything about it, is simply a type of program that is It is called the bantha stoning program in Israel for good reasons. Could you repeat that word? Bantu Stan is Asian. I mean, it means it's a reference to the South African programs of the early 1960s to establish black homelands that were called Bantustans.

First there were several others who were never recognized by anyone, but their idea was to establish black states under black leadership surrounded by white areas and it was one of the most grotesque efforts of theapartheid regime and its worst period that has been considered a model. Israeli planners are quite open and it is discussed in those terms, it is generally criticized in those terms, but it is not unreasonable. I mean, it's a canonization program that establishes Cantons that have some connection, but not much, and are basically unviable. I think it is an effort to neutralize the Arab world. your suspicion is correct, but it is certainly not going to work if it is anything like that program, as Iran is the next step and is certainly being established if, and unfortunately, the United States is creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I mean, it is very likely that the war in Iraq will inspire Iran to develop weapons of mass destruction; In fact, intelligence agencies and analysts around the world, including the United States, have predicted that this plan is the national security strategy, the plan to crush by force any potential challenge to the United States. Domination virtually requires that potential adversaries create some kind of deterrent, and the only kind of deterrent they have for a state with overwhelming power is terror, which is a deterrent, or weapons of mass destruction, or, as in the case of Korea from the North, massive artillery. aimed at the American soul and forces there, which are a deterrent to attacking North Korea, but you know that when you announce your intention to rule the world by force and crush any potential challenges, you are practically demanding that potential adversaries do something. in this regard and Iran could go on to develop weapons of mass destruction that will later be used as a pretext for an attack.

However, I personally don't think there will be an attack on Iran, the reason is that Iran is not like Iraq was. defenseless completely defenseless and that was known and that was a prerequisite for an invasion. Iran is not helpless, I mean, it cannot be compared to the United States and its power, but it is not helpless in the sense that Iraq was and for that reason. suspecting that an attack is not likely, on the other hand, subversion is not at all unlikely and, according to some American academic specialists who have written on the subject, efforts have been made, efforts are being made to incite subversive activities and stimulate Iran, a complicated country that encourages some nationalist elements such as the Azeris in the north to build separatist movements.

It is reported, I cannot verify this from academic specialists, that a good part of the Israeli Air Force, more than 10%, is permanently stationed in eastern Turkey, presumably at US bases there and is flying regularly. reconnaissance on the Iranian border is probably either for surveillance or intimidation, whether this is happening or not. I don't know if it comes from credible sources and I think something like this is considered much more likely than a direct attack, but and this is contrary to the wishes of the countries in the region and the countries of the world that have been correctly trying to support the reformist tendencies in Iran these efforts undermine them and to integrate step by step by step again into the international system on healthy terms there are strong reformists The tendencies with which they fight have many barriers, but they must be supported, not undermined, so that what you described could be planning that we don't know, you know we don't have, we don't have access to internal plans, but what is the information? available suggests something like that regarding Israel and a double standard.

I am not in complete agreement. As I mentioned, I would oppose just as strongly and just as firmly the so-called Islamic Republics, of which there are several that are not states. of their citizens but they are dedicated in principle to Islamic rule and some like Saudi Arabia are horrendous, it is one of the reasons why they then strongly opposed us and strongly supported repressive and brutal states like Saudi Arabia for many years when Eisenhower and your staff We are talking about the hate campaign back in 1958, they were referring to our support for states like those oppressive states that have all kinds of horrible legislation, including the one you mentioned, and that should and do oppose democracy and the development in the United States should not support, it is part of the reason for opposition to US policies throughout the region, so I do not agree that that is a double standard.

The first question is complicated. What kind of country is like that? Well, you know, that's why. The people who decide the take say that the existence of corporations is an important part of our society. We are now a society largely run by corporations. Where do other corporations' corporations come from? We are not corporations. The courts gave us people's rights about a century ago. and lawyers not for legislation that is a harsh blow against the classical liberal principles with which the country was established, I do not mean Adam Smith or James Madison would have turned in their grave at the idea that an abstract entity like a corporation receives rights of flesh and blood people such as freedom of speech and freedom of search and seizure, etc., are legal, they are collectivist legal fictions, as they are sometimes described in legal literature, they are basically tyrannies controlled from the top down. down, there is the idea that you should have Rights of the People from a classical liberal point of view the opinion of the founding fathers is simply extravagant, now they have rights far beyond the people, so the recent trade agreements, the so-called trade agreements, they are not really trade agreements, they give corporations rights that go far beyond real people.

For example, General Motors can go to Mexico and demand national treatment, that is, to be treated like a Mexican company but a real Mexican. bone can't go to New York or San Francisco and demand national treatment when it gets very So far, this is a complete reversal of a sharp attack on the liberal principles, the capitalist principles on which the country was founded. What happens to the political system? The political system is really what political science sometimes calls polyarchy, not a democracy, that is, an elite decision-making system. and public gratification, that's what goes back earlier in the discussion, that's what people like Lippmann Bernays and others were talking about, it has good constitutional sources if you look at the debate, James Madison was the main drafter of the Constitution, his point of view is explicit and the discussions of the Constitutional Convention is that power, as he put it, should be in the hands of the wealth of the nation, the more capable are the men, the people who are sympathetic to property rights, it is That is, the owners, and argued strongly against democracy, gave the model of England, which is of course what they were thinking of.

He said that in England, if the population really had the vote, the majority of the population would vote for a better distribution of the wealth of society at that time, that meant and in other words, I voted for what today we would call reform agrarian to continue breaking the concentration of land and giving it to the people who need it and Madison concluded that it is intolerable, we cannot accept them, therefore we cannot accept the system in which In fact, the population will have a direct voice in politics social and economic and in state affairs. Now the population should be fragmented and power should be in the hands of the rich, who basically care about property rights.

That is not the position of the people of the United States. America and over the centuries there have been many struggles over this, it's a big part of American history it's struggles over these issues what the country is based on and what it should be, it should be a matter for the people to decide, you correctly pointed out. to the interrogator. which is the population it seems I think the word you used was disinterested I really don't think I think the population feels helpless I feel like there isn't much I can do about it, in fact attitude studies show there is a measure called helplessness that we can do anything about what is happening now and has been increasing in recent years.

I think it peaked the last time it was studied around the year 2000 and people feel helpless, they feel like the government is not doing anything for them, for example in the last presidential election in 2000, right before the election, so there was no shenanigans in Florida, etc., about 75% of the population did not take the elections very seriously and considered them to be some kind of game involving rich taxpayers, party bosses and the public relations industry that Elaborates, the candidates said things that might get votes but that did not allow us to know where they stood on the issues.

Issue identification was extremely low for most people, they couldn't tell where the candidates stood on most issues and it's not because they are stupid or incompetent, that's because the election is designed that way. way, yes, you are supposed to vote for what are called qualities, not issues, part of the reason is that on important issues, popular opinion on a major opinion was sharply divided and those issues just don't show up in elections and I think on some level the population is very aware of this and I don't think it's a lack of interest, I think it's a feeling of lack of ability to do much about it. but that's exactly it, but if we want to improve the situation in the country and I think we should know that that is the opportunity for activists, organizers, people who want to empower people and allow them to do things and it certainly can be done, we have a The legacy of freedom has not been a gift, it is the result of struggle, it was one that we can use that legacy of freedom if we want or we can abandon it, but those are options, no, I'm John Ski Farmington Michigan, thanks for the opportunity.

I think you answered the Iran part of my question and I had a follow up with the Bush administration ramping up the rhetoric and being the dramatic war against Iran. I wanted to know your opinion on US policy on Iran and what we can do to confront it. on the one hand, the oppressive regime at home and, on the other hand, the possible US invasion of Iran. Thank you, yes the situation in Iran is extremely difficult within Iran and it is quite clear that a substantial majority of the population wants to implement reform measures that will undermine the power of a clerical autocracy and the structure of the country that makes that central legislation can be approved as reformist legislation but then it has to be ratified by the clerical authorities and of course they always reject it and then veto all the reforms. legislation and they have force behind them they have military force, paramilitary and military force, so the population faces a difficult internal situation.

Now in that situation we can help the reformist movements or we can hinder them, we are hindering them by threatening with an invasion that simply gives credibility to more authoritarian, harsh and brutal elements, the country is under threat of attack, that is what is going to happen, We see it right here, the way the Bush administration has used the threat of terror, which is real, to impose authoritarian measures and control the population in ways that are unacceptable and the same thing is happening in Iran, of course, the efforts from outside to help the two through diplomacy through trade relations through trade and so on to integrate Iran into the region of the world, that is the only thing it can do.

The best we can do to help the progressive reformist elements we once had who want to make it a more free and democratic society: we cannot solve their problems, but we can improve the conditions under which they can face their problems. own problems and it will not be easy for them they face tough internal limitations about an hour to delve into Spokane Washington by Noam Chomsky hello hello gentlemen first dr. Chomsky, I would like to thank you very much for clarifying for me all the problems of political spheres around the world, contrary to a speech that you came from, one denies.

I'm a community center, I'm a first international student and I'm an economics major, and I'm a senior and so there are a lot of first international majors that I'm very interested in. His views at the beginning of the program, a gentleman called from the military and said, Don't you think a country should protect its country? population and its borders as well as its economy, yes, since I'm a little curious by stating that yes, you feel that a country's economy must be protected, you are inherently stating that yes, we should send in the military to enforce the rules of a corporation. and the corporation, of course, now and unfortunately in this country it is seen as something empty, it actually has, as you said, more rights than an individual, you are saying okay, yes, well, in that case I was not talking very clearly, I understood the question.

I mean, should weprotect him? Does a country have the right to protect itself from attack? Okay, so if someone attacks from abroad to say that he knows how to destroy American agriculture and industry, do we as a country have the right to defend ourselves? Yes, I think so, but maybe I misspoke, but you are interpreting what I said to mean that we have the right to send the military abroad to enforce the dominance of US-based corporations. No, of course, that is not defending the economy in the sense I had in mind. I think I agree with your point if I understand that guess some books plus some of the 98 books you have published in your life here is Noam Chomsky pirates and emperors old and new international terrorism in the real world new edition what year is it?

This is why we published the first one, which was just pirates and emperors, it was in 1986, right in the middle of the Reagan-Bush war on terrorism, as they called it, remember the war on terrorism was read eclair Don September 11, the first was not declared was the 20th. years before and has just been republished with new essays that update it since 1986, here is another prologue by Edward Saeed, updated edition of the faithful triangle, the United States, Israel and the Palestinians Now, which was written in 1983, just after the Israeli invasion of Lebanon and was updated in 1999 with a series of essay articles on the intervening period there is hunger Noam Chomsky power of understanding the indispensable Chomsky what year did this come out?

I was very surprised not to know that this material existed. It comes mainly from transcripts of long ATAR discussions and exchanges, if I remember from about 10 years ago, actually this particular version is from 2002, which was published then yes, but I think most of the material in it is from the period above, the two editors of Peter Mitchell and John Shuffle did a fantastic job. work of I know how they did it by finding the discussion material and transcripts by putting them together, they also put them on the Internet. There are no footnotes in the book. They put the footnotes on the Internet and it is actually their footnote.

They have elaborate sources. background extensive material is an excellent reference I use it tonight Norton Virginia forward, please consider it a great honor to be able to speak with dr. Johnston I am so shocked by what I just heard that it is difficult for me to ask my question. What I wanted to ask you is in your capacity as a linguist. Do you think you believe that dr. Chomsky, that a lot of the repression, the abuse of power that we are seeing and the terrorism included is the fear of the Goddess energy and do you know that this goddess or the feminine goddess energy got us into trouble regarding the Gaia hypothesis?

Well, first. especially as a linguist, I don't really have anything to say about it, there is no special professional knowledge related to your question, I tell you the truth, I don't really think about saying it. I'd be interested to know what you think, it's not there, since I had obviously thought about it, I went ahead and landed there. I appreciate Mr. Chomsky, yes, thank you for being on the show and doing everything you can to be a great American. What were the founders in Hayek's words and constitutional freedoms? What Hayek thought he was was an old Whig as opposed to the modified Whig who appeared in the 1830s and who was part of the making of a new sense of who we were, but in his book on rethinking Camelot I as a patriot Instead of a court dissenter, I think we should look to the actual documents for proof of Father Bush's complicity in the CIA assassination of President Kennedy and suggest that there were no changes when we returned to the US dollar bills.

Kennedy's federal reserve of American banknotes, as well as the 58,000 who subsequently died in the Roman colony of Indochina trying to preserve the interests of the 5% of Catholics whose own ninety-five percent of the wealth is denying a thread in the tapestry of history that the Jews and Gentiles had founded, this country knew and that was captured in Jefferson's letter to Samuel Khrushchev, everything that identifies the true Antichrist is this engine to enslave humanity which is exactly who they represent Now all over the world the corporations that you apparently rail against, I mean, this is the oil industry, it's Roman Catholic, Cheney and Rockefeller are just your hired help and the Bush family funded Hitler, that put him on the cover of the Time Magazine Man.

Year and you understand his reluctance to talk about the facts, but when we know we can send a human cry, let's go after Bush for his complicity with the FBI documents. Kitchell document of November 22, 1963, which can be obtained new. Hoover document that Bush denies, but which puts him in the CIA a week later, as well as the court case finding against Liberty Lobby that the jury determined that the CIA in fact committed the crime. I think a person of his stature has an obligation to the country, particularly his age, none of us do. I live here to call a spade a spade and say what is true if we are going to be a just land and the land that all our ancestors believe this country should be good at.

I agree that we should call a spade a spade and say what we think. It's true in the book, most of what you talked about I don't know anything about so I won't comment, but the specific thing you did raised my book rethinking Camelot. I wrote it because I had just been the State Department. I have just published extensive documentation on the early 1960s, a period that interests me greatly in relation to Vietnam; It complemented the large amount of information that was already available in the Pentagon Papers and in many other sources, when the Pentagon Papers came to light and which was an unusually rich source of information because it was not declassified material, it was material that was not intended to reach the public, so it's like capturing the archives of some country, so it was unusually rich material that I was involved in to some extent and wrote about properly. far that is this book for reasons of state that was mentioned is mainly about the Pentagon Papers, the new book, every Camelot thought about this included the subsequent documentation, in my opinion, I am saying that it calls a spade, a spade, a spade, the The way I see it, the documentation, which is unusually rich, proves it as conclusively as possible. in matters of history, which is always uncertain but demonstrates very convincingly that John F.

Kennedy was a hawk in Vietnam, he wanted to get the troops out, but everyone did too, but only after the victory did he make it very clear and explicit that There is no indication in the documentary records that I can find that he had any other intention than that and, furthermore, there is no indication of any significant change after the assassination, the policy continued on its course, the same people who ran it under Kennedy , as under Kennedy, practically the same people who pursued the goal. The same programs as conditions changed, his tactics changed, but there is no reason that I know of to believe that he would have acted differently and the same on other issues.

The murder was a crime and an atrocity, but the idea that there was some kind of high level. -A level conspiracy behind this seems extremely unlikely to me based on any evidence I can uncover and I have looked quite a bit at Mount Laurel New Jersey. Good afternoon to you, Professor Chomsky. I agree with most of what you have said in the past and On this show I also have three observations to make that I have gathered over the last few months, particularly after watching the media circus regarding the Iraq war and what unfortunately it happened after the 9-1-1 incidents.

First, my general feeling is that more and more Americans are being fooled into believing that they are saviors of world democracy. You know, it's a feeling, it's a prevalent feeling that spreads in the media, like you said before. It's like Britain used to say about India. You know there are like We are the people who are giving the right kind of things to these people, these poor people who live in their misery and superstition, we are the ones who are like teaching the art of survival in this new world civilized, you know, that's how it is.

In terms of an attitude, the second thing is that you would probably think that after nine one one after the serious misfortune that happened, there would be some humility and some understanding and some feeling among the public to understand the causes of why these have happened. things. And also try to understand the sheer feeling of unworthiness that people from different parts of the world feel, but unfortunately the public is becoming more and more upset and distrustful of people of other races within their own country because of what happened with nine one. One and the third thing is that when it comes to people like you, you are one of the few people with the voice of reason that appears from time to time in different media to undo the propaganda of these mainstream media, but several times voices like yours are hijacked by other people as radicals or rock stars or movie stars and things like that, so it all seems to undermine the credibility of the cause that we are trying to portray to the United States.

This is what's right there, should people really think that you know. Well, those are good questions, each one can take up an hour of discussion about the early Americans who were misled by the media. We have just seen a spectacular example of that, which has been discussed around the world. I must say that in September the campaign about you began. We know the pace of the war over the invasion of Iraq and at the same time we saw that there was a massive onslaught of government media propaganda accusing or at least implying that Iraq was an imminent threat to the security of the United States and even that Saddam Hussein was involved. in the al-qaeda style terrorism that he was behind may be involved in 9/11 and planning future atrocities that have occurred and had an effect if you review the polls very quickly the majority of the population came to believe that Iraq is a direct threat to the United States was the only one in the world who believed that Saddam Hussein was a threat.

I mean, he's hated everywhere and rightly so, but not considered dangerous, so the countries that Iran invaded and that you know despised him, were glad to see him attracted. and dismembered, but they did not fear him. I mean, they know perfectly well that Iraq was the weakest state in the world and had practically been disarmed. Their military expenditures were approximately a third of Yews, which is 10% of their population. In fact, they had been moving to try. reintegrate Iraq into the general regional system even though they despise Saddam, only in the United States did people think he was a threat to their security and that was the propaganda of the government media, the connection with terrorism was completely invented and it was so effective that in Bush's speech on the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln was able to say, without fear of ridicule, that the victory in Iraq was a victory in the war against terrorism.

I was the complete opposite, if anything it increased the threat of terrorism by increasing recruitment to terrorist groups as predicted by the intelligence agencies again, that is spectacular propaganda, just as the connection to 9/11 is such a fantasy. big that it is difficult to argue, you will not find that Intelligence Agency or serious strategic analysts in the world because there is no credibility in that, but over the months. At the beginning of the propaganda campaign, a large part of the population now probably a majority actually came to believe it, so yes, there is a lot of wishful thinking.

Your point about Britain and India is very pertinent. I suspect you're Indian and that's pretty much what I mean. the United States. You're not making this up, you're closely following the model of other imperial powers, so when Britain crushed India, India was one of the world's major commercial industrial centers in the 18th century, after two centuries of rule. British which had become a largely agricultural impoverished society. It was not until after Britain was expelled that its course of development was renewed, and in fact, after Britain was expelled, there were no more famines. Throughout the British period there were mass famines but Britain ignored itself and in fact many British are still considered civilizing benefactors who went to India to help the poor natives by some of the leading British intellectuals, You know, some of the most honorable people in modern intellectual history, people like John Stuart Mill wrote the most outrageous nonsense. about British benevolence in India and how it was there to save the barbarians and so on so you know under the continental powers if you take a look or even worse so yeah this is an old story and the US is following a very pathfamiliar but extremely ugly and in this kind of self-deception like the feeling among the public after 9/11, you know it is very difficult to judge the public's feelings, but at least my impression is different from yours, it seems so.

For me, 9/11 was kind of a wake-up call for a lot of people. The United States is a very insular society in which most people don't pay much attention to what's going on outside, and in fact, people don't know much. about the outside world, they don't know geography, the story sold something, but the impact of 9/11, part of the impact, I think, was making people feel that we better find out something about the world and our role in it and the way people feel and so on and so forth and there was a noticeable increase, a very large increase in speaking requests and book sales.

Every small publisher I had started republishing books that had been out of print for years, but only because demand grew so much. I mean, I myself know the request for talks and debates that skyrocketed after 9/11 and everyone else who is publicly available had the same experience. I think it was a very healthy reaction. They were also unhealthy reactions of the type you mentioned there as well. Life is a complicated business, but some of the reactions were healthy sensible and an opportunity to seize. I think a lot of the mass protests against the Iraq war, which were unprecedented, are based on that, in terms of the hijacking of voices, well, you know, people can do. what they want you, it's just up to each individual and everyone else to decide what makes sense what doesn't make sense north with Look New York, go ahead please.

I would like to ask you about your history with Zionism. Do you see any difference between a Jewish homeland and a Jewish state, yes, yes, so one could debate the validity of having a Jewish homeland in Palestine, that is the question, but let's accept that for the moment the part of the Zionist movement to which that I belong and so do my parents. I must say that in the 30s and 40s I was committed to reestablishing a kind of Jewish homeland in Palestine, it is debatable, but yes, that was my position then and it is still a Jewish state, it is a different matter, It is a state in which, in fact, the groups that I was part of a call for a national settlement in Palestine, a binational Palestinian society, Jewish and Palestinian, based on it was a socialist movement, so, based on the cooperation, there were large collectives of cooperative movements, etc., efforts to integrate the general population into It can be debated how realistic that was or even how valid, but it is quite different from the notion of a Jewish state once it was established the state in 1948, many of these questions arose and, as I said before, I believe that the state itself should have all the rights. any state can legitimately claim and, as I mentioned, I don't think states can claim many rights, but maybe anyone except the ones they have in the international system, this is one of them, but being a Jewish state, an Islamic state, a Christian state or a white state, that's a different matter Madison Wisconsin, go ahead, please, yes.

I wanted to follow up on a comment that Professor Chomsky made regarding trade agreements, as I understand it, foreign corporations have even more rights in the United States than American corporations because Foreign corporations have the right to sue the US government. for financial losses allegedly caused by US laws governing discrimination in the workplace or the environment. Well, that's not just for foreign corporations. I mean, trade laws give corporations rights that human beings don't have included in those measures, it's a complicated issue, but there are measures that actually allow corporations to sue governments for alleged loss of profits, etc., and some of those lawsuits have been brought by American corporations incidentally against Mexico, against Canada and, in principle, against other countries. corporations in other countries could do that here too, in my opinion these are completely illegitimate, you can't sue Mexico.

I can't sue Mexico, but the metal-clad corporation was able to sue Mexico because they claimed that environmental laws passed by a Mexican province interfered. with their right to put, I think it was a waste dump there or something and they actually won under the later rules, but that's a mutual that's not just foreign corporations corporations Eureka California yeah, Professor Chomsky, you have three quick questions for you, are easy to answer. answer apart from voting what can a person do there is one thing i would like to know about the crude situation the other thing is apart from the Constitution what document or book would you suggest a person to read and thirdly will he ever get his own talk show on the radio well, the answer is the last: no, I have never heard a man speak.

I'm sure I couldn't stand it and would never understand it anyway. On the second question, I can't really name a book that people should read depends on your own interests and concerns. I get asked a lot to give reading lists to people you know, but until you meet the only people who can decide what they should read or the people themselves, they know your interests, they know your concerns. Know your level of commitment. I mean, if you ask a question, you know what you should read on this or that topic. Maybe you have a suggestion, but what book should I read?

I can't say I want to know anything about American history. He says one book he would suggest is a book by old close friends who were on this show just a year ago Howard Zinn, The History of His Town in the United States, which I think just sold its millionth copy. There's a great introduction to American history in a way that's not normally taught but should be, that's a tip when it comes to voting, voting is okay. I'm glad we have the right to vote, but you have to have someone to vote for, you know? there have to be issues and candidates and what are sometimes called secondary associations, that is, organizations of people who advocate for their own interests and concerns, then voting can become meaningful, so let's say we take the primary system in the United States and let's just ask how it works, say New.

In the Hampshire primary what happens is the candidates come to town and say this is what I stand for, vote for me and then they go somewhere else where people listen to them, probably don't believe what they say. I don't have any special reason to do it, but that's not the way a democracy works, the way a democracy should work is that the people in the city should be told to get together, discuss and resolve what they think should happen. in the country and then they should invite people or elect their own candidate. choose your own candidates, what is the best way or if others are running for office, say okay, come here and we will tell you what we think you should do if you are elected, if you don't want to do it, then leave.

This is what we want, that would be democratic, more democratic, but until things like this happen on a large scale, there won't be a functioning democracy if you don't do it. I tend to vote for local candidates and as they advance. I go up the ident scale less and less because I think they respond less and less to the population and they respond less and less to external forces. However, it varies, you know, and so it's really a particular choice, case by case, the step, go ahead, yes, dr. Chomsky, I have been a fan of yours for many years and, as for the latest books that should be read, I have read a couple of books that interest me and I would like to hear his comments on one of them, Ann Coulter. book called slander that talks a lot about the liberal media and I would like to ask you what you think we, the public, can do to get the media, the mainstream media, to respond and give more conservative views and more points of view. international view, and we are currently being fed by newspapers and mainstream media, my second question has to do with the book written by John Peters since time immemorial and I consider it to be a very well researched book and I was horrified to learn of the British involvement and the situation. that exists now in Israel and I was also horrified to learn of the deceptions that have been passed down for seemingly centuries regarding the history between the Israelis and the Arabs in what you call, you know, the Jewish homeland.

Thank you, caller, okay, John Peters book. I'm sorry to say that it is a hoax that was exposed and removed from publication after exposure and has now returned. I'm surprised to see when the book first appeared, it seems well researched on the surface, what's the point of the book, oh the book? claims that Palestinians are recent immigrants who arrived after Jewish settlement and therefore they can return home and there is no moral problem. It has many footnotes and what appeared to be many sources was immediately analyzed very carefully. The best job. This was done by Norman Finkelstein, you can read a detailed analysis in his excellent book Image in reality and the Israel-Palestine conflict, but he explains it very quickly.

It was also exposed in Israel by some of the leading scholars who pointed out this nonsense. the book had a wonderful reception in the United States, the publishers then made an editorial mistake and allowed it to appear in England as soon as it appeared in England it was demolished and by academics, by journalists, by everyone, then it was withdrawn here, the people took it down. his support and disappeared. I suggest you look very carefully at the critical discussion before trusting what it says. Like Fran Coulter, I didn't read her book, but you know, talking about the liberal media just doesn't make any sense, I mean, to begin with, you know the media has a whether you want to say media or liberal, I can't disagree.

I mean, journalists tend to support the choy woman's election, yes, they probably believe in civil rights, yes, probably, but. That has had nothing to do with the media content. If you want, I've never talked in my little OTT about the media, but I've never talked about the liberal conservative bias, but I don't think it means anything. I want to understand the media first of all take a look at their content okay I gave an example before the fantastic propaganda that managed to convince people of these incredible hoaxes about Iraq it's not that the media came out and said that Saddam Hussein was responsible of 9/11 but they allowed the distribution of those charges uncritically in such a way that the population actually came to believe it and there is case after case of this before this one.

Earlier in the show I mentioned that you can't find a map in the media. of Clinton Barack's offers of a Camp David deal that was so praised, well, you know, I don't know if that's liberal or conservative bias, but it's not journalistic integrity if you want people to understand what this proposal was about. showing. that that's the way to decide what it was and that was withheld and there's case after case of this, I think there's a huge documentation of the fact that you can check it if you want, the setting of the choice of themes, the setting of the Information, knowledge of basic assumptions, and so on fall within a fairly narrow spectrum that tends to largely support state and corporate power.

I don't think I'm either liberal or conservative, it's just the way things work when I'm around. Some of my favorite newspapers are called very conservative like the Wall Street Journal news is as good as any other I know maybe better and it's supposed to be a conservative newspaper but the question is what is the media product and then if You want to understand it, you don't look. in liberal and conservative, whatever they want to say, look at the institutional roots, what kind of institutions the media are, you know, it turns out that their major corporations are linked to even bigger ones, their income comes from other businesses That is, advertisers are basically selling a product. audiences to other companies and I think if you look you will find that the interests and concerns of sellers and buyers have a very powerful influence on the media product that needs to be demonstrated, not just stated, but that is my opinion and, as I say, I know it is has written a lot about this, but I don't think it has anything to do with the liberal and conservative bias on 30 minutes Levin, although I'm Chomsky Germans Bern New York, please move on to the Internet as a news source.

The possibility of really breaking the impasse that you talked about so well in your book, manufacturing consent and continuing to talk about the Internet, has been a tremendous value in education and organization and in getting around the framework of a kind of doctrinal control that comes from the main institutions. That's what most of the activism of the last few years has happened here.years has been based on the Internet, say the unprecedented World Social Forum, a huge international movement aiming for fairer global justice and fairer international political, economic and social agreements. Last year, people showed up in Porto Alegre, Brazil, representing a large number of people around the world, almost exclusively through Internet interactions.

You can't find anything about it in the mainstream media. Opposition to the multilateral investment agreement, which was strong enough to achieve it. the powerful state, the main states that retreated was organized by the Internet, other countries have even waged war, the overthrow of the Suharto dictatorship in Indonesia was substantially based on Internet communication between students and others, not many people had access to Internet there, but enough. who could circumvent dictatorial controls and help create a popular movement that overthrew the dictator in South Korea. There was an equally remarkable display of democracy through the Internet and its latest election.

South Korea turns out to be a very connected country. I think probably more. than any other in the world per capita and through the Internet it became possible to develop what amounted to alternative media that broke the media monopoly helped organize and unite people in support of the candidate who actually won South Korea can teach us something lessons and the way democracy should work, this was a real achievement and is something that is a model for others. On the other hand, we must also keep in mind that the Internet is a system that has many facets and is also a method of coercion and domination.

It is also a source of much fantasy. You can publish whatever you want on the Internet. The good thing, but it has its negative aspect. You have to read what you find there with caution and skepticism. Falls Church Virginia Hello, it's a real pleasure to talk. to you Brian mr. Chomsky, I have three brief points I would like to make. One of them is that he is familiar with the Bible Code and is there any truth to that? House Republicans can take sayings that a rising tide lifts all boats and imply that tax cuts help the poor when the tide is there if that is if you really think about the analogy, you have rowboats. that they are owned by buying the yachts and they claim that because that but when they get richer the rowboats are going to rise and since The robberies represent the minimum wage, it has actually worked for them and the third is the solution to their true Palestine , a state divided between Egypt and Israel from the Gaza Strip to the entrance on the other side, the same amount of land on each side for me, from Israel and Egypt. buy the land and provide a Palestinian state, what do you think of that?

Thanks, well into the Bible code, you know you have to make your own judgment, but I don't give any credence to the rising tide that lifts all boats. that's really vulgar propaganda that means exactly what you said, it's quite the opposite, the tax cuts are overwhelmingly aimed at benefiting the rich and the chances of them even stimulating the economy are high, if you want to stimulate the economy, don't wants to do it. Put money in the hands of the richest part of the population, you put money in the hands of the poorest part of the population, we will spend it and that will stimulate investment, etc., it is not a stimulus for the economy, it is a gift to the rich and calling it propaganda that is behind this is shameful for Israel and Palestine.

The idea of ​​a one-to-one land swap makes sense, but if you look at the map, you think the proposal you made isn't going to work. There is no way to do a land swap on the border between Egypt and Israel that would mean something that would do Gaza no good and it and the main Palestinian population are in the West Bank, that's where they live, that's where they have a right. to live at least you know they have other claims that they have mostly abandoned, but at least the 22 percent of mandatory Palestine that is in the West Bank should effectively be theirs, perhaps with some land swaps along the border, but Israel offered a little. piece of the Negev cutting it out as a gesture in Clinton's overtures to Barack, but that didn't make sense if you looked at where it was, it didn't mean anything Phoenix, go ahead, please yes, I really don't agree with your comment about US sanctions o In determining Israeli policy, it seems to me that it seems to most Americans that with the three billion dollars and the attention we give to Israel every year and the three billion dollars military and now recently with the loan of eleven billion dollars, Spencer our F is also the greed that Israel is basically got us by the seat of our pants right now with a package and jinsa giving money to the congressman, they can't turn around and vote against these things , so everything you have, all this money that goes to Israel, goes back and is used by the military complex to buy weapons for Israel and the citizens of the United States do nothing but lose control of their congressmen because if they vote in against these things, then they are put like Jim Moran being excluded for telling the truth, then you have a situation where you have the Pentagon. controlled by Wolfowitz and Pearl and dr. that crime that is missing millions of 800 million dollars in appropriations that Americans feel helpless in terms of how money is given to Israel spent for the benefit of Israel and then you say we control Israel, I think you got it completely backwards .

I'd like your comment on that, yes, well, it's a topic I've written a lot about and I won't try to go over it, but there has been a debate for some time about the sources of what is called our support for Israel. I don't even like that phrase, I think it's very damaging to Israel, but we support Israeli expansion and militarism, that's what the sources of that are. Well, you know a theory, what you describe is pressure groups and influence in Congress. And my opinion is that the record does not support that what it shows, I believe and I have tried to give printed evidence of this, is that the US relationship with Israel has followed very closely the conception of Israel as what is called a strategic asset for the United States.

I can't go over the history now, but I think if you look at it you will find that Israel was considered part of the fact, the part of the American system to dominate the oil resources of the Middle East, which is the main concern, until now was recognized as an asset, as connections with Israel increased, so in 1958, for example, American intelligence first described it as for greater support for Israel because, according to them, a logical corollary of our opposition to Arab nationalism is support for Israel as one of the reliable bases for the United States. power in the region together with Turkey and at that time you led these are the so-called peripheral states that oppose Arab nationalism.

In 1967, US support for Israel soared, but that was not because of effects in Congress, but because Israel provided an important service. for the United States it destroyed the center of Arab nationalism, that is, Nasser's Egypt, which was considered a threat to the oil-producing monarchies and to American dominance of the region. Okay, Israel eliminated it. Aid to Israel has gone up a lot and I think the record continues that way. At this point, Israel has practically become an American military base on the high seas. As you mentioned, a lot of the money that goes to Israel goes directly back to the United States and military equipment in the high-tech industry and now that just comes in very close. integrated as highly militarized societies based largely on a high-tech military industry, Israel now has military forces that, according to its own army, the IDF, although the air and armor forces are larger and more advanced than those of any power NATO outside the United States.

It is a small country, but that is because it is effectively an offshore military base for the United States and I think that when the United States has not wanted Israel to do something and is told to always back off, the lobby disappears has little effect, but it's debatable. I mean there's evidence on both sides and I suggest you look for it Boston, you're next. Yes, my question is regarding the Green Party. I understand the rule as a supporter. Would that be true in general? Yes, supporter in principle. I have my own opinion. If you ask me how I thought people had a vote in the 2000 election, it's that I received support from what was called at the time, you know, tactical voting, I mean in states like Massachusetts, where the result was clear in advance.

I think it made sense to vote for the Green Party as a way to build an alternative and ultimately important organization and the political life of the country in states where if I had voted in Florida I would have voted against Bush because I thought there was enough difference between the candidates they want it not to be lost among the Republicans, so it is an endorsement, but yes, next Barstow California you will be on the air, Barstow, go ahead, dr. Chomsky wanted to ask how it is possible to turn to the United Nations as a source of moral authority.

Eck, I don't see how it can be considered anything more than a totalitarian instrument of the same corporate elites you claim there. What is the interest you claim to oppose? The UN is, first of all, the UN. Remember that you can't do anything beyond what the great powers, primarily the United States, allow you to do, so you operate within a framework set by great power interests, however, it represents a broader range. of interests and concerns than any particular country. I am not saying that it is a moral authority and I have never called it that, but the UN can become, and to some extent has been, an important and effective instrument for doing many good things in the world. it cannot do so beyond the limits of what the great powers will allow.

I have a ton of emails here and we're running out of time, and if you don't mind keeping the answers short, I'll try to go through them. Bob Feldman thought he might be interested in asking Professor Chomsky of MIT. Is it true that the twelfth largest recipient of US Air Force war research contracts in 1999? MIT also provides office space for his literary work. I don't know if it's the twelfth largest, but it's certainly a big military contractor, so, for example, in the 1960s, when I was very active against the war and involved in direct resistance, facing prison , etc., was actually one hundred percent funded by the Pentagon.

In fact, MIT. All in all, if I remember correctly, the figures were 90 percent funded by the Pentagon or something like that and it's certainly still a lot less than that, but a major military contractor there are also some questions about the book, so the MIT runs labs that are full-time Pentagon labs, but whether it's the twelfth largest or not, I can't tell you this is from San Francisco and I'm sorry for the pronunciation, are you mayor, it seems I'm curious to know what the reaction was. from Professor Chomsky upon hearing that President Carter received the Nobel Prize.

Peace Prize, well, I don't think the recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize are a very mixed story. In Carter's case, why he was offered the award is what we should be asking. The Camp David peace accords in 1977, which established a peace treaty between Egypt and Israel and which was considered a great diplomatic triumph, etc., are a serious misrepresentation of the facts and that In reality the peace treaty was based on an offer that Egypt made in 1971 in 1971 President Sadat of Egypt offered total peace he treated Israel without mentioning anything about the Palestinians nothing about the occupied territories total peace in exchange for the Israeli evacuation of the Egyptian territory Sinai Israel can recognize that as a genuine peace offered considered that it converted because they wanted to expand into the Sinai, the United States had to make a decision, at that time Egypt was in fact following the United States. position official position the us I had to decide whether to persist with that or change it and support Israeli expansion.

Henry Kissinger called what he called stalemate: no negotiations, only reliance on force to get the United States back to Israel's rejection of the offer that led almost directly to the 1973 war, which was very dangerous for Israel, very destructive. , almost led to a nuclear war, years of oppression, violence and terror, finally, in 1977 and 78, the United States and Israel basically agreed, so that's the original offer. I do not consider it a diplomatic triumph. I think it was a diplomatic catastrophe. Matthew Conover Hi, I'm a bit of a fan of Mr. Chomsky's work since he collected the necessary allusions five or six years ago, since then I have read countless essays and interviews to find American power and the new mandarinsquite relevant to current events, however, mr.

Chomsky makes it clear that he does not like people talking about his personal life because he disdains the cult of personality. I totally get it, but that doesn't stop me from being curious about his life, so I was excited to read his profile in The New Yorker a couple of weeks ago. For months I have been wondering if mr. Chomsky also read it and what he thinks about it is: I wouldn't comment on it frankly, but was he cooperative, except to advise you not to take anything seriously unless he could independently verify it? It is an attack on a hated politician. enemy in an attempt to discredit them, you can decide for yourself whether it is right or wrong, but just check anything verifiable and attack the Union events.

I understood later, did you talk to them? Talk to anyone you know. Any journalist comes into my office. talk to them MacFarquhar was the woman who wrote the article I believe, but I tell you that's for you to judge, just check anything you can verify and see what you discover. Hello, Dr. Chomsky, this is from Catherine B. King, you offer us your severe criticism of the left as a general movement that has also manifested itself in the current ethical and political situation. I think we can learn more about how to make things work from that criticism than from the current one. controversy with the right, so should there be a criticism of the left?

Will you give us and I will give a critique to the left? Well, you know, the left is so amorphous. I don't know what to say. I mean, there are parts of the left. With which I radically disagree, there are parts of what is called the left that I support. I only know how to comment. I am referring to yours. Many of the positions taken by people who consider themselves to be on the left. I think they are completely wrong. Others are completely correct. You have to go. case by case Jerry Stinson of Greenwich Connecticut two or three weeks ago I sent an email to Professor Chomsky about the importance of removing George W.

Bush from office in November 2004. It is a polite response and I expressed my agreement that this president in particular should not be given four additional years. in office, assuming then that Professor Chomsky believes it is worth mobilizing voters against President Bush. I would like to hear his reasons for believing it. To put it very simply, what is wrong with President Bush? Well, President Bush defends an international policy and a domestic policy. Which I think are extremely dangerous. Domestic politics is what was discussed above to lead the country into a fiscal disaster through tax cuts that benefit the rich and will lead to the elimination of social programs like those Ari Fletcher mentioned.

Medicare Medicaid Social. Security probably educates others and makes the population popular and returns the country to a period before the progressive legislation of the last century that greatly improved things. I think it's perfect, but it's been an improvement. I think it is a disaster internationally. The program is exactly what was said in the national security strategy, a call for us to dominate globally through force with the acceptance of the right to attack anyone who might challenge our domination, that is extravagant. I mean, it is a call for us to submit to the trials of Nuremberg, Greenwich, Connecticut.

They are very ironic, that was my letter that you read, if I could ask the rest of the other question, and that is you, Jerry Stenson, yeah, okay, the rest of us, are there any undeclared candidates or Democrats or not who ? I think he offers an important alternative to Bush and he can win, that's what he wants. Thanks thanks. Well, there are two questions. There is an important alternative and it can win. I think Dennis Kucinich offers a very important alternative, but will he ever be able to remember an election? in the United States, unfortunately, it is a media campaign, a medium, so in fact it relies on huge funds, mainly corporations, which finance its public relations program and we should change that, but that is how it is with other candidates, It's a complicated story.

I won't comment. New York City Dr. Tomsky, the privilege of speaking with you. I was wondering if I could get your opinion on America. his most recent immigration policy where he is drastically reducing the number of highly skilled and professionally educated workers from China, India, Pakistan and other developing countries, ostensibly to reduce unemployment among skilled Americans and yet, on the other hand, They are freely granting immigration and citizenship to Mexico Cuba workers, who for the most part earn the minimum wage. I was wondering if you thought there was some political reason as opposed to the economic one for these good groups in Cuba to be a separate case.

I mean people that the United States has been trying to stimulate immigration from Cuba, but that's because it has been trying since 1959 to overthrow the Cuban government again. Mexico is a special case. Low-wage Mexican labor maintains part of the American lifestyle by producing extremely cheap exploited labor that works in inhumane conditions and in the agricultural sector. system that is a shame in itself in terms of keeping out more skilled workers, well you know, the groups that have power will try to protect themselves and the skills professionals have considerable power, they don't want to be competition for Vanowen, either What is the immigration policy? should be a totally different question.

I mean, if we believed in free trade, if someone believed in free trade, they would accept Adam Smith's principle that free trade is based on the free distribution of labor, the free movement of labor and Not only the free movement of capital is probably not a correct policy, because there are many other issues that conflict with it, such as the maintenance of national cultures and all kinds of other things, so I think it is not easy to say in general terms what an immigration policy should be like, but I think the reasons for the options you are pointing out are reasonably clear.

I know you said we should make our own decisions about the New Yorker article, but there are a couple of paragraphs I want to read and ask you about what it has to do with your wife, who is with you today Carol Astor she is how many years have you been Married since 1949 Carol shares her husband's views and has been involved politically, but she dislikes the existence of activists even more than he does. My life certainly has not turned out the way I expected. She told me the interesting question is if I were In the position of making the decision to get married now, would I choose him? she continued, it's a funny question who knows, I mean, it's very different from what I expected just in terms of the fame and notoriety and whatever you call it the intrusion of public life the ridicule clinging to it the nobility oblige aspect sometimes it says I just have to take that call we actually have it now so the phone almost never rings except when it rings at 3 a.m. from some party where the children have excessive ears or noses or who knows what, have contact lenses very out of context and selected to give a certain impression.

I mean, some of the words may be accurate. but that is the goal of reporters is to present a certain image. You can ask my wife what she thinks about it, assuming we have more time to tour El Cajon, California, you're on the ball, dr. Chomsky, I wonder if you could comment on the failure to find the weapons of mass destruction supposedly held by Iraq and the implications that would have for the United States and the world if such weapons are not found. Thank you. Well, in the rest of the world it is a big problem in England that is leading to major attacks on the government.

Former Foreign Secretary Robin Cook has just delivered a long, harsh critique of the government for simply lying to the public. The position of the British government was very simple and direct, you know that Mr. Blair said today that he is going to present the information that will show that today they have found mass weapons. Well, I haven't seen it, yes, but so far they haven't presented any significant evidence of what I mean, frankly, I'm surprised, I mean, I would be very surprised if they couldn't find some evidence that Iraq was producing biological and chemical weapons. . My suspicion is that if indeed, 40 miles from Washington last week, someone discovered that they found anthrax and other bacteria that had been left over from some program presumably ended, so they claimed, and surely they will find that somewhere or another, but the failure in finding the weapons of mass destruction that were claimed and the weakening of specific claims has been quite notable.

You will remember that Colin Powell's position and the official government position here were his words: the only question is whether Iraq will disarm if that were the only question and no weapons of mass destruction can be found, which means a lot of lying and, of course, fact, intelligence information. The community itself is up in arms about this, we got a call, they laughed and we ended up at noon in Georgia, go ahead please, if you have any thoughts on the late John Rolls theory of justice, thank you, we only have a minute, yeah Well, I was.

He is an extraordinarily important philosopher and a wonderful person who also knew him through an infinitely important book that revitalized political philosophy in the 20th century. next button a book in the middle of a book almost finishing a book right now when will it come out as soon as I find enough moments scattered here and there to put it in the piece of the final pieces you're saying the fall, I hope you're seventy-four, yeah , you're turning 75, you plan to retire soon from all of us formally all taxes a couple of years ago, but that's formal, just keep the changes, no, I don't see any major changes in the future if I just joined us, We have had three hours with Dr.

Noam Chomsky resides at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, is a native of Philadelphia, graduated from Philadelphia University in Pennsylvania in 1949, obtained his master's degree there in '51 and his doctorate in '55 and has published 98 books in his life. Thank you very much for joining us, thank you. to our audience have a good day