Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Published on Thursday, August 5, 2010 by Media Sanctuary
Noam Chomsky's Recorded Address to the United National Peace Conference
Renowned linguist and political critic Noam Chomsky delivered this address by pre-recorded video to the attendees of the United National Peace Conference in Albany, New York on July 24, 2010.
Video by Charngchi Way, Authority Smashers Collective
http://www.authoritysmashers.wordpress.com
Distributed
by the United National Peace Conference Media Project, an initiative
powered by the Sanctuary for Independent Media and Hudson Mohawk
Indymedia Center.
Comments are closed
22 Comments so far
Show AllI listened to every word Mr. Chomsky.....The only hope of stopping Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski is if you gather the elite scientists, philosophers, professors,all the anti war groups and mount a two million person march to Washington D.C.....
You mentioned the warships that passed through the Suez Canal. You mentioned the base on the island of Diego Garcia and the potential for nuclear warheads being used. You continually reminded us that Barack Obama has increased the violence and the weapons over what Bush did except you failed to mention he has an "Assassination List" that includes Americans....
How can the United States be using the Taliban, Jundallah, to destabilize Iran and, at the same time, claim that the Taliban are the enemy in Afghanistan? (Jundallah admitted responsibility for the murder of 27 civilians in an Iranian Mosque last month. July 2008, Congress approved 400 million dollars for the destabilization of Iran with most of that money to go to Jundallah.)
Jundallah was once led by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the guy who confessed, after five years of torture and brainwashing, to planning the attacks of 9/11 (No CIA Truth Serum would have gotten that confession!).....Funny, Mr Chomsky, not even you question how Khalid could have convinced NORAD to have five practice exercises on 9/11 so that four hijacked planes could not be intercepted.
The U.S. will give Obama "Emergency Powers" once the Invasion of Iran begins.....What type of "National Security State" will we have then?
Great post, herbert.
The 2 million people who showed up in DC to cheer for Obama on that freezing January 20, 2009 inauguration day need to return to DC to condemn Obama's war actions or the blood they got on their hands cheering him on will never come off.
Wow...that's an interesting point of view. But totally logical. And it's depressing to think how many will actually admit they have blood on their hands.
I voted for Obama and, given the choices, will again. And yes, I admit to blood on my hands, but certainly not with pride.
I also stand vigil for peace every Sunday with the Kalamazoo Nonviolent Opponents to War.
Into year eight.
Enough.
I voted for Obama too. I honestly thought he was running as a stealth progressive. Hell, in North Carolina I didn't really have any other choice. But I had held out the hope that Obama might be the kind of inspiring leader who could guide the sheeple out of the Valley of the Shadow. Instead, we are deeper than ever. Chris Hedges calls it a death spiral. It's a shame. I still believe change really was possible- not enough to forestall the eventual reckoning for more than a few decades but things could have been made better for a while. The nation was behind Team Obama for a little while, until they realized it was just more of the same old bullshit in a shinier box...
if you vote for Obama again, you will have negated every vigil you and your compatriots have made.
And what choices did, and do, you reject in favor of this fellow?
If you admit to having no pride for the blood on your hands, why do you persist in supporting a fellow who adds yet more? Even Lady MacBeth apparently had regrets as she wandered the halls ....
RaydelC.
What an excellent comment. It is long past the point that all those people who showed up for Obama's inauguration also march outside the White House and to chant at Obama as was done at another Democratic president named Lyndon Baines Johnson over forty years ago:
"Hey, hey O-bomb-a
how many kids did you kill today?"
"I mean even if it [US GOVERNMENT COMPLICITY IN THE 9/11 ATTACKS] were true, which is extremely unlikely, who cares? I mean it doesn't have any significance."
Noam Chomsky.........
nineeleven was an inside job
Such position has greatly increased Noam's media exposure, but who cares?
As Noam would say, in the most sucessful propaganda campaigns, 99% of what the propagandist says should be true.
I have to agree with Chomsky here in the sense that proving such would, at this point, be like carrying coals to Newcastle ....
Of course he could simply be making an observation ...
I love it. "Us Oil firms have not done well in the competition for Iraqi resource."
But, but, but... it's about oil and the military industrial complex. Israel is not a reason. No sir. AIPAC has nothing to o with it.
De-Countrify Israel Now.
I respect Noam Chomsky enormously, his analyses of US aims, means and methods are always spot on, but I wonder if he will sign any more letters asking 3rd parties not to run .....
duplicate
I have no respect for Noam Chomsky for that very reason. Chomsky told voters to vote for Obama...knowing...knowing full well that Obama was not peddling peace.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNpNzDoH1II
I voted for Obama also, but given the lack of choice? He let the cat out of the bag when he supported the wiretaps. We all hoped that was a stealth campaign but we gambled and lost. Let's move on.
There is a very important book by Edwin Black called War on the Weak. In it he discusses eugenics. It seems that none other than the good old USA started the ball rolling. Two foundations Rockefeller & Ford pushed their belief that some segments of our species deserve to survive and others don't. In view of the rapidly disappearing resources on this planet it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the losers: Katrina, the Tsunami, lack of AIDS money, Iwreck, all of the stans, Africa--which will receive the highest impact from climate change. In many statements Adolph Hitler credits the US-based foundations for pointing him in the right direction toward the embodiment of the eugenics ideology--elimination camps.
The Oligarchy of about 6000 men will divide what is remaining of the earth's provisions the rest will have to exist on what's left. Recall the movie "Escape from New York" by John Carpenter and you will have a vivid picture of just what the Oligarchs have in store for us. The New Austerity campaigns in Europe are the beginning. The too big to fail banksters have stolen our wages, loaned it back to us at exorbitant interest rates, gambled with those astronomical profits and lost then charged the borrowers--US--for their losses. They are no longer taxed, corporations are both non-human entities--watch BP wriggle out of their liabilities--and human entities, whenever it suits their bottom lines. Greece, France and England's citizenry are being forced to pay what the Oligarchs owe to the rest of us. Check out Iceland for a viable way out. I doubt if the Europeans allow for this impoverishment--they've seen it before. The USA is next. It will take a while but this country won't accept the "offer" either. Just remember...we have the superior numbers. By definition an Oligarchy means a FEW!
But there was a choice, Nader and McKinney were on the ballot in all but several states.
"We all hoped that was a stealth campaign but we gambled and lost."
And it was really remarkable. Obama even warned you it wasn't a stealth campaign. You wouldn't believe him!
"Let's move on."
Obama says that whenever the people want to hold someone in the oligarchy accountable.
The comments on Chomsky's talk by CD readers who are generally progressive and among the more informed of the population, leave me quite dumb struck and are I believe indicative of the problem. People are identifying with the personalities, Noam Chomsky this, Obama that, Nader whatever… and they are missing the picture. In obsessing with “personalities” they are missing the wood for the trees. As if by somehow changing the personalities the system will change.
It might if you lived in a democracy. Americans still believe, despite having been shown the contrary in 2000 and again in 2004, and then being duped again in 2008 that their democratic system, or even their voting system has no relevance or meaning. If the man says “a” he will do “b”, if you press button “A” the vote will be switched to “B”. Your system is rigged, but you are conditioned to keep doing the same thing and expecting a different result. You are mad!
This 30 minute talk shows the American people clearly that they are totally hoodwinked by a fascist military tyranny that is operating around the world like a mafia on steroids all for the benefit of a few oligarchs. The “American people” are the golden cow that produces the milk, “tax revenues” or carries the burden namely “debt” in the form of deficit spending that enables these gangsters.
As long as you go on discussing the peripheral personality issues and not deal with the structure and meaning of the corrupt system you are being self delusional and by default complicit. Your choice is already reduced to serving the security enforcement mechanism that protects the status quo or slaving for the debt imposed on you. Any other alternative is either irrelavant will to be considered treason or terrorism.
You are in exactly the position my mother was in Berlin in 1935-36. Only the personalities have changed and the power of the weapons and force at hand, but that is what you paid for. That is what Mr Chomsky is telling you.
Today is the anniversary of Hiroshima, and despite the diplomacy, sincere sounding words, and ceremony, reality seems much more to be pointing towards a future that might make that most hideous of crimes 65 years ago look just like the memorable first road bump on the path of self destruction.
No one is not addressing the corrupt system. It's just that Chomsky has ceased to be a reliable source about it. To try to take the forces of human agency and interpersonal trust out of the equation makes no sense. Like it or not, to a certain extent, history is a function of men(now women too) and not ideas.
What are you searching for, the perfect oracle? In the video you linked in your earlier comment Chomsky said "vote Obama without illusions” followed by a historical perspective of Democrat administrations compared to Republicans as relatively being slightly more answerable to the public over time.
…Lesser of Evils, he said “lesser evils do make a difference,… a narrow difference.” Etc..
Where do you get from that “Vote Obama.”, other than “rather than McCain” I don’t know? Perhaps you need people to tell you things more simply.
I understand dramatic exaggeration as well as the next guy, but hey, Chomsky’s comments and reflections on the dominant elite and political situation prior to the 08 election and the very accurate summery in the video here can hardly make him to have “ceased to be a reliable source”.
He is in fact most accurate at laying it out in both instances. In this one he too seems to have been surprised by the degree of deviance from Obama’s stated policies, it seems, not that he did not warn of the inevitability of it.
And nobody is taking “the forces of human agency and interpersonal trust out of the equation”. Just don’t waste time discussing which puppet got elected and how long the strings are. There is no point your crying over how gullible millions were last time to believe Obama represented “change”. Get real, who needs a discussion on the characters of what appears as a Hollywood soap drama? Yes there too personalities are shaped and projected to fill slots in an overall scenario which is written to distract an audience.
Hey Poitou, Switch it off and write your own future.
Perhaps it might be useful to distinguish between Chomsky as a reliable source of information and analysis of the corrupt system and Chomsky as an expert on how to fix it. His statement (on the video) that there is nothing wrong with voting for the lesser of two evils comes from what I believe is his belief that, fundamentally, elections are a sideshow and he is cynical about them. He comes from an anarchist position. I think his statement is wrong because what he leaves out is that all the positive changes pushed for by active progressive movements were, eventually, only realized through - legislation, which is enacted by - legislators, which are, in turn, chosen by - elections. Not that the legislators themselves were, necessarily, other than elite, but that they saw electoral handwriting on the wall, handwriting that is erased when "outside" political forces are either neutered or neuter themselves by non participation in the political, electoral process. This is what turned me against the Greens in '04 (or was it '00, can't remember) with their "safe state" strategy.
His historical generalization about folks being better off "over time" under Dems than under Reps, is, IMO, rather like saying that, "over time", stock X has better "returns" than stock Y, although, in actuality, neither stock is worth a damn over all, or saying that "over time" we are all dead, but shroud A lasts longer than shroud B. His refusal to consider the possibility that voting for something good is better than voting for something "less bad" is a blind spot that both he (and Zinn) has (had). I think they both undercut the effect their otherwise excellent analyses could have when they venture(d0 into telling 3rd parties not to run. I always wanted to confront Zinn on that issue, but never got the chance, nor will I, no doubt, get it with Chomsky. i wanted to strangle them both (figuratively) when they did it.
But you must admit that, overall, his analysis of what the US is doing and why is pretty much always deadly accurate. He should stick to what he does well and keep his opinions, based on his overall view of "elections", on who, or who not, specifically, to vote for to himself. He serves us ill, IMO, in this regard. If he must opine on the subject, he would show much more internal consistency if he simply suggested that we vote for "the one" who would keep us out of war", or "instate a national health program", or, in short, vote for what we wanted instead of only for what we think we could get ...
The interview on your video site was done two years ago, the one in this post very recently. Considering what Chomsky has seen in the last 2 years led me to wonder if he would change his analyses or wouid make the same mistake again .....