Noam Chomsky: On Power and Ideology | The New School 

+Nuar Gladstein (LittleDesertFlower) He's considered the greatest living mind , yet you will never see him on the media.Why? Becuase only pseudo intellectuals are allowed on our special interest controlled media.

+veryl blakely i assume he will be remebered in centurys

+Nuar Gladstein (LittleDesertFlower) He will, so we need to do all we can to prepare for that sad day!

+veryl blakely I suppose his contributions to linguistics, cognitive science, and philosophy mean nothing, then? He will be remembered for a very long time, if not for his political views, then for his contributions in other areas.

+Nuar Gladstein (LittleDesertFlower) His work speaks to our time and the horror that is to follow. Because of his work in books and lectures via media, RU-vid, he will be with us as long as we need him. Namaste and care, mhikl

+Sopa de Caracol Thanks

+Sopa de Caracol lol, thank you

;-*

Paul Belodeau That hair never stops, Paul.

+Sopa de Caracol I've seen a few intros where it is like "you know this guy and everything he's done, lets not waste time here he is.." and thats it. This bla bla bla jive isnt what were here for but thanks.

yo

+Steve Hunt yo yo

+Culturebreach yo yo yo

+Webcascade Vienna yo yo yo yo

+Darren Ryan Just the shear length of time that he's been a voice of reason and has been doing this kind of stuff is really amazing.

I hope you have grown up since and stopped your hero worship.

You need to look at the other side of the coin. It's much uglier of which Chomsky fails to see it. We live in a brutal world and America is really an oasis. I try imagining living somewhere else but there really is no place better. Maybe that's why so many people keep trying and dying to get in. Streisand says she'll move to New Zealand if Trump wins. I surely hope so and she takes a lot of her phony Hollywood liberal privileged loons with her.

@Harry F -- I think you're misinterpreting what Chomsky is saying. Sure, the standard of living is much higher in the U.S. than many countries around the world -- I don't think anyone, much less Noam Chomsky, would fail to see that. But in any case that's not at all what Chomsky and Rentaghost okish are referring to. They're talking about the U.S.'s meddlesome foreign policy and the highly questionable ways in which America throws its weight around in the international arena. Moreover, it's not at all a conservative-vs.-liberal issue (and, incidentally, Chomsky is far from a fan of either the American Left or Right). Both parties have consistently supported American global hegemony over the past several decades.

Mitch Both That's terrible, but missing the point that we are better off than much of the world.

like a boss

He's mastered the I could'nt give a toss about how I look look

Riley LaForge Google

He's got those wings for style XD

+Bob Walsh contributing to the destruction of American power is a worthwhile pursuit.

Chomsky advocates the cooperative economy, like it or not, it's the future. It will be a much fairer economy than what we have now.

+Archaeo Myth That's called socialism btw。

BernieSandersenEspañol The brand name isn't important, but yes, Sanders advocates cooperative enterprises and whatever the name, it's alright with me :)

+Archaeo Myth The present corporate economy (Global) will not be over-thrown. It may implode again, a certainty... and is expected as a phenomena as natural as breathing. It is all dependent and according to the "Bubillian" ethos (my definition :) that takes delight in it's contempt for even the "inevitable workings of Nature itself"...one of the few absolutes it cannot control. Waiting for the collapse of the corporate state in order to form a "cooperative economy" is naive and dangerous. Have a plan. Drop out. You will seek out those like minded and they will seek for you. Go to Burning Man. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding that something." Upton Sinclair

+Social Engineer Wait, you have sex in coffee shops? Weird. I go to coffee shops for coffee, myself.

+Tarun Gidwani It's a little Princess Leia: I presume his wife hasn't dragged him out for a haircut! Typically brilliant talk, of course.

+Tarun Gidwani Must have asked his barber to give him the Schopenhauer.

+Tarun Gidwani We you should call it the "Einstein" :)

+Tarun Gidwani total Gnome Hairstyle

+fartguy69 Im just flipin thru my Interdimensional TV Box, Morty is just around the corner....freaking out!

+RKD Grn does he ever?

I don't know. I'm think he does we it come to his writings. I hoped that could be the case with a speech.

+RKD Grn I bet you could email him asking for the sources. He typically responds to emails.

Because he's an Anarchist, and that would be a contradiction.

Because of that hair

Because to become President, you have to propagate and defend the views and interests of either the left or right wing of the Business Party of the United States.

+Christopher Richard Wade Dettling D-I-S-G-U-S-T-I-N-G

Why does Noam Chomsky say such things?

Like Ron Paul says, just go to a charity hospital, haha, fucking American libertarians, they're funny.

2cents share the message and dump the chump...

+Christopher Richard Wade Dettling You know that he said that with sarcasm, right?

Is that of any importance?

..do you know the story of Tesla? ..immigrated from former Austro-Hungarian empire..worked briefly for Edison.. Made a small fortune working with George Westinghouse.. AGREED TO TEAR UP HIS CONTRACT WITH WESTINGHOUSE.. otherwise Edison would have rolled over Westinghouse.. He SQUANDERED EVERY DOLLAR HE HAD and, George Westinghouse paid his rent..remaining his only friend at the end when everyone else quit giving a fuck about his ideas.. and Chomsky does talk about GE and Westinghouse.. I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'the government took from him.' Maybe there is something I'm unaware of.. However, I believe GE and Westinghouse got the big payoff..as demonstrated the actual story..

Tesla was a bit loony. Maybe a lot loony but still a genius. Chomsky is just plain loony.

?

I think protecting national interests, whatever they may be, is not Chomsky's objection. It has been going on for ages and will not go away no matter what you do, that's human nature. What he's saying in my opinion is that means to that end that are currently employed are hideous and should be changed.

+Klas K He does talk pipelines sometimes, e.g. here at the UN (/watch?v=MZdZSOZIb6c). Even in this video around 23:00 he mentions "'using military power to ensure access to key markets, energy supplies and strategic resources" which is a broader way of putting it, that includes pipelines, oil & gas, and broader things. Pipelines are one thing in the Syrian conflict, yes, but this is just one aspect. There are also bigger stakes at play. The Syrian civil war is a manifestation of a broader conflict between two systems in the M-E that's been going on since the 1980''s: the US-Saudi-GCC-Turkey etc system of alliance and a coalition of "disobedient nations" and movements led by Iran, along with Syria, Qaddafi, Lebanese Hezbollah + Christians, the Palestinians, the Houthis in Yemen... The Saudi invasion of Bahrain a few years back and now of Yemen are also manifestations of that same rift, as is the horrific jihadist campaign against Syria (err, "moderate rebellion"!). This is by the way not a Sunni-Shia conflict as everybody has been saying but a struggle between two geopolitical blocs with opposite interests. Most of the local Sunni population generally loathes the Saudi regime, which is seen extremist and hypocritical, and has more sympathy with the pro-Iran side. However, in order to garter support, Saudi Arabia has been peddling an insane narrative that it's not a question of imperialism but purely a sectarian problem and it's been fairly successful in flaring up sectarian hatred. Have you read Nafeez Ahmed'' book "The War on Freedom"? If you're into the pipeline stuff you'll love this, lots of detailed information in there (regarding Afghanistan not Syria). But I say do take with a grain of salt cos IMO which way the pipelines are going to go are one aspect but thinking it's the end-all is a very simplistic explanation. With the pipeline projects for Syria, the result of the civil war is that neither rival project has seen the day and won't for a long time to come. So clearly rushing up the US-Qatari pipe plan certainly couldn't have been the one objective of the whole thing. Unless they like shooting themselves in the feet. Same thing for the pipeline they were negociating with the Taliban for and then supposedly invaded Afghanistan for: never seen the day either... Hope it helps...