And he has a much more impressive memory than those who have photographic memories. Photographic memory overwhelms with irrelevant detail. Chomsky SELECTS just what is appropriate to recall for a given question, tailoring his response to a questioner's exact concern. Question after question after question. I've seen him answer questions for hours at a time, without screening. He always has an illuminating response.
@@michaelsmith8665 Absolutely! He has a view and really knows how to defend/answer to it...there's little, if any, of his kind these days who can take a position and defend it against anyone (even a deity, lol)...he's one of a kind intellect who has been consistent for decades and it all holds up pretty well over that time. Unfortunately we now have social media whores who basically have nothing to say except whatever is catering to their audience rather than creating an audience from the sheer value of intellect and considering 'issues' seriously.
I’ve watched so many videos and never seen him stumped. Every time someone tries to get him with an example from history he already knows much more and begins spouting facts with dates etc. his knowledge of history and his ability to examine it rationally is insane.
Everyone thinks they have "common sense". The word is meaningless. Like "progressive" or "far-left" I trust you have it, but beware that sense is now in the minority
The interviewer isn't simply refusing to accept them, he's bringing about the opinions of those who refuse to accept them so that Chomsky has the opportunity to speak on it. He's a journalist, it'swhat they do.
@@midapita It's not something I can prove but I'm sure that if Chomsky was bringing up standard neoliberal orthodox views on foreign policy the interviewer wouldn't be challenging him with the dissenting views that Chomsky actually has. He'll only play the role of 'dogged reporter' when he's defending power
Because what Noam says is ultra over-simplified nonsense. He either takes issues completely out of context, or gives no context. If only the world were as simple as the way Noam sees it.
@@MarmaladeSally No it's not. He's basically saying that the US can get away with any crime because it has made itself the world's police force. The US it the greatest threat to world peace.
I'm from Romania, and today Romania is an obedient colony of the US and the EU(in our entire history we've been ruled by one nation or another, mostly by force, today we are ruled by illusions: of freedom, democracy, human rights, rule of law), you the outside people(and I might add also the people in my country, some of them) have no idea about the bullshit things and abuses that are going on in my country, because the reality has been distorted to such an extent that facts don't matter anymore. After the shift of geopolitics in 1989, Romania, came under the governance of the Western KGB, US and the EU, I'm saying this because the SRI(security service) in collaboration with DNA(anti-corruption agency) and other power structures, lock a lot of people under "corruption" charges, are involved and meddle in the political process, etc., things they used to do before under Eastern KGB. We have only changed our masters! That's why I don't agree with intervention in other countries internal affairs, because it's always about control, influence, money and power, not about people, nobody gives a fuck about people, democracy, human rights, the US government will profit of every opportunity of political unrest to install their puppet governments. I'm a realist when it comes to politics, and I'll leave you with this quote about how the world works: "The strong do what they want, the meek suffer what they must!"
Chomsky on the strong defensive here providing many examples of USA supported terrorism throughout the world during the 20th century. Our definitions of terrorism vary, depending upon who's the perpetrator and who's the victim. Chomsky quickly cuts to the core to expose hypocrisy.
"We have a massively subservient intellectual class, which he is an illustration, who will support US atrocities no matter how awful they are." He got clobbered.
Sure. Hitchens, Kaplin, Harris were all wrong.... which is... not surprising? hahaha At least Hitch admitted it and even undergone waterboarding to realize it's indeed a torture.
The interviewer is posing as the opponent in this piece but does not necessarily hold these views. We should be disappointed in the interviewer because he could not articulate a stronger argument and was clearly not as well prepared as Chomsky on these issues since that would allow a more thorough refutation. That said, it's Noam Chomsky so that's a fairly high bar.
How cute, imagine if China had this mentality when they rise to power. I wonder if he would still preach the necessity of the order keeping hegemony then.
In fairness, the approach he has adopted accepts as an inevitable fact that there *will* be hegemonic military power and the singular question is *who* will exercise it. From this perspective why wouldn't he prefer his own society (with all its flaws) to that of the Chinese Communist Party which he presumably opposes?
@@codyvandal2860 Is there no room between the pragmatic pessimism in accepting the inevitability of a hegemony, and the automatic preference based on xenophobia and racism? After all, the second choice is a choice of the individual, and if we are committed to democracy, then surely China, with more than 20% of humanity would be preferable?
@@the1onlynoob I feel like that's a strange way to characterize the question. Conflating a preference for one's own society with an irrational fear and prejudice amounts to an indictment of humanity as a whole - since this is far and away the default point of view for the vast majority of human beings on earth. The contrary conception is almost exclusively the domain of Westerners with a misguided and patronizing posture of "inclusion." Moreover, favoring the Chinese on the basis of demography makes right and wrong a question of arithmetic. Chinese society is far more repressive than the United States even if their foreign policy is ostensibly less aggressive (i.e they do no export revolution).
@@codyvandal2860 If your preference of what is familiar can be excused merely because it is familiar, but holds no other basis for it, then why should it not be characterised as a irrational fear and prejudice when it achieves the same effect of being nationalist, racism and lack of external curiosity? After all, this preference for what is familiar is the first step to building the logics of exceptionalism that dominates the west. On the point of being progressive and regressive. Im afraid, in humanist terms, progress accounts for far more than absolutes. I do not wish to sit here and defend the CPC, but know that in the 70 years since they rose to power, they have produced the greatest economic development of human history. But more controversially, they have also produced a similar level of civil development, least we forget that China practiced polygamy, servitude and had emperors not 100 years ago. Like the caste system of India, it takes time to be freed of it, but the progress is unmistakable. In a similar vein, i note the west’s regressive tendencies to not inspire great confidence in this regard. To put it bluntly, china is lacking but moving in the correct direction, while the west may be an open society but has moved in the wrong direction since neoliberalism for the last half century. On the point of algorithms, it is the point of democracy. If we are committed to its principles then we must also be committed to the results should they are no favourable to us. To continue a global hegemony that does not account for the Chinese and Indian perspective, is the same as purging the vote of the two most populated blocks of humanity.
@@the1onlynoob Does your preference for you own children over other people's children simply because they are yours also constitute an irrational prejudice? Of course not. The legacy of CPC is hardly something to boast about considering they came to power after decades of civil war, famine, foreign invasion, and social upheaval. There was nowhere for them to go but up. Not only that but the vast majority of the growth has come since Nixon opened them up in 1979 and accelerated since their introduction to the WTO twenty years ago. More importantly, there was also tremendous economic growth under slavery. Development is not an excuse for repression. If anything the Chinese have been uniquely successful in challenging the Washington consensus that emerged in the wake of the dissolution of the Soviet Union. During that period of capitalist triumphalism the foreign policy establishment in the US mostly believed that we had reached the "end of history" and that economically open societies were the only ones capable of being competitive in an increasingly interdependent global order and that as a corollary such societies would lead to robust middle classes who would demand more democratic political representation and thus the whole planet would move more or less towards an American system of government. The Chinese saw what happened with Gorbachev and glasnost and said "No, thank you." Hence, Tiananmen Square and the associated crackdown. The Chinese have offered the world an alternative model that keeps the benefits of economic growth while restricting the political freedom of it's citizens. Not only does this show no signs of changing - if anything it is growing MORE powerful throughout the world as the Chinese increasingly use their influence to coerce other stakeholders into obeisance. As for the direction they are moving? 19th century colonial expansion (Belt and Road Initiative), a greater crackdown on human rights, and the establishment of what Amnesty International calls "concentration camps" where millions of ethnic minorities are detained without trial. The Chinese do not even have the facade of democratic government but the Polish and Hungarians do have democracy - and it should surprise exactly no one how the West regards them when they don't vote the way they are told. "Democratic backsliding, Erosion of institutions," etc. That's the importance of national self determination. India and China and Japan and Poland can structure their societies as they wish ideally without our meddling. One last point: "the first step to building the logics of exceptionalism that dominates the west" by this exact line of reasoning one may say that being concerned with wealthy inequality is the first step to building the logics of Bolshevik massacres and the revolutionary violence of the red terror. The exceptionalism you're talking about is the byproduct of the US being the sole superpower left in the world and it's ruling class being exceptionally greedy and shortsighted. I'll say this for the Chinese; the rulers of their country have gone through a Darwinian selection for competence and cruelty. Life at the Politburo is more Game of Thrones than the Apprentice - just ask Zhou Yongkang.
The way this interview didn’t age well, because 20 years later, the talibans are back in power in Afghanistan. American foreign policy is literal thrash
This is what happens when a "journalist" who is ill prepared, not even read up the slightest on his country's history goes up against someone who has spent 30-40 years following events. Spent his time doing research and paid his dues, this is like me arguing with Dr. Niel Degrace Tyson on the subject on how black holes work in the language of mathematics. I got basic school level maths. Quite impressive of Chomsky keeping his cool and no not walking out of the interview. What a waste of the professor's time.
Hilarious how the interviewer keeps trying to defend "the honor" of the US, while being continuously bombarded with facts that strip the US of any kind of honor it may, or may not, have ever had... Kudos!
I'm confused. Should I upvote it because of Prof. Chomsky, or should I downvote this because of the dummy who was wasting Prof.'s precious time with his babbling?
I heard Chomsky, on a Canadian talk show, say that the refugees from Iraq going into other middle east countries are treated better than when they come to America. The comment is so ridiculous that I realized he would stretch any argument to condemn America. When a refuge comes to America, they are at the very least given shelter, medical care and food. Some receive section 8 and a college education...leading to good jobs. In the refuge camps in the middle east they are treated to the most horrible conditions in tents in refuge camps...come on Noam.I agree with a lot of your points but you take your anti-americanism too far.
lol America has hardly taken any refugees. Surrounding countries have taken millions. That's what he's referencing. You're referencing money, resources and technology. Medical care? LOL. Your own citizens don't even have medical care. Unlike every other developed country on the planet.
That's not what he meant. I think his point is that refugees are better off situated in countries surrounding the Syria (like turkey, KSA, UAE and Jordan) which is very true. Culturally and financially it's a very viable option.