[The recent death of Howard Zinn put me in mind of this old interview I did with Noam Chomsky, originally published here April, 2004 – jg]

Noam Chomsky is Institute Professor in the Department of Linguistics and Philosophy at MIT. He is the author of dozens of books, including Power and Terror and Middle East Illusions. His book 9-11 was an international bestseller.

protein wisdom: “To borrow a question from David Barsamian, in recent years, the Pentagon and then the media have adopted the term ‘collateral damage’ to describe the death of civilians. Talk about the role of language in shaping and forming people’s understanding of events.”

Chomsky: “What do we say…?”

protein wisdom: “Sorry. Please talk about it.”

Chomsky: “Well, it’s as old as history. It has nothing much to do with language. Language is the way we interact and communicate, so, naturally, the means of communication and the conceptual background that’s behind it, which is more important, are used to try to shape attitudes and opinions and induce conformity and subordination. Not surprisingly, it was created in the more democratic societies. The first –“

protein wisdom: “– Wait, why ‘not surprisingly’?”

Chomsky: “I beg your pardon?”

protein wisdom: “You said, ‘not surprisingly, it was created in the more democratic societies.’ First, what is ‘it’? And second, why is it not ‘surprising’ that ‘it’ was created in more democratic societies?”

Chomsky: “You asked about the role of language in shaping and forming people’s understanding of events, did you not?”

protein wisdom: “I did indeed.”

Chomsky: “So then that’s the ‘it’ I refer to. Now, the first coordinated propaganda ministry –“

protein wisdom: “– Wait, time out, sorry. The ‘it’ refers to the role of language in shaping and forming people’s understanding of events…?”

Chomsky: “Yes, now if you’ll just let me –“

protein wisdom: “– So then, ‘it’ — the role of language in shaping and forming people’s understanding of events — has, and I’m quoting you now, ‘nothing much to do with language’?”

Chomsky: “Did I say that–?”

protein wisdom: “– Language has nothing much to do with language. I’m afraid you did, yes.”

Chomsky: “Oh. Well, skip that, then. It was just bullshit. The real answer is, that during World War I, the British Ministry of Information had the task, as they put it, of controlling the mind of the world. What they were particularly concerned with –“

protein wisdom: “– Sorry to interrupt again, but you understand the MI to have been using that phrase figuratively, correct?”

Chomsky: “Who’s this now?”

protein wisdom: “When the Ministry of Information talked of ‘controlling the mind of the world,’ they didn’t mean that literally, correct? — no ray guns for zapping people with mind-control beams or anything like that…”

Chomsky: “Oh heavens no –“

protein wisdom: “–because I have to ask, given your penchant for paranoid fantasy –“

Chomsky: “– I’m talking of a concentrated rhetorical effort to direct and control information flow. What they were particularly concerned with was the mind of America and, more specifically, the mind of American intellectuals. They thought that if they could convince American intellectuals of the nobility of the British war effort –“

protein wisdom: “– I’m sorry, here I go again interrupting you. But wouldn’t any set of intellectuals you’re able to reduce to a single mind — in this case, ‘the mind of American intellectuals,’ as you’ve characterized it — be anti-intellectual, almost by definition?”

Chomsky: “– excuse me?”

protein wisdom: “– that is, how can such a group, distinguished as it supposedly is by its systematic questioning of received wisdom — be reduced to a single mind without, in effect, deconstructing the entire concept of intellectualism?”

Chomsky: “– But, um, you see, if they could convince the American intellectuals of the nobility of the British war effort, then American intellectuals could succeed in driving the basically pacifist population of the United States, which didn’t want to have anything to do with European wars, rightly, into a fit of fanaticism and hysteria –“

protein wisdom: “– are you saying Americans shouldn’t worry about overseas wars, Dr. Chomsky? We should turn our backs on, say, extra-continental genocides, for example?–“

Chomsky: “– which would get them to join the war. The mind-control rays wouldn’t come until much much later — developed by Dow Corning, in fact, under a secret mandate from Nixon and the Israelis and Howard Hunt as a way to neuter the communists –“

protein widom: “–Okay, let’s not get ahead of ourselves. I’d like to go back to this question of language. Clearly, there’s a huge gap on the Iraq war between U.S. public opinion and the rest of the world. What is it, do you think, that makes the US population so susceptible to propaganda?”

Chomsky: “…and the, y’know, the whole Warren Commission. East Timor. Latin America. The CIA…”

protein wisdom: “Dr. Chomsky…?”

Chomsky: “Yes, sorry. That’s a good question. I don’t say it’s more susceptible to propaganda; it’s more susceptible to fear. It’s a frightened country. The reasons for this — I don’t, frankly, understand them, but they’re there –“

protein wisdom: “– Well, could it have something to do with insane, fanatical Islamic extremists — nihilists bent on returning the world to a pre-Enlightenment theocracy by way of the doomsday sword — declaring war on us, do you think?”

Chomsky: “– Islamic what now? Oh, no, no. You’re contemporizing. The reasons for this country’s fear go way back in American history. It probably has to do with the conquest of the continent, where you had to exterminate the native population; slavery, where you had to control a population that was regarded as dangerous, because you never knew when they were going to turn on you –“

protein wisdom: ” — yeah, that’s great stuff, Noam, but on September 12, 2001, not many of us were thinking about exterminating Indians or stringing Chris Tucker up in a tree. I mean, isn’t it possible that the very real spectacle of 9-11 is what ‘frightened’ the country into its current state of resolve, and lead to its government marshalling resources in its own defense — and not some vague, homogenized burden of collective cultural guilt? Which, how do we pick that up, by the way? Do they sprinkle it onto McDonald’s fries? How does that work, exactly…?”

Chomsky: “The last time the US was threatened was the War of 1812. Since then it just conquers others. And somehow this engenders a sense that somebody is going to come after us –“

protein wisdom: “– Who have we ‘conquered’? Really. I mean, that sounds so Hessian. Or is it Prussian…?”*

Chomsky: “– So the country ends up being very frightened. There is a reason why Karl Rove is the most important person in the administration. He is the public relations expert in charge of crafting the images. So you can drive through the domestic agendas, carry out the international policies by frightening people and creating the impression that a powerful leader is going to save you from imminent destruction –“

protein wisdom: “– Ask the Spanish about those ‘images,’ why don’t ya –“

Chomsky: “– The Times virtually says it because it’s very hard to keep hidden. It is second nature.”

protein wisdom: “What is second nature?”

Chomsky: “It.”

protein wisdom: “Ah, yes. Next question: One of the new lexical constructions that I’d like you to comment on is ’embedded journalists.'”

Chomsky:

protein wisdom: “Please.”

Chomsky: “That’s an interesting one. It is interesting that journalists are willing to accept it. No honest journalist would be willing to describe himself or herself as ’embedded.’ To say, ‘I’m an embedded journalist'” is to say ‘I’m a government propagandist.’ But it’s accepted. And it helps implant the conception that anything we do is right and just; so therefore, if you’re embedded in an American unit, you’re objective. Actually, the same thing showed up, in some ways even more dramatically, in the Peter Arnett case. Peter Arnett is an experienced, respected journalist with a lot of achievements to his credit. He’s hated here precisely for that reason. The same reason Robert Fisk is hated.”

protein wisdom: “Uh huh. Be honest now: does what you just said make any sense to you?”

Chomsky: [laughs] “Ok, you got me –“

protein wisdom: [laughing] “– because, y’know, cuckoo cuckoo!”

Chomsky: “– thought maybe I could slip that one by…”

protein wisdom: “Now. You were an active and early dissident in the 1960s opposing US intervention in Indochina. You have now the perspective of what was going on then and what is going on now. Describe how dissent has evolved in the United States. Please.”

Chomsky: “Actually, there was another article in the New York Times that describes how the professors are antiwar activists, but the students aren’t. Not like it used to be, when the students were the antiwar activists. What the reporter is talking about is that around 1970 — and it’s true — by 1970 students were active antiwar protesters. But that’s after eight years of a U.S. war against South Vietnam, which by then had extended to all of Indochina, which had practically wiped the place out. For years, though, even in a place like Boston, a liberal city –“

protein wisdom: “– the hell you say –“

Chomsky: “– you couldn’t have public meetings against the war because they would be broken up by students, with the support of the media. You would have to have hundreds of state police around to allow speakers like me to escape unscathed. The protests came after years and years of war. By then, hundreds of thousands of people had been killed, much of Vietnam had been destroyed –“

protein wisdom: “– like you said would happen in Afghanistan –“

Chomsky: “– But all of that is wiped out of history, because it tells too much of the truth –“

protein wisdom: “– how ‘wiped out of history,’ exactly? I mean, you just retold it here. And I’m sure this isn’t the first time you’ve trotted it out, either.”

Chomsky: “Figure of speech.”

protein wisdom: “I see. Kinda expect more precise language from a linguist, though –“

Chomsky: “– moving on, it involved years and years of hard work of plenty of young people, mostly young, which finally ended up getting a protest movement.”

protein wisdom: “And that’s a more effective dynamic, in your estimation — having students involved, moreso than having the movement run by the old guard, the professors (many of them alumnists of those Vietnam era protests), as is happening today…?

Chomsky: “Well, who would you rather bang after a long day of shouting rhythmic slogans and carrying heavy cardboard signs: a wide-eyed 18-year old whose pink breasts are still perky with idealism, or some grizzled old poli-sci hag with an Iron Butterfly tattoo on what’s become of her ass?”

protein wisdom: “I take it that was a rhetorical question…”

Chomsky: “‘f you say so.”

protein wisdom: “Last question: How many antiwar linguists do you suppose it takes to change a lightbulb?”

Chomsky: “How many what now? –“

protein wisdom: “Antiwar linguists. Like you, for example. How many of you would it take to change a lightbulb?”

Chomsky: “Hmm. Well, that would depend on what you mean by ‘change,’ I should think… “

protein wisdom: “Exactly. You’re priceless, Noam. Don’t ever change.”