Allah has all the details—including Chomsky’s assertion that Hezbullah needs weapons in order to counter “Israeli aggression.”
No word on whether Semtex-strapped teens officially count as weapons, however. Could be they’re just considered a happy bonus, like finding a quarter stuck to the bottom of your prayer rug.
At any rate, this seems the perfect opportunity to re-post some old material so that I can work out and have some lunch. For those interested, see below the fold.
the protein wisdom interview: Noam Chomsky
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 her sagging, wrinkled 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.”
****
[originally posted April 23, 2004]
Noam Kaksky.
Chomsky defending terrorists, mass murderers and war criminals? Nah, when could that happen?
I mean … besides the last thirty or forty years?
To paraphrase Homer Simpson: “Noam Chomsky, is there any tyrant or thug he won’t excuse?”
Put down your Photoshop “graphic pen” filter and walk away. You’ve waded out far beyond your academic depth this time.
No major publications section of any recognized Chomsky bibliography is evenly divisible by twelve!
Will you anti-intellectual wingnuts never tire of repeating that age-old Zionist smear?
(Obviously, that’s a rhetorical question.)
What’s scary is that his rhetoric is winning over more and more people. I’m sitting here, reading this, and wondering if we can win against such narcissism and leftist nihilism. Is that redundant?
Yes, I’m feeling pessimistic. Why do you ask?
Academic depth, BoZ? Chomsky could drown in a damp washcloth.
And which Zionist smear are you referring to? That Chomsky is addle-pated and always has been, or that he perfers pink and perkly to sagging and wrinkled?
I look forward to the onslaught of Chomsky’s Beauties on this thread, however. Should be entertaining.
Priceless!! Encore!! Encore!!
(clap)
(clap)
(clap)
(clap)
This doesn’t surprise me, what surprises me endlessly is that anyone cares what this overated hack communist thinks or says.
99 out of 100 lefties who support or like Chomsky haven’t read one sentance of what he’s written, it’s just the “emperor’s clothes” syndrome (or the “buy books by Kos and leave them on the coffee table” syndrome).
I’d love to hear him excuse Kim Jong-Il’s lifestyle, living in luxury as his people eat bark soup (the ones not being used as chemical-weapons test subjects in death camps, that is).
A Protein Wisdom Gratuitous Comment Libel
Noam Chompsky happens to be the original founder of the Actii, the World’s Most Fucking Stupidest Commenter. He likes molesting pet goats. But after spooning the North Vietnamese, the Khmer Rouge, and the US XXXX, one would think that Noam’s fellow beast-of-burden-buggerers would have slowly abandoned the dictator-fellator-extraorinaire; after all, the lily-white gleaming towers of academia and theoretical virtue can only be built just so high on the backs of dead brown folk before the stink and decay topples the whole thing.
P.S. Ignore actus and hilzoy, and tbogg, and the girlz gone wild of Left Whacknuttia.
I think this video piece summarizes much of Chumpsky, Jane the Hamster and Tbloggs key thoughts
Nice to have the left’s position laid out so well.
Just so no one falls for it, Dean Wheeler is an invented character on the Phil Hendrie show – that’s not entirely obvious from the linked page (though they call it a “funnie.”
The scary thing is, it wasn’t until halfway through the “interview” that I checked up on that, because I have had arguments with people almost that nutty.
Dude, that video was awesome!
exactly
Is being denied the right to see a pissed-off Rottweiler yanking Howard Dean’s nutsack a “legitimate political grievance”?
Just askin’.
jeff,
my oldest brother is a committed moonbat.He avoids work,is perennially broke,and borrowing money from me-see the first sentence- and psychoanalyzes GWB.But he’s responsible for some of the best humor I’ve seen recently.Noam Chomsky has a set of videos he’s marketed.Boy,is this guy funny.And so deadpan.
I know this will never happen, but it sure would be nice to see him told he’s not welcome back home and cannot return to the USA for the duration.
I agree, Christopher.
I detest Chomsky. Bleh. I’d better stop now before I become unhinged.
The video? I couldn’t watch it. Turned it off after a few minutes. Stupidity has no limits, it seems. I’ve lost patience with such idiots.
Muslihoon, the video was a parody, you realize…
Then again, I cannot blame you for not catching that… They’re beyond parody these days.
Oy. See how gullible I am? Indeed, one must say that state of affairs have become very bad when one cannot tell between parody and truth. (But then not everyone is as clueless as I am.) My, er, bad.
Hey, where are all the Chomskyites?
They usually sprout like hyperthyroid mushrooms (however physiologically impossible that is) when their icon is under attack.
It’s not a parody. There are people saying that kind of thing and using that kind of logic. It was a reenactment.
Incidentally, Chomsky is a classic example of a Sophist. He sounds impressive, uses big, important sounding words, and makes a great show… but it means nothing. There’s no substance to it, there’s nothing but gold lamme’ and froth.
was this a legit conversation that actually took place? or is this more along the of frank’s “in my world”?
I remember watching the film version of Manufacturing Consent in college and having just about everyone in the class uncritically devour every frame of it – and consider themselves part of some enlightened Elect for doing so. It’s like the truth, maan, and I’m following the Messiah. So what if he hangs out with dictators – that just makes him more awesome.
But sometimes I think we exaggerate the cult. It’s been declining since the early 90s, and I don’t think it survives beyond the five mile radius of any college campus. He’s more obnoxious than threatening, and anyone incredulous enough to take what he says seriously while talking to the modern equivalent of the Thuggie cult is kinda lost to the world anyways.
And yeah, where are the Chomsky defenders?
DU
Chomskyfroth? Is that anything like the Chomskybot?
Those big, important-sounding words seem to mesmerize the Duncan Blacks of the world.
See, I was gonna say “me too” to this,
But then I got to the comment thrashing from Vercingetorix. *clap* *clap* *clap*
Well done, V.
Why do crazy moonbats live so damn long, anyway? Is it the hallucinogens?
Can’t we just deport Chomsky and his acolytes and keep our illegals? And why doesn’t Bush (or *, as the moonbats call him) just send Canada a shitload of money to TAKE them?
TW: hell (exactly)
How would he excuse Kim Jong-Il, John?
Simple – the great leader needs this luxury to help him relax after spending all his hours guiding the DPRK towards its glorious future through the minefields purposefully placed in its path by the jealous and fearful minions of the imperialist hegemon; and if these troubles were not intentionally inflicted on the innocent DPRK by the legions of imperialist aggresors, such sacrifice by the noble north korean people would not be required as the Dear Leader would not need to work and struggle so hard in his historical mission.
See how easy that was?
Great stuff.
Great video, indeed. Must see TV for the moonbats.
By the way, what was Chomsky’s take on ol’uncle Fidel cracking the list of world’s wealthiest dictators? Checked in at just over $900 million we’re told. Average Cuban income came in a tad lower–around $3,200 annually.
Do not order that on your capuccino.
Trust me on this.
You have been CALLED out, you right wing fuck!
“When I say “political correctness,” I’m referring to an attitude, not an agenda. In some hands the term is a broad synonym for censorship and groupthink, qualities that have always been common across the political spectrum. Other times it devolves into a vague smear-term for anything left of center. I’m using it to describe a particular political posture: one that treats identity politics not just as an ideology but as a trump card, that maintains a rigid orthodoxy while regarding itself as subversive, that uses a series of contrived outrages to feed a bureaucratic machine. Each of those elements has infected parts of the right.”
Stick a fork in it, Walker has destroyed Goldstein once and for all:
http://www.reason.com/links/links050806.shtml
Must have forgotten a /sarc tag? That Reason piece doesn’t mention PW at all..
Chomskyfroth? Is that anything like the Chomskybot?
That little program is exhibit A of what I’m talking about. It’s virtually indistinguishable from his actual work, there’s no content, no significance to anything he says. It’s just a dizzying display of linguistic acumen with no intellect behind it.
Sophistry: “It is a tale told by an idiot Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”
-Macbeth, Act 5, scene 5
What are you talking about, goosestepper guy? Read my stuff on the Mohammed cartoons to see my take on the identity politics of the right (particularly my response to Hewitt); I also noted recently that the Catholic League should not use the tactics of PC victimization just because the left does so.
Do you really read what I say? Or are you just so awash in blind hatred that you think you’ve caught me in some philosophical problem where none exists?
It seems to me that because I’m on the right and I talk about identity politics, you have decided I’m among those Walker criticizes.
I’ll read his article more carefully when I have some time and respond to it if I feel it necessary to do so, but a quick skim doesn’t give me any immediate troubles.
Congratulations! You’ve managed to post a profane slur that:
1) Does not relate to the post.
2) Does not refer directly to anything on the blog.
3) Links to an editorial that does not relate to the post.
4) Links to an editorial that does not refer to the blog.
5) Links to an editorial that fails to prove its own equivocation of disagreement with rules-driven censorship of ideas.
6) Attempts to use an op ed to “prove” that there is a fundamental flaw with the host of this blog without any solid attempt to link the op ed to the post, the blog, or the host.
7) Fails to explain how an OPinion EDitorial can be proof of anything other than the author’s opinion.
Which lands you will in the running for the most pathetic self-congradulatory slam in the history of blogging.
Bravo.
I dunno. That link has destroyed Goldstein forever. He really has no logical recourse except to shut the site down, close all his windows and cry himself to sleep in a dark, dark corner in his bathroom.
HE’S BEEN CALLED OUT AND THERE’S NOTHING LEFT.
Really, that article really just boils down to “everyone likes to play the victim.”
DU
Goosestepper certainly posted one heck of a “what-ever” comment, one at such a level that I expect the attendants immediately tasered him and put him back in his little room.
Oh, and I forgot to add:
It should be “stick a fork in HIM, he’s done” not “stick a fork in IT, he’s done.”
My impression of the linked article was someone who was trying very, very hard to prove that they’re a “hates both parties” Libertarian. Thus, complaints equal speech codes, turnabout isn’t fair play, etc.
That’s what happens when you start handing out awards…