Thursday, December 3, 2009
Columbia University
Altschlul Auditorium,
417 International Affairs Building. 6:15pm

Synopsis:
Noam Chomsky, Institute Professor and professor emeritus at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, returns to the Heyman Center to deliver the 5th Annual Edward Said Memorial Lecture.

Click here for more information on Noam Chomsky.

This event is free and open to the public.
No Tickets, no reservations required.
Seating is on a first come, first served basis.

Click here for the location of the International Affairs Building.

Presented by:
Heyman Center for the Humanities, Columbia University

I remember when I first realized that the notions I had regarding politics and social affairs could most closely be called Anarchy.  I was in one of my Spanish literature class (to my delight my second major, Spanish, was filled with all the exciting peripheral fight-the-power ideas that I had been so disappointed to learn that my original major, English, lacked), taught by my favorite professor, an Argentine.  He lectured about three recent political structures:

1st – The Nation/The People - The Nation is ruled by a government that represents the will of The People.  Top-down.

2nd – The Leader/The Masses - Coming from Argentina my professor was especially familiar with Peronism and this form of organization.  The Leader is one who sweeps to power through the overwhelming support of The Masses .  Not empowered by the national sovereignty such as Rousseau talked about…but instead representing a more coarse group outside the structure of government, one that fills government with its exploding will.  Also top-down.

3rd – The Multitudes/Sporadic Potential – He said this was what truly excited him.  The Multitudes combine to create Sporadic Potential which in turn affects the direction of decisions and policies.  Bottom-up. 

Many in my class, especially one young woman, were furious about his teachings.  She called him a communist.  But what I realized was that his political leanings were something even more taboo, which he was understandably loathe to openly admit – an anarchist.  And for the first time I understood Anarchy and it slotted completely into my misgivings about power, government, corruption and subjection.  It all made so much sense then…although this realization made me distressed and uncomfortable at first. 

 As I read further I came to realize that Anarchy had been developed over centuries, and was not as scary as I had once thought.  It seemed that above all other political theorists, the Anarchists had the most beautiful vision of human potential, the most heartrending devotion to what so many others scoff at.

The following conversation stems from an excellent post on one of my favorite blogs on WordPress, Speak Now Peace Works.  It was specifically in response to the post Positively Deviant, which talks about the success observed when ideas come from within groups instead of from outsiders providing guidance, however well-intentioned. 

It was a good opportunity to try and elaborate further on what, for me at least, Anarchy is.  It also raises some very difficult questions that an ideal conception of the world with sporadic, independently-functioning beings would have to address.  But those are the topics for further posts…

• That is why I am mostly an Anarchist!

People can solve their own problems, if we give them a chance. The human brain is more amazing than any machine could ever be…

I believe in bottom-up solutions always and hope that these ideas catch fire throughout the world!

Great to see you have been writing a lot lately, this is one of my favorite stops while my brain is fried from staring at reports and contracts, ugh…

Copio y pego el primer párrafo de un extenso artículo publicado en el blog de Noam Chomsky en el mes de mayo y recientemente traducido al español.

Lo dejo aquí porque Chomsky pone en evidencia la hipocresía de un gobierno, el norteamericano, y de unos ciudadanos, muchos de nosotros, que damos a la espalda a una realidad evidente, haciendo como que no la vemos o justificándola en aras de un ‘mal menor’ o un hipotético ‘bien mayor’.

Está claro y Chomsky lo explica con todo detalle: ¡No hay mejor ciego que el que no quiere ver!

Tortura y amnesia histórica

Noam Chomsky
La Jornada, 30 de mayo de 2009 y 31 de mayo de 2009
Los memorandos sobre tortura revelados por la Casa Blanca suscitaron asombro, indignación y sorpresa. El asombro y la indignación eran entendibles; la sorpresa, no tanto. Por principio de cuentas, aun sin investigación, era razonable suponer que Guantánamo era una cámara de tortura. ¿Para qué, si no, enviar prisioneros a un lugar donde estarían fuera del alcance de la ley; un lugar, por cierto, que Washington utiliza en violación de un tratado impuesto a Cuba a punta de pistola? Desde luego, se adujeron razones de seguridad, pero sigue siendo difícil tomarlas en serio. Las mismas sombrías expectativas se tuvieron acerca de los “sitios negros”, prisiones secretas del gobierno de Bush, y por la “rendición extraordinaria”, o captura extrajudicial de sospechosos en otros países, y se cumplieron.

Seguir leyendo

Postado por

Luiz Albuquerque

It’s not everyday you see something you’ve written on the BBC website. Last month I wrote a post about the chance to ask Noam Chomsky a question on the BBC’s HardTALK program. Well, like hundreds of others, I sent in a question in and the BBC decided to use it – the very first question in fact!

It’s a testimony to the man’s popularity that such was the interest in his appearance, the BBC saw fit to allow him to respond to further questions online and credit to them for that. So thanks Noam and thanks a lot BBC. The question I asked is below and you can read all the viewer questions answered by him here.

Q: What is the “liberal elite” that you have referred to and what defines their morals and ideas? Nicholas Mead, UK

A: The terms of political discourse are vague and obscure, including these, but also virtually all others: ‘capitalism,’ ‘market’, ’socialism’, ‘conservative’, etc. I was using the term in the conventional manner, with ‘liberal’ understood in the American sense, something like ‘mildly social democratic’, roughly ‘New Labour’ in the British context.

The term elite refers to those with more privilege and opportunity, hence who dominate decision-making in the economic, political, and ideological spheres. There are no sharp boundaries, no club to belong to. To discover their morals and ideas we investigate what they say but more significantly what they do.

Also polls, which reveal that corporate executives tend to share the views of ‘liberal elites’ on social and cultural issues, though they tend more towards what’s called ‘conservative’ (a much abused term) on economic issues. Impossible to spell it out here, but I’ve written reams about the matter, as of course have many others.

Above: Yesterday, I tasted through the current releases of Fèlsina with my friends, from left, Craig Collins (who works for the winery’s distributor in Texas), John Roenigk (owner and manager of The Austin Wine Merchant), and Chiara Leonini, Fèlsina’s export manager. For the record, Fèlsina is pronounced FEHL-see-nah.

It’s a labor of love and it’s my self-appointed duty: I just spent the first hour of my day translating Franco’s editorial on the list of The Wine Spectator’s top 100 wines and the Italian showing in the list. You’ve heard me say it before: Franco (the “Giuseppe Baretti” of Italian wine) is a friend, a colleague, a mentor, a partner, and one of the wine writers whom I admire most. I encourage you to read what he has to say: here in America, where few read the Italian wine media, we are often unaware of how the Italians view us and our wine media and how our wine media generally ignores the wines and the styles of wine that Italians hold to be the best representation of their enology.

In another editorial published today, by a young wine blogger and marketing consultant based in Apulia, the author writes: “Just think that the first wine in the list is an American wine that costs $27 and the second is a Spanish wine that also costs $27. In order to pay the tidy sum of $110, you have to get to the eighth place in the list for a Tuscan wine that costs a hefty $110!”

Today, I’ll leave the editorializing and pontificating to others, but I do encourage you to put it in your pipe and smoke it, so to speak.

As it just so happens, yesterday I tasted with the export manager for a winery that landed the thirteenth position in the magazine’s list: Fèlsina, whose Fontalloro, a barriqued 100% Sangiovese that has long been a popular wine in the U.S.

“Some would call it a Super Tuscan,” said Chiara (above), “even though I don’t like that term.” And, in fact, the wine actually qualifies as a Chianti, even though the winery has chosen historically to declassify it, initially to vino da tavola status and now IGT (it was first released in 1983, she said, the same year as the first release of the winery’s “cru” Chianti Classico, Rancia).

I’m a bona fide fan of Fèlsina but my favorites are always their entry-level wines, made from 100% Sangiovese grapes, vinified in the traditional style, and aged in large old-oak casks that have been used over and over again. The wines generally cost under $25 and I highly recommend them. The 2006 harvest was a good vintage for these wines, 2007 a great vintage. (I also had fun trading notes with Chiara about our university days in Italy. She studied Chomsky and generative linguistics at Florence, around the same time I studied the history of the Italian language and prosody at Padua and the Scuola Normale in Pisa. We knew a lot of the same professors!)

I’ve spent enough time in front of the computer this morning and it’s time for me to head to Houston, where I’ll be speaking about and pouring Italian wine tonight. So I’ll leave the punch line up to you Italo Calvinos out there…

An Italian wine walks into a bar…

Så när jag färskade upp min grundläggande kunskap om anarkistiskt tänkande kom jag över två fina citat som har mycket gemensamt, och, tror jag, en stor kärna sanning:

Alla som har haft med barn att göra vet att de är nyfikna och kreativa. De vill utforska saker och komma underfund med vad som händer.  Mycket av skolans verksamhet går ut på att driva ut detta ur dem och få dem att passa i en form, få dem att uppföra sig väl, sluta tänka, inte ställa till besvär.

Noam Chomsky, samtal med David Barsamian (Propagandans makt, Ordfront 2002)

Jag har i alla fall anekdotiskt, personligt bevis för denna tes. Skulle vara förvånad om det inte fanns några studier om det. 

Barnasinnet är mjukt. Det är så lätt att bringa det till underkastelse med hjälp av skrämseln. Det är det de [härskande] göra. De göra det ängslig och tala till det om helvetets pina; de omtala för det de fördömda själarnas lidande, en oförsonlig gudoms hämnd. Nästa ögonblick tala de till det om revolutionens fasor; de använda revolutionens spöke för att göra barnet till en “vän av ordningen”.

Peter Kropotkin (Anarkismens moral, Tragus 2004)

…Men nu är spökena mer subtila idag. Man kan så klart imponeras av Kropotkins fina prosa, men som alltid är det nog Lord Russell som gör det bäst:

Men are born ignorant, not stupid. They are made stupid by education.

George Steiner en The New Yorker

Fondo de Cultura Económica

Siruela

391 páginas

Precio: $54.

Librería Crack Up
Costa Rica 4767 y Borges
Palermo – Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires
Te. 4831 – 3502

Entre 1967 y 1997 George Steiner escribió más de ciento cincuenta artículos para el semanario The New Yorker; la agudeza y diversidad de estos textos dibujan una silueta de extraordinaria erudición. La ciudad de Viena, el ajedrez y el Risorgimientoitaliano interesan a Steiner tanto como las elucubraciones de Borges, Céline o Benjamin. Excelente narrador y sabio de inusual precisión, George Steiner esboza una trayectoria ideal que conduce del pensador a la esencia del pensamiento, del escritor al espíritu de la escritura y del acontecimiento fortuito a la historia cultural.Los ensayos de esta compilación no dejarán de sorprender al lector: Canetti, Russell, Cioran, Chomsky, Orwell y el historiador y espía Antonio Blunt conforman, entre otros, un irresistible elenco de protagonistas.Discernimiento que arroja nueva luz sobre los grandes temas de la cultura contemporánea, ideas que transitan de la controversia a la claridad, esta colección de ensayos es un modo de lucidez e independencia intelectual.

I had to quickly produce these  illustrations for Chomsky’s book “Media Control, The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda”. Each image represents a particular quote (in relation to overall content, of course).

Altădată stau la geam cu Chomsky alături (Chomsky e motanul meu, aşa i-am zis) – el se uită după păsări, eu după păsări, el – dintr-un temperament suicidar i se trage – nu judecă atât de bine distanţele şi vrea să sară să le prindă; eu – din prea multă moleşeală – îl cert că e năzdrăvan şi nu le lasă-n pace. Eu şi Chomsky. E un nume grozav pentru un motan. Nu  prea mă trăgea inima să-I spun Pisi. Îl mai cheamă (numele oficial, de carnet) şi Iliuţă Sumo; Iliuţă pentru că a fost găsit pe stradă de Sf. Ilie şi Sumo pentru că era gras. Dar nu-l strig aşa. Chomsky stă la fereastră mai mult ca mine şi nu ştie să miaune. Cel mai apropiat sunet de ăla pe care-l scoate e al unei pupeze-bufniţă. Un soi de brrr prelungit. Nici lui nu-i place de Brenciu, dar nu se defineşte prin asta. E stăpân pe casă şi-l intrigă cursorul. Când nu stă la ferestră fuge sau dă cu laba în ecran ca să prindă sus-numitul cursor. N-are nici o gară, adică nci o treabă, nu trebuie să facă nici o licenţă şi încă n-a intrat în călduri. Pentru că n-are nici o gară n-o să-i pese că dau detalii atât de intime despre el. Se sperie în somn, de ce, nici Aristotel nu ştie. Şi e foarte afectiv (care, am citit, în lumea pisicilor e un soi de a fi foarte profitor). E adică un soi de om fără raţiune. Eu sunt un soi de animal cu. Când scriu se pune pe foile mele, când citesc – pe cărţi, când nu fac nimic, se urcă pe mine. Face oriece ca să-mi stea în drum deşi-l hrănesc, îi cumpăr nisip şi toate cele lucruri pe care le recomandă oamenii prin ghidurile cu feline. Nu ştiu de ce scriu de Chomsky. El nici atât. Dar e mişto să ai pisică.

Noam Chomsky im Interview zu einigen interessanten Fragen unserer Zeit.

1106091830NoamChomsky

The Essential Chomsky

It’s good to have a little history. We each act in the world through our own historical framework and that is different for each person. Democracy can only be a true form government, if the people are willing to participate in their governance. Transparency is one of my favorite ideas as a tool to help improve our democracy by engaging common people to participate with governing this beautiful country to save it from imminent doom and to transform it into a Land of LIberty and Justice for All.

I have been a student of his books for many years now. I have not read them all from cover to cover, but I have also listened to several hours of him talking, and I am a firm believer if every person could listen to him, they could better understand what actions to take to remedy the catastrophe we have created.

http://www.chomsky.info/2008_01_01_archive.htm

The rich don’t care too much because they believe their money will save them, but in the new world, money is art.

Mr. Chomsky’s desire to be frank and honest with the American People and to the World, is the reason Hugo Chavez  recommended his book, Hegemony or Survival. Hegemony is a word we don’t use in common everyday language because we are living inside its metaphor, our culture and our society are the very shadows we struggle to break free from.

TruthOut: http://www.truthout.org/1106095

http://gritsandroses.org/2009/03/29/anthony-arnove-on-the-essential-chomsky/

http://www.librarything.com/work/3734864

http://singularityu.org/

I like when I find new and interesting websites that are moving forward with the very things I want to be a part of…

http://www.tigweb.org/members/book.html?ISBN=1595581898

Here’s another online library: http://openlibrary.org/b/OL12439476M/The_Essential_Chomsky

How does it work to be able to read a book “in” the library if the library is online? Is online a new Virtual Reality that we must conider a part of nature?

I find websites sometimes like I find books, so sometimes I come across something and will post it without having fully looked through it, so forgive me if I offend anyone. Everything on here is only to be considered as instructional materials for the newly formed AnuMe University. I am the founder. Smiles.

If I am interested in learning anything, it is how to be Free. Growing up in a country that talks about Liberty as if it were a dream, an ideal, some lofty goal for those who have the wealth to explore it properly – and that understanding of Capitalism, that it somehow, increases our liberty, has been the reason why it has been so easy to push the ideals of NewLibralism around the globe, even proposing whole new regions of Free Trade Zones.

But one of the things I enjoy about Mr. Chomsky is that he talks about What is Possible, if we, as engaged citizens, can do to create the World we Believe In. Not a Christian or Islamic World. Not an American or Chinese World. But a World Free, where each person is allowed to experience the fullness of their potential within the parameters of their creativity. Laziness will not be a successful trait carried onto the next generation. Sloth, obesity, laziness, ignorance, will not be carried forward in our evolutionary development. I wonder if that’s why the “Survival of the Fittest” is an analogy many strive to exemplify.

It is not a class struggle. The Rich Class, the Kingly or Brahmin Class, is not the class of Emperors and Dictators, it will be the class of peasants and servants. Wealth is not limited by physical resources and as we continue to develop the technology that will allow for life enhancement procedures to be undergone by anyone – an expense not limited by the cash in our accounts, then we can learn to develop new ways of Communitizing who we Are. Freedom and Conformity are not mutually exclusive. We can be Free and conform to our society’s limitations, but that often has led to depression, anger, violence, and even war. We can understand humanity, not only as we have become but as what can become of us.

The Essential Chomsky
Edited by Anthony Arnove

In a single volume, the seminal writings of the world’s leading philosopher, linguist, and critic, published to coincide with his eightieth birthday.

For the past forty years Noam Chomsky’s writings on politics and language have established him as a preeminent public intellectual and as one of the most original and wide-ranging political and social critics of our time. Among the seminal figures in linguistic theory over the past century, since the 1960s Chomsky has also secured a place as perhaps the leading dissident voice in the United States.

Chomsky’s many bestselling works — including Manufacturing Consent, Hegemony or Survival, Understanding Power, and Failed States — have served as essential touchstones for dissidents, activists, scholars, and concerned citizens on subjects ranging from the media to human rights to intellectual freedom. In particular, Chomsky’s scathing critiques of the U.S. wars in Vietnam, Central America, and the Middle East have furnished a widely accepted intellectual inspiration for antiwar movements over nearly four decades.

The Essential Chomsky assembles the core of his most important writings, including excerpts from his most influential texts over the past forty years. Here is an unprecedented, comprehensive overview of Chomsky’s thought.

There is more to know about the world every day. Let’s learn together.

http://www.alternativeradio.org/programs/CHON023.shtml

Chomsky on World Ownership: http://chomsky.info/interviews/20080123.htm

http://www.alternet.org/story/77912/

http://www.slideshare.net/280068/noam-chomsky-presentation

The Possibility of Life is ours now.

As civilised people across the world breathed a sigh of relief to see the back of former US president George W. Bush, top American intellectual Noam Chomsky warned against assuming or expecting significant changes in the basis of Washington’s foreign policy under President Barack Obama.

During two lectures organised by the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) in London, Chomsky cited numerous examples of the driving doctrines behind US foreign policy since the end of World War II.

“As Obama came into office, Condoleezza Rice predicted that he would follow the policies of Bush’s second term, and that is pretty much what happened, apart from a different rhetorical style,” said Chomsky.

“But it is wise to attend to deeds, not rhetoric. Deeds commonly tell a different story,” he added.

“There is basically no significant change in the fundamental traditional conception that we if can control Middle East energy resources, then we can control the world,” explained Chomsky.

Chomsky said that a leading doctrine of US foreign policy during the period of its global dominance is what he termed as “the Mafia principle.”

“The Godfather does not tolerate ’successful defiance’. It is too dangerous. It must therefore be stamped out so that others understand that disobedience is not an option,” said Chomsky.

Because the US sees “successful defiance” of Washington as a “virus” that will “spread contagion,” he explained.

Iran

The US had feared this “virus” of independent thought from Washington by Tehran and therefore acted to overthrow the Iranian parliamentary democracy in 1953.

“The goal in 1953 was to retain control of Iranian resources,” said Chomsky.

However, “in 1979 the (Iranian) virus emerged again. The US at first sought to sponsor a military coup; when that failed, it turned to support Saddam Hussein’s merciless invasion (of Iran).”

“The torture of Iran continued without a break and still does, with sanctions and other means,” said Chomsky.

“The US continued, without a break, its torture of Iranians,” he stressed.

Nuclear attack

Chomsky mocked the idea presented by mainstream media that a future-nuclear-armed Iran may attack already-nuclear-armed Israel.

“The chance of Iran launching a missile attack, nuclear or not, is about at the level of an asteroid hitting the earth — unless, of course, the ruling clerics have a fanatic death wish and want to see Iran instantly incinerated along with them,” said Chomsky, stressing that this is not the case.

Chomsky further explained that the presence of US anti-missile weapons in Israel are really meant for preparing a possible attack on Iran, and not for self-defence, as it is often presented.

“The systems are advertised as defense against an Iranian attack. But …the purpose of the US interception systems, if they ever work, is to prevent any retaliation to a US or Israeli attack on Iran — that is, to eliminate any Iranian deterrent,” said Chomsky.

Iraq

Chomsky reminded the audience of America’s backing of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein during and even after Iraq’s war with Iran.

“The Reaganite love affair with Saddam did not end after the (Iran-Iraq) war. In 1989, Iraqi nuclear engineers were invited to the United States, then under Gorge Bush I, to receive advanced weapons’ training,” said Chomsky.

This support continued while Saddam was committing atrocities against his own people, until he fell out of US favour when in 1990 he invaded Kuwait, an even closer alley of Washington.

“In 1990, Saddam defied, or more likely misunderstood orders, and he quickly shifted from favourite friend to the reincarnation of Hitler,” Chomsky added.

Then the people of Iraq were subjected to “genocidal” US-backed sanctions.

Chomsky explained that although the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, which was launched under many false pretexts and lies, was a ” major crime”, many critics of the invasion – including Obama – viewed it as merely as “a mistake” or a “strategic blunder”.

“It’s probably what the German general staff was telling Hitler after Stalingrad,” he said

“There’s nothing principled about it. It wasn’t a strategic blunder: it was a major crime,” he added.

Chomsky credited the holding of elections in Iraq in 2005 to popular Iraqi demand, despite initial US objection.

The US military, he argued, could kill as many Iraqi insurgents as it wished, but it was more difficult to shoot at non-violent protesters in the streets out on the open, which meant Washington at times had to give in to public Iraqi pressure.

But despite being pressured to announce a withdrawal from Iraq, the US continues to seek a long term presence in the country.

The US mega-embassy in Baghdad is to be expanded under Obama, noted Chomsky.

Optimism

Chomsky stressed that public pressure in the ‘West’ can make a positive difference for people suffering from the aggression of ‘Western’ governments.

“There is a lot of comparison between opposition to the Iraq war with opposition to the Vietnam war, but people tend to forget that at first there was almost no opposition to the Vietnam war,” said Chomsky.

“In the Iraq war, there were massive international protests before it officially stated… and it had an effect. The United Sates could not use the tactics used in Vietnam: there was no saturation bombing by B52s, so there was no chemical warfare – (the Iraq war was) horrible enough, but it could have been a lot worse,” he said.

“And furthermore, the Bush administration had to back down on its war aims, step by step,” he added.

“It had to allow elections, which it did not want to do: mainly a victory for non-Iraqi protests. They could kill insurgents; they couldn’t deal hundreds of thousands of people in the streets. Their hands were tied by the domestic constraints. They finally had to abandon – officially at least – virtually all the war aims,” said Chomsky.

“As late as November 2007, the US was still insisting that the ‘Status of Forces Agreement’ allow for an indefinite US military presence and privileged access to Iraq’s resources by US investors – well they didn’t get that on paper at least. They had to back down. OK, Iraq is a horror story but it could have been a lot worse,” he said

“So yes, protests can do something. When there is no protest and no attention, a power just goes wild, just like in Cambodia and northern Louse,” he added.

Turkey

Chomsky said that Turkey could become a “significant independent actor” in the region, if it chooses to.

“Turkey has to make some internal decisions: is it going to face west and try to get accepted by the European Union or is it going to face reality and recognise that Europeans are so racist that they are never going to allow it in?,” said Chomsky.

The Europeans “keep raising the barrier on Turkish entry to the EU,” he explained.

But Chomsky said Turkey did become an independent actor in March 2003 when it followed its public opinion and did not take part in the US-led invasion of Iraq.

Turkey took notice of the wishes of the overwhelming majority of its population, which opposed the invasion.

But ‘New Europe’ was led by Berlusconi of Italy and Aznar of Spain, who rejected the views of their populations – which strongly objected to the Iraq war – and preferred to follow Bush, noted Chomsky.

So, in that sense Turkey was more democratic than states that took part in the war, which in turn infuriated the US.

Today, Chomsky added, Turkey is also acting independently by refusing to take part in the US-Israeli military exercises.

Fear factor

Chomsky explained that although ‘Western’ government use “the maxim of Thucydides” (‘the strong do as they wish, and the weak suffer as they must’), their peoples are hurled via the “fear factor”.

Via cooperate media and complicit intellectuals, the public is led to believe that all the crimes and atrocities committed by their governments is either “self defence” or “humanitarian intervention”.

NATO

Chomsky noted that Obama has escalated Bush’s war in Afghanistan, using NATO.

NATO is also seen as reinforcing US control over energy supplies.

But the US also used NATO to keep Europe under control.

“From the earliest post-World War days, it was understood that Western Europe might choose to follow an independent course,” said Chomsky.”NATO was partially intended to counter this serious threat,” he added.

Middle East oil

Chomsky explained that Middle East oil reserves were understood to be “a stupendous source of strategic power” and “one of the greatest material prizes in world history,” the most “strategically important area in the world,” in Eisenhower’s words.

Control of Middle East oil would provide the United States with “substantial control of the world.”

This meant that the US “must support harsh and brutal regimes and block democracy and development” in the Middle East.

Somalia

Chomsky tackled the origins of the Somali piracy issue.

“Piracy is not nice, but where did it come from?”

Chomsky explained that one of the immediate reasons for piracy is European counties and others are simply “destroying Somalia’s territorial waters by dumping toxic waste – probably nuclear waste – and also by overfishing.”

“What happens to the fishermen in Somalia? They become pirates. And then we’re all upset about the piracy, not about having created the situation,” said Chomsky.

Chomsky went on to cite another example of harming Somalia.

“One of the great achievements of the war on terror, which was greatly hailed in the press when it was announced, was closing down an Islamic charity – Barakat – which was identified as supporting terrorists.

“A couple of months later… the (US) government quietly recognised that they were wrong, and the press may have had a couple of lines about it – but meanwhile, it was a major blow against Somalia. Somalia doesn’t have much of an economy but a lot of it was supported by this charity: not just giving money but running banks and businesses, and so on.

“It was a significant part of the economy of Somalia…closing it down… was another contributing factor to the breaking down of a very weak society…and there are other examples.”

Darfur

Chomsky also touched on Sudan’s Darfur region.

“There are terrible things going on in Darfur, but in comparison with the region they don’t amount to a lot unfortunately – like what’s going on in eastern Congo is incomparably worse than in Darfur.

“But Darfur is a very popular topic for Western humanists because you can blame it on an enemy – you have to distort a lot but you can blame it on ‘Arabs’, ‘bad guys’,” he explained.

“What about saving eastern Cong where maybe 20 times as many people have been killed? Well, that gets kind of tricky … for people who… are using minerals from eastern Congo that obtained by multinationals sponsoring militias which slaughter and kill and get the minerals,” he said.

Or the fact that Rwanda is simply the worst of the many agents and it is a US alley, he added.

Goldstone’s Gaza report

Chomsky appeared to have agreed with Israel that the Goldstone report on the Gaza war was bias, only he saw it as biased in favour of Israel.

The Goldstone report had acknowledged Israel’s right to self-defence, although it denounced the method this was conducted.

Chomsky stressed that the right to self-defence does not mean resorting to military force before “exhausting peaceful means”, something Israel did not even contemplate doing.

In fact, Chomsky points out, it was Israel who broke the ceasefire with Hamas and refused to extend it, as continuing the siege of Gaza itself is an act of war.

As for the current stalled Mideast peace process, Chomsky said that despite adopting a tougher tone towards Israel than that of Bush, Obama made no real effort to pressure Israel to live up to its obligations.

In the absence of the threat of cutting US aid for Israel, there is no compelling reason why Tel Aviv should listen to Washington.

What can be done?

Chomsky stressed that despite all the obstacles, public pressure can and does make a difference for the better, urging people to continue activism and spreading knowledge.

“There is no reason to be pessimistic, just realistic.”

Chomsky noted that public opinion in the US and Britain is increasingly becoming more aware of the crimes committed by Israel.

“Public opinion is shifting substantially.”

And this is where a difference can be made, because Israel will not change its policies without pressure from the ‘West’.

“There is a lot to do in Western countries…primarily in the US.”

Chomsky also stressed the importance of taking legal action in ‘Western’ countries against companies breaking international law via illegitimate dealings with Israel, citing the possible involvement of British Gas in Israeli theft of natural gas off the coast of Gaza, as one example that should be investigated.

In conclusion of one of the lectures, Chomsky quoted Antonio Gramsci who famously called for “pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will.” Mamoon Alabbasi can be reached via: alabbasi@middle-east-online.com. Noam Chomsky: No Change In US ‘Mafia Principle’

By Mamoon Alabbasi, 04 November, 2009 Middle-east-online.com

1.  “Noam Chomsky’s glaring logical inconsistencies

Academic activist Chomsky is known to the 911 Truth Movement as a denier of the facts of controlled demolition of the three WTC buildings, in spite of the massive amount of
irrefutable evidence (most of us see it as ordinary common sense backed up by hard core science).

As I recall, Chomsky also insisted, as many deniers do, that any conspiracy would have to be too large, that too many people would have to be involved, for it to have occurred. Then he dismissed his challengers with a wave of the hand and said, “What does it matter?”

I suspect that when Chomsky did this, he knew his arguments couldn’t stand up, but he couldn’t admit his mistake or the fact that he had been deceived, so he resorted to outright denial and a pretense of apathy; I also believe he still can’t admit that he was wrong but probably knows it deep inside.

…

I wonder how Chomsky reconciles the notion that if 9/11 was a conspiracy involving terrorists, only 19 conspirators are required, but if it was a conspiracy involving government officials, it would require thousands … if terrorists are really that much more competent than government officials, maybe we should employ terrorists to run govt,.. perhaps that’s what’s happening already.
…
Noam is an “official” intellectual and is allowed to officially criticize the empire as part of the “necessary illusion” of our democracy. However, he knows that his international reputation makes any dissent on 911 an “official” problem with severe potential consequences. This is war folks, plain and simple people have been murdered and nothing less than the fate of the empire is at stake. Chomsky is smart enough to know which fights to take on and if he even hints at having an open mind regarding 911 truth his fate could be sealed.

http://www.911blogger.com/node/21779

2.  “Obama Fears Military Revolt

Still, Ellsberg believes Obama will “go against his own instincts as to what’s best for the country and do what’s best for him and his administration and his party in the short run facing elections, which is to avoid a military revolt.”

That means the president will likely authorize a sizable increase of US forces in the region, Ellsberg said, because Obama fears that top US military commanders will stage a revolt if he rejects their requests for additional soldiers.”
http://www.truthout.org/1102096

3.  “75% of Potential Recruits Too Fat, Too Sickly, Too Dumb to Serve “

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/11/75-of-potential-recruits-too-fat-too-sickly-too-dumb-to-serve/

In celebration of getting in the middle of our studies, I have written you a song (as well as designing my own album cover). To the tune of Robbie Williams “Millenium“.

“Chomskysm” by Roz Gomez

We’ve got grants directing our fate,

so I’m praying for a start date,

Chomskysm!

————————————

Some say that we are linguists,

some say that we are slaves,

but we are stuck with Abaitua,

till the day we graduate,

Gotta get out,

cause we’ll go mad.

—————————————

Run around  in circles,

Live within a cubicle,

till we find ourselves a degree,

something we can relate to

then we’ll slow down

before we fall down

Ah hah!

——————————————–

We’ve got grants directing our fate,

so I’m praying for a start date

cause we know we’re falling from grace,

Chomskysm.

———————————

Live for writing papers,

that will not pay for your rent

overdone at the canteen’s lunch

Then suck off down to bed

My Professor is all too cynical,

refuses to keep the faith,

We all enjoy his madness,

cause we know we’re gonna get away!

Come to the Uni, if you think

you have had enough (retweet till fade)

Well done again

You guys

Love + hugs

Noam Chomsky, con posterioridad a Saussure, al analizar el lenguaje habla de dos conceptos nuevos, competence (competencia) y performance (actuación). Chomsky dice que no entiende qué es la langue saussureana. Chomsky para superar las limitaciones que él encuentra en la teoría estructuralista de Saussure, crea una nueva teoría, fundamentada en que la lengua- lenguaje es un proceso de la mente del hablante, donde éste tiene una capacidad innata (genética) para adquirir y usar una lengua, la competencia. Es un proceso que es inconsciente. La competencia le da al ser humano la capacidad virtual de producir y/o comprender un número indefinido de frases de una lengua.

Pero esta capacidad, esta creatividad, energeia, no consiste en saber elaborar enunciados bellos, sino gramaticales y aceptables, que cumplan una serie de condiciones.

La actuación (performance) para Chomsky es el uso real por parte del hablante de la lengua en situaciones concretas. Es el acto particular de producción o interpretación de un enunciado, en función de la competencia. Es la manifestación del saber lingüístico en los actos del hablar. En definitiva, meramente empírica.

Así como en Saussure la lengua es lo esencial frente al habla, en Chomsky la competencia prevalece sobre la actuación.

En el primero, la lengua es un concepto “social”, es del colectivo, en el segundo, en cambio, la competencia está en la mente de cada individuo, es individual. Y si bien en Saussure, el sistema de la lengua es estático, no cambia; para Chomsky, la competencia es un concepto dinámico, creativo. Ambos conceptos, lengua y competencia son para ellos abstractos.

Respecto al habla y a la actuación, ambos teóricos los consideran actos del individuo, donde se concreta el saber lingüístico en un momento determinado. Coinciden ambos en no considerar excesivamente relevantes ambos conceptos.

Bibliografía.

F. Saussure. Curso de Lingüística General. Ediciones Akal Universitaria. Toledo, 2006.

http://www.unm.edu/devalenz/handouts/competence.htlm