Noam Chomsky - The Middle East and the Peace Movement - Audio only
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 січ 2016
- 1984 - 05 - 14
Noam Chomsky - The Middle East and the Peace Movement
Noam Chomsky gave this talk on May 14, 1984 at Berkeley, in California. He talks about the American peace movement, and its role (or lack thereof) in helping to bring about a settlement on the Palestine issue. Also, he discusses, in much detail, the history of the region. He takes questions from the audience in the second part, some of them quite angry.
Thanks to the:
Noam Chomsky Audio Conservatory
archive.org/details/NoamChoms...
So insightful and truthful! Thank you you Chomsky!
Chilling and amazing talk, thank you for uploading. And thank you Chomsky for spending your life towards researching, documenting and speaking the truth about major world events that many in media and academia are, for many reasons, not doing. More people need to hear this. Almost more relevant today after 30+ years of similar or worse US/Israel policies in the mid-east.
I can't hear the questions being asked, but three in a row reflected something that is as relevant today as ever and have been on my mind a a lot lately.
1.)Privileged people support privilege. Privileged US citizens support their privilege to consume the goods that cause carbon emissions. Whatever the reality of climate change, nothing short of a dire series of disasters is likely to change that.
2.) Extermination of the Jews was highly unpopular within the Nazi party, yet it took off anyway after war frenzy started. Anyone who can recall the first gulf war knows how the Mainstream Media plays up war fanaticism. 9-11 showed how the public looks like it has so much latent aggression waiting to be expressed as war.
4:26
@ 2:07:52 ... and they're still doing it.
Because who could possibly be better qualified to judge this topic, than a Linguistics Professor, with ZERO Real World Experience in, Government, Military, Foreign Policy, International Affairs, National Security, or Law? And whose criticisms of others all have the great luxury of 20/20 Hindsight? This makes perfect sense-Right???
UGH-It is a tragedy that anyone actually takes this ridiculous old man seriously! SMH
He is your intellectual superior, and it frosts your ass. Do your homework before popping off at the mouth and humiliating yourself:
www.britannica.com/biography/Noam-Chomsky
The vast majority of the things Noam Chomsky says are verifiable fact. He actually utilizes quotes from primary source material throughout ALL of his lectures. When he’s not quoting or basing statements on verifiable documentation, he makes clear that he is giving his interpretation. Being that Professor Chomsky is one of the most well-educated historians and authors of our time, his interpretations/extrapolations are more well founded and realistic than basically any human alive today. Go back to the fox news comment section you petulant fool.
(SIGH) It's unfortunate that you both seem to be so lost in Chomsky's fantasyland, that you cannot to see reality:
Chomsky merely criticizes others in areas that he has ZERO Real World Experience in himself, and with the great luxury of 20/20 Hindsight.
This is the forensic equivalent of Chomsky watching video of Last Week's NFL game, pointing out the losing team's mistakes, and using that knowledge to judge the performance of the players & coaches on the field!
Which makes Chomsky no more than a very intelligent-sounding Monday-Morning-Quarterback, and renders his criticisms of others essentially worthless-REGARDLESS of how, ' educated ', and, ' intellectually superior ', he might be!
THIS is the Reality about Chomsky!
So now hopefully this helps you grasp this reality.
And btw, you also need to be clearer on what a legitimate historian really is-But I will leave that lesson for later.
For now, you can go back to your Cannabis...smh
And I NEVER stated I was a fan of Fox News either-MORE wrong reasoning on your part...
Did you actually listen to the lecture? There is a difference between criticism and relaying facts. Chomsky talks about politics from a factual perspective almost entirely. If you think facts are criticisms, I think that says a lot about how these nation-states act. You’re flat out wrong but the Dunning-Kruger effect is in full swing with you, clearly.
As for his merit as a historian, analyzing credible primary and secondary source material is the key factor for this role. Writing about the documented realities of history is another component of being a historian. These things are exactly what Chomsky does so well. The reason he is still around and credible is because everything he writes about is based in verifiable fact in objective reality. If you think otherwise it’s because you’re misinformed. End of story.