6:17

That would be SO awesome if chomsky controlled the American press, the newspaper would be an interesting thing

+meeg_2005 I would actually read them without muttering "bullshit" to myself.

all of us control the american press apparently

Avi Gindratt #Facts 😂

nope view him vs Buckley 1969.

Agree. More than with Buckley

Here it was after Silber disparaged his comment regarding Archbishop Romero

@@markboros2217 and a newspaper editor and photographer from La Cronica who were pulled outside from a coffee shop in San Salvador and hack to pieces with machetes by security forces. (source: "The Essential Chomsky" page 275)

@@paullake2736 that's crazy .. .. when was this?

During his tenure at BU, teaches walked out, classes where held out of doors.

you can find lots of such little dictators in universities

To an idiot.

Dale Hitchcox Well what moderator on a corporate media outlet would want Chomsky consistently dunking on the pro-Contra narrative?

the moderator was very lousily passive in general

Ratings

NoExitLoveNow That is true; Chomsky has been indispensable in untangling the web of lies that surrounds us all for more than half a century, and his analysis is an incredible gift to every person who gives a shit about peace and justice.

Greg Vinson He has been untangling the web of lies that surrounds us for so long and he continues to do it to this day. It will be such an immense tragedy when he dies.

***** Who Chomsky?

***** How so?

+Jack Stratif History is made by important roles people had in their lives. Chomsky will continue to be alive as long as there is such thing as human history.

Ocelotl Chimalpahin in his time it's like arguing with trump supporters... yeah okay... theirs no reasoning with you

When I try to speak with Trump supporters online, it quickly descends into me being called a 'cuckold libtard'. They don't realise that the most offensive part of that is to imply i'm liberal when I'm a libertarian communist. So I'll say I think it's questionable Trump will enact protectionist tax policy, since he himself outsourced jobs in his business to 12 different countries and called it a smart business move. That even if he created jobs through this protectionism, he wants to overturn workplace health and safety regulations, so even if you get a job, you're more likely to slip on something that would otherwise be cleared up by those useless safety precautions inhibiting the 'free market'. The fall fractures your skull and then you're left with overwhelming debt under Trump's reversal of even the modest improvements of Obamacare. Apparently saying this makes me 'beta'. So I tell them to worship their wiggy orange overlord and there we both are, a digital time-capsule of scribblings for a future intelligent rat historian, in her research on how the human race pursued a path towards nuclear holocaust, 'reconstructing the peculiar and temporarily tragic circumstances that gave ratkind its big break' ;)

😂😂 Chomsky: Yeah, okay. Translation: Christ fuck, you're dumb.

Yeah, he was pretty fed up with Silber.

This interview was frustrating because I was never really able to get a full grasp of the positions of Chomsky and Silber here.

Apparently you know nothing about the facts of Nicaragua or the subsequent history that demonstrates Chomsky didn't know what he was talking about.

***** scott is right. the history is proving that noam chomsky's decision is right, and following Silba, which is to just start a war because of Nicaragua is a stupid thing to do. john silba is just a dog of the government to mislead the stupid majority into the taste of freedom and democracy. do you also see how john silba (i mean that dick) was keep distracting noam chomsky because of his amour-prope to win chomsky in the program? study before you talk about this, philip, unles you want to be caught in the illusion made by the politicians.

Philip Mathews Yeah Silber was wrong on every account from his outrageous comparisons of Nicaragua to Nazi Germany, his denial that high ranking members of the contras were ex-somocistas, and his blatant fabrication that Arturo Cruz was not a figure head of the CIA. The fact he kept cutting Chomsky off and insulting him was indication that he was losing the argument.

To all the Chomskysites….the man was wrong in so many historical instances that even listening to his political views makes you the kind of person that expects a different outcome by adhering to the same method. Chomsky is an intellectual of specialised knowledge but he thinks he possesses general knowledge which is impossible to have. Even the smartest persons possess less than 1% of general human knowledge. He is the kind of guy that during interviews in the late 60s supported that communism has democratised - liberated societies, he denied the killing fields massacres in Cambodia, he cheered for Chavez and Castro and so on. He deservedly thus, was included as a bad paradigm,in books that explore the reasons about "intellectuals" that are more often wrong than right (Paul Hollander's , Sowell's, etc). Sowell's argument was that of generalised vs specialised knowledge and the 1% paradigm above is drawn from his book "Intellectuals and Society" (which is a MUST read). P.S. Once again Chomsky "was right" www.heritage.org/americas/report/the-sandinista-war-human-rights

@@C_R_O_M________ Did you seriously use the Heritage Foundation as a source?

and now he is a graceful 86 and proven correct and still going strong. I only found this cite because I was watching Decline of the Western World on the history channel w/ every great mind of our time including him validating his thought processes x 45 years. lmao it good to be liberal

graniteminerman Funny, Silber died in 2012 and Chomsky is still alive and kicking

TexLonghorn72 Yeah I am just reading up on him, any suggestions? He seems to be very aware of himself and the world he lives in.

graniteminerman WTF I just heard that part...Man I swear thing seem to be repeating with the new Sam Harris bout

graniteminerman I completely agree. I had the same exact feeling when I heard him say that.

That anecdote relates to a Colombian community

William S. Bingo.

+William S. Bingo

Fox news ?

That's what I was thinking too. He's awfully defensive, I thought.

Yes. I notice that Silber is outraged at what Chomsky says, but Chomsky seems to expect Silber's line of attack, only becoming agitated at the infuriating way Silber keeps interrupting him.

ever NOTICED IT?????? LOL. because there is no counterargument other than namecalling. his whole argument is that we are all equal across the world.

@@stevencoardvenice if an argument is weak or non existant its easy to debunk it. it doesnt need any effort. if you still rely on namecalling and think its appropriated you are just try to hide your lacking of any arguments

If one know someone is right, one often tries to silence their opponent.

just like the famous Buckley appearance, Buckley had to start yelling "stop talking!" to stop Chomsky from meticulously proving everything he said.

welcome to life in imperial america

If I was a man n "debating" Silber I'd 100% honestly PUNCH Silber out. I wouldn't have been able to help myself

That stock scandal was something. Taking 1/5 of the BUs endowments and dumping it into a tanking stock so his buddies could get rich. This guy should have had an army of milkshake anarchists following him around.

He did head the transformation of Boston University into a world-renown research University however.

@@Garrett1240 Let's not confuse the cheerleader with the coach.

LIAM LIAMESQUE Except for the weekend warrior Chomsky is against actually has the power to ruin lives and destroy entire societies.

Max Schlepzig And now he's dead...

LIAM LIAMESQUE And people wonder why Chomsky gets cranky with pitiable flyspecks like Sam Harris these days... Noam's had decades of unfortunate encounters with these sorts of State apologists who profess civility and only want to dominate without evidence or intellectual honesty.

***** I can get Chomsky being impatient with Harris's naivety, which I'll call it in order to give him the benefit of doubt. In listening to his recent 2.5-hour discussion with Dan Carlin (who was _very_ patient and was able to pin Harris down without either of them flying off the handle), he seems to sincerely believe that nation-states - at least liberal Western ones - can act and react with a _moral_ and not purely mercenary axis. Carlin, who has a deep knowledge of military history (as well as Chomsky, who has a lifetime of personal experience) expressed greater cynicism with regards to the morals of state actors, particularly concerning 'interests' of significant economic gravity.

LIAM LIAMESQUE Chomsky quoting Hitler, saying how Poland was a treat, is a beautiful dismantle of that dude's rethoric

Mulla Nasrudin: That was probably the best point made in the debate.

Jon Rowe Chomsky likes that analogy he has recently used it to describe a Palestinian threat to Israel. I actually think he used it again to describe the threat Iran truly plays to America.

Could someone explain it here

@@gFS.1 Chomsky was saying to Silber that to say Nicaragua - with its diminutive size - could be the launch point for an attacks on the US (as silver suggested) is like saying the US could invade Russia from Luxembourg

As the rest of the US MSM.

Actually the current (2021) repressive dictatorship under Sandanista leader Daniel Ortega - arguably the worst in Central America today and when no one is attacking them and the Soviet Union no longer exists - proves that concerns about the Sandanistas' dictatorial bent in the 1980s were well-founded.

@@sheilamacdougal4874 I’d check again - Ortega’s policies have greatly moderated over the years. He’s instituted a lot of pro-business reforms and even strengthened relations with the Vatican by adopting strong pro-life social policies.

@@MrRoboto81 Hilarious. I think it's you who had better check again: soldiers opening fire on peaceful protesters, killing dozens, political opponents arrested, all serious political challengers prevented from standing in upcoming elections, press stifled, etc., every feature of a dictatorship. Read Amnesty's latest report, or for that matter read anything: BBC, Guardian, Times, anything. Yes, you're that ignorant. Next you'll tell us that Pinochet was not a dictator because he "instituted a lot of pro-business reforms."

@Oliver Zinn What's ridiculous is your silly labeling. Ortega was always a repressive tyrant, whether he used "leftist" rhetoric or not, whether he had any social programs or not. You want to live in a fantasy Hansel and Gretel world where "the left" - whatever that means - is good, and conversely, anything bad is on the "right". Unfortunately Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Castro, Guevera, and now Ortega haven't cared much about the fairytale beliefs of sanctimonious little western ignoramuses.

I reacted to that the interviewer did nothing. Interrupting each other in this sort of debate should always be denied I think.

President of Boston University.

that doesnt mean a thing except that he had the right connections , wake up!

How the fuck was this guy head of Boston University?

He thinks the right things. That's how.

Earl Grey. Not just President, but an extremely SUCCESSFUL President.

Decades later, on the contrary, the repressive dictatorship under Sandanista leader Daniel Ortega - arguably the worst in Central America today and when no one is attacking them and the Soviet Union no longer exists - proves that concerns about the Sandanistas' dictatorial bent in the 1980s were very well-founded.

@@sheilamacdougal4874 so because Ortega is corrupt after four decades in politics, the entire Sandinista movement was? Great logic. Would be shocked if you withheld such judgment for politicians you support…

@@ericpark8784 It doesn't prove that the entire Sandinista movement was corrupt (nor did I say so, nor was I even discussing corruption, but rather dictatorial or anti-democratic tendencies). What Ortega's repressive dictatorial current policy does show is that the Sandinista leadership was likely undemocratic, and like repressive dictators everywhere from Africa to Asia to Latin America to Russia to 1930s Germany, only paid lip service to or used democratic means when it suited them.

@@sheilamacdougal4874 Seeing your comments on Nicaragua, and seeing your comments on the GrayZone only proves not to give no pfp profiles the time of day, the frank of the matter is in the bloody 2018 murderous coup attempt most of the deaths were police and govt supporters (Nicaraguan Red Cross). The FSLN won the most recent election no different than MAS in Bolivia and nothing you say will do anything to change that and thank god. The country will continue to improve despite horrendous sanctions.

@@beepboop1044 Ok Ortega lackey. I'll believe what international human rights groups, respected international observers and analysts say, and you can believe what Ortega's state propaganda and a couple of lying podcaster hacks say. Best wishes.

+Louie Fields Wow. How did you notice that?

+Louie Fields Want me to blow your mind? Try to find an instance when he wasn't wearing a *denim shirt*.

+12345 fin He used it a lot but it's not that hard to find.

Yeah, but he always wears a denim shirt, under a sweater or otherwise.

12345 fin lol true

Michael I like how you worded that comment haha

It's just common sense. It's only complicated in america. Which is completely brainwashed

@@stevencoardvenice Many countries have similar indoctrination problems.

@@excitedaboutlearning1639 Not really

Agreed ...he took on a superpower and its legions of propagandists almost alone for many years I feel, as many others, so much respect and affection for him He's not playing politics like Sam Harris or Hitchens. The latter two were/are impressed with their own minds, apparently, and saw/see politics as a way to display them Chomsky, correctly, sees politics as intellectually shallow. He says anything we know in politics is trivial and it's easy enough to assemble the facts if you want to. He would rather stick to his arcane and exciting subjects but the lies told in the service of vicious power would not let him close the door to the suffering world. Such a wonderful human

A Skeptical Human Sadly the aggressive tactic of yelling, calling an argument lies, and appearing incredulous is an effective means of diminishing credibility to unwitting onlookers. Silber provided very little rational response to anything chomsky was saying, obviously because his ideological perspective is entrenched with megalomania and dogma, which aren't good tools to do battle with a well cited fact onslaught Chomsky is world famous for providing.

What propaganda you fool? The fact that Chomsky still has a right to free speech is because the US government didn't allow the Soviets to take over the world. You and Chomsky have no idea what you are talking about! Look up for Yuri Bezemdov's lectures on KZfaq (Ex-KGB agent who defected) where he called people like Chomsky useful idiots. That's exactly what they were and you can see Chomsky during a late 60s interview with William Buckley Jr. proclaiming that communism brought democratisation - liberation in societies (!!!!). This idiot never apologised when Solzhenitsyn's book shook the world when it showed Westerners what kind of democratisation - liberation communism brought to them.

Actually the current (2021) repressive dictatorship under Sandanista leader Daniel Ortega - arguably the worst in Central America today and when no one is attacking them and the Soviet Union no longer exists - proves that concerns about the Sandanistas' dictatorial bent in the 1980s were well-founded.

@@sheilamacdougal4874 Does it prove that the United States was correct to support the Contras in murdering thousands of innocent people?

Actually the current (2021) repressive dictatorship under Sandanista leader Daniel Ortega - arguably the worst in Central America today and when no one is attacking them and the Soviet Union no longer exists - proves that concerns about the Sandanistas' dictatorial bent in the 1980s were well-founded.

think he was calling him an old man, which is ironic because he died first

Yes, and the thinking of Donahue belongs to the middle ages in Europe

+c4p0ne It's amazing these people who have called the left whiny morons making a fuss over nothing, yet a few student unions encouraging their students to click their fingers rather than clapping has driven the reactionaries into an utter frenzy.

+Edward Nigma Snapping fingers instead of clapping is the lamest bullshit I've ever heard.

BigEvan96 Yup, but funding terror organizations in Syria, the destruction of social democracy, decline in living standards all across the western world etc. all bother me a lot more than shit like that. It's annoying, but I barely care.

+wisildur Hey buddy, intentions are a more reliable model of future behavioral prediction than head counts- which offers absolutely no insight. Sure people can profess benign intentions yet cause much suffering, they can also profess malign intentions with the same effect- in the second case intention confers actual value. Head count metrics tell us absolutely nothing, for example the Allies in WW2 killed far more than the Axis, according to old Noams logic they would be assessed to be evil to a higher degree, we all know this is mistaken. Hitler professed good intention towards Germans but not other parties. Apparently in Noams view the USA is evil as it leads the head count tally. This is perverse reasoning. No attention is payed to context. Would you care to disabuse everyone as to why Noams view of intention is more enlightened? If you truly understand his position then it shouldnt be a problem. homsky was vanquished here- Silber shut him down, he made solid points, its true that at that time and in context of the Cold War the Soviet Union was still a very insidious and pervasive threat to the USA in Latin America, the USA supported brutal oppositions but it was a means to an end to prevent Soviet imperialism, many Latin governments had strong Marxist tendencies and ultimately the proliferation of such regimes would have posed a direct threat to the USA. All in context, Chomsky a naive boy scout morality in which he views complex political situations through a very biased superficial anti-USA lens. Essentially the USA were trying to obviate Communist influence in neighboring countries...you cant blame them, considering Russia is still engaged in this sort of preemptive maneuvering to ensure the integrity of its interests ie Crimea. Chomsky only registers USA transgressions, he should be less biased and view American policy as being largely reactionary during that time period which it was. Chomsky loves to invoke moral equivalences in the Nazi vain...it is amusing how here Silber appealed to the Nazis here a few times to great effect.

+David Gilmour You're making the assumption that we were the 'good guys' in ww2. You're wrong about that. We were the winning side of a war between imperial powers. Both sides wanted world power, one side got it. So yeah, we were more evil than Germany if you want to put it that way. We are the only ones to use nuclear bombs, we killed more people, we tortured more people, we murdered more civilians, and we raped more women. Keep in mind that America has told the entire world what to do, when to do it, and how to do it since WW2. America just did exactly what Germany wanted to do.

I really enjoyed this comment! Thanks

Exactly. It's kind of sad how your description is exactly what's going on in the modern DNC debates. Sanders never gets a chance to truly refute when Clinton speaks and interrupts him.

For a young Chomsky, check out his William H. Buckley interview. I think he was only about 41 or so.

***** LOL-apt description.

***** I liked Ward Bond in _The Quiet Man_. I'd compare Silber more to Frank Burns.

Matthew Ward Alright, I was comparing more to who Ward Bond was in real life. He's a good actor though.

+ThawedTroglodyteJury L M A O

+ThawedTroglodyteJury *chuckle* Ward Bond? "Oy ken lick any mon in the hoose!" How many people are going to get _that_ reference?

i know right. parts of it seem like hes struggling to remember names and dates like reading note cards in his eyelids, so i think its partly rhetorical bluffing in service of a half baked "patriotism" overcompensated with memorized fact-bytes. So, you know, Conservatives.

While you’re still around. Nobody should threaten anyone, but it does happen. Silber showed himself up and looked foolish, he lost his cool.

Eh, I think you’re being overly sensitive. It sounded more like he felt like Noam was doing a hit-and-run and wanted to correct him before the topic changed, program ended, or whatever. Sure there were some undertones but it was just a cheap intimidation tactic, indicating he was cornered and near defeat. There was no actual threat made.

It has only gotten worse...

You nailed it, that is the most telling part of the interview

And specifically because those policies were spreading to neighboring states. Chomsky is correct, people were truly being lifted out of poverty, and it was directly due to the ideas and actions of those who were being elected. The more those ideas spread, and they were guaranteed to spread due to their inherent effectiveness, the less able American business was to run roughshod over sovereign states' rights to the resources within their own borders. The "red scare" was truly powerful ideological kool-aid to keep the American people from asking any questions.

yeah I saw that too. I was wondering if Finkelstein was referencing this debate

Kind of like J Edgar Hoover being a “little” obsessed with homosexuals.

Yeah Noam won convincingly against Buckley, especially considering it was about Vietnam. Debating Chomsky on Vietnam was a fool’s errand. I think Buckley would’ve won had they debated the McCarthy era, classical republicanism, or monetary and fiscal policy, for example.

@@-dash It’d be Tyson/Spinks, Chomsky winning the belt in seconds.

@@youmothershouldknow4905 Let’s not kid ourselves, Buckley v. Chomsky debating McCarthy and anti-communism would be Thrilla in Manila

@@-dash I don’t think so. One fighter would be drunk, throwing punches that never land, and the other, precise punches that are not so hard as to take the drunk out right away. And to this end, it’s obvious who the drunk would be. It ain’t Noam.

You mean Silber's wearing a toupee?