Noam Chomsky

Hegemony or Survival


Noam Chomsky, author of Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media, discusses the roots of U.S. imperialism, the often overlooked opportunity costs of empire, the exaggerated strength of U.S. economic rivals, the continuation of the Great Game into the 21st century, how the Western World’s observance of the Durand Line exacerbates problems in Afghanistan, the empire’s loss in Iraq, the U.S. doctrine of punishing Iran just to make an example out of them and the Israeli policy of incremental displacement of the Palestinian population in the occupied territories.

MP3 here. (41:12)

Noam Chomsky is professor emeritus of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and widely regarded as the father of modern linguistics. He is the author of Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy, Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies and dozens of other books on politics and linguistics.

47 thoughts on “Noam Chomsky”

  1. Great listening!

    One comment re intervention in economy:
    The EU is doing worse than the US- not because of lack of concerted intervention as Chomsky claims- but probably due to the fact that European banks have been exposed to the subprime disasters in both US AND domestic markets (UK and E. Europe in particular).

    US banks “only” have to deal with the US subprime.

  2. Chomsky made the point that imperial interests can override business interests. So if US corporations aren’t controlling US foreign policy, then who is? After reading a number of Chomsky’s articles, I am still confused about the internal dynamics of our foreign policy elite. Could he please point to an online article that one should read on this topic? Thanks

  3. chomsky has made the point that as an institution, the government is overwhelmingly run by corporations. however, there are times when the institutional interests of the government can override the interests of individual corporations. thus, despite widespread business support for renewing relations with cuba, the US govt. continues to torture cuba for its disobedience. the model that argues that corporations run the government is accurate, but not perfectly so, just like everything else in the world. so most of the time the corporations will get their way – but the govt. can afford to be a little more long-term in their view. i guess corporations are willing to get over the fact that cuba wants to be an independent actor just as long as they can profit from cuba, but they probably forget (because of their short-term thinking due to profit motives) that the US govt. is punishing cuba to make an example of it, and thus prevent other countries in the future from inconveniencing US interests – which means US corporate interests.

    basically, the US govt. has become very powerful thanks in large part to corporate power lobbying to expand govt. power. this newfound power means that the govt. is in a better position to support corporations and do their bidding, but bc of its great power it can also be independent, and, as chomsky points out “this fact plays out in interesting ways.” as chomsky says another time: “the world is a complicated place.”

  4. I’d fully concur that politically connected corporations run the show in tandem with the state, but what’s left once the corporate influence has been purged? Oligarchy and unaccountability due to the sheer size of this huge (un)representative democracy. Public Choice ought to disillusion all social democrats into becoming outright anarchists.

  5. Well, thank you, Noam.

    Here is a man, a brilliant semanticist, who completely understands how public relations works: that it is meant to be a mind control industry. A man who

    knows that this industry has now grown completely out of control, fabricating completely illusory realities to the masses through the now concentrated


    That is was this same media that created whole artificial realities in the wake of 911…an artificial reality that has generated shadow enemies originally

    created by our own intelligence services, the flimsy pretexts for illegal wars, the “eternal war” COG pretext for shredding of our constitutional rights, the

    falsely placed anger that generated torture, the fear that fostered a mammoth police state bureacracy where most of the crimes that support this structure

    could only have been prosecuted with the assistance of agent provocateurs, and with the political capital that allowed laws to be passed that de-regulated

    the economy, made businesses less tranparent, allowed tax cuts that have re-created a hereditary class, and aided in the looting of Wall Street and


    It is self-evident to any sentient person that 911, by itself, without identifying who was really responsible, has been the biggest single false reality created

    and designed to manipulate public opinion. Yet this man, this “brilliant semanticist”, can’t bring himself to conclude that this signal event of modern history,

    this terrorist attack, could have had alternative etiologies, despite the overwhelming evidence contra-indicating the official story, and thus supporting the

    need for a new and thorough 911 investigation, to truly identify who was behind and who benfited from 911. All chomsky can say is, “911 doesn’t matter”.

    There is something seriously awry here with this man. He has beeen lableled as gifted and a person who has no peer, so it can’t be for lack of intellect. In

    my opinion, it can only be from Chomsky willfully aveering from what is as plain as the nose on his face: 911 was an inside job; and I for one am now

    labelling him for what his is: Agent. But an agent for whom?

    Hey, Noam. 911 was an inside job.

    Note: It is only fitting that Chomsky is appearing at the behest of Justin Raimundo and his sycophant Scott Horton. For it is Raimundo and that other

    self-appointed guardian of the left, progressive, and libertarian viewpoint, Alexander Cockburn, who along with Raimundo are those two self-appointed

    Internet experts on U.S. foreign policy, whose own “brown-outs” about the implications of 911 and the historic effects it and other state-sponsored terror

    attacks have had upon the world, can only rival that of Chomsky’s. For it is these aversions that have helped make it possible for the true criminal clique

    behind 911 to not only escape detection and prosectuion, but to continue with their plans to loot the economies of the world and enslave the planet.

    Good work guys!

  6. you know, the thing about “9/11 truthers” is that they primarily care only about Americans. chomsky never said ‘9/11 doesn’t matter.’ if you take statements of his out of context, then yeah, it looks like he said that. but what he actually says (if you watch the whole clip of him talking about 9/11 conspiracy theories) is that in comparison to other events, 9/11 isn’t the significant.

    the US killed hundreds of thousands of poor peasants and political activists in latin america, aided dictators in indonesia and the middle east in slaughtering millions of people – and this was all before 9/11. and yet 9/11 is the only thing that matters?

    every 9/11-truther i’ve talked to doesn’t know about any history before 9/11. you ask about america’s crimes before 9/11 and the afghanistan and iraq wars and you’ll draw a blank from them.

    the problem with 9/11-truthers is that the source of their outrage is not the fact that the world suffers because of US foreign policy, but that WE suffered because of US govt. policy. they talk about how 9/11 brought about the patriot act, and warrantless wiretapping, and of all those poor soldiers are dying in iraq and afghanistan. and then they MIGHT, MIGHT mention the million or so who’ve died in iraq and afghanistan because of disease, starvation, and violent death caused by our invasions.

    if you guys want people to take you seriously, talk about US crimes before 9/11, talk about how our govt. has slaughtered poor peasants in latin america, indonesia, east timor, vietnam, the philippines, haiti, etc., etc.

    if you can talk about 9/11’s significance within 200 years of violent, brutal US foreign policy against weaker nations, then we’ll start listening.

    hey, 9/11 truthers, let me tell you something: there is no such thing as ‘the good old days,’ ok? things have always been bad, it’s just that people never cared or didn’t notice. the govt. has always been fairly brutal, vicious, and sneaky when it suited them – it’s just that the bush administration was a little more extreme. but if you look at clinton, bush sr., reagan, carter, ford, nixon, johnson, kennedy, and on down the line – they were all criminals.

    if you think that slaughtering hundreds of thousands of latin american peasants (reagan), bombing millions of south-east asians of vietnam, laos, cambodia, and thailand (kennedy, johnson, nixon), incinerating hundreds of thousands of japanses (truman), supporting and abetting the slaughter of millions of indonesians and hundreds of thousands of east timorese (ford, carter, reagan, clinton) are all LESSER crimes than 9/11, then please give an argument for why.

    don’t rely on emotional rhetoric and slogans to persuade the skeptical, and don’t resort to slander and character-assassination when the skeptical don’t find your argument rational or compelling.

  7. I’m aghast. Where is my piece did I preclude state-sponsored terror as a mechamism of control in U.S. foreign policy in other instances other than 911? That I did not include others, other countries and peoples, as having suffered that same treatment as Americans did in Manhattan on September 11, 2001?

    In fact, it is because I know that Raimundo, Cockburn, and Chomsky have written extensively on U.S. and Israeli policy vis a vis those countries and people these countries wished to control, on the use of terror and torture as the tools, a kind of “cookie cutter” approach that can be repeated over and over again, essentially since the overthrow of the Hawaiian Monarchy in 1896, that I find their “incredulity” about that same tactic/senario occuring on Americans, themselves, on 911 so unbelievable.

  8. Great interview. I’m a (science) PhD, but listening to Chomsky always makes me feel like a dope. His perspective always seems to be broader than that of anyone else, and yet at the same time he has a better grasp of the details. I may listen again (to the middle part).

    That said, there is the question, if the corporations control all, and the government can overrule the corporations, ….. well …. where is the real power. Chomsky seems elusive to me on this crucial point. I’ve been on this question for a few months, and I think Choussudovsky, Hudson, and Engdahl are the ticket.

    And Chomsky is the last gatekeeper for Israel, his support for a 2-state solution makes him a racist Zionist, who believes that Israel should exist as a state for Jews only, and the US should provide unending support. Too bad, I think, as that is going to kill his legacy.

  9. In my opinion, by stating that the US Government alone should be held responsible for 9/11 seems to, in a way, say that US foreign policy doesn’t matter; despite the outrageously destructive role the US has played in the Middle East, these actions there have no consequences. “They”, the inhabitants of the Middle East, can’t possible strike back at the US in any considerable way, like, for example, on the 11th of September. It must be “the US government” which is behind it, the same government, mind you, which has demonstrated an utterly disasterous level of incompetence over the past 8 years in all possible sectors.

    What about all the other attacks attributed to Al Qaeda and other not-so-happy recipients of US Middle East policy? Were they also orchestrated by the US government? The attack on the USS Cole, the bombing of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania? Possibly the first attempt to blow up the World Trade Center? Was the US government also behind that? Or the attacks in London and Madrid? Certainly nothing to do with their involvement in the Iraq war, or? Were the 9/11 attacks just an exception or do they fit into this broader scheme? My point is that foreign policy matters; it has consequences. There are certainly many unanswered questions about 9/11, but this belief that only the US government could have pulled off such an attack on the US is very naiive and, in a way, mirrors a very insulated America-centric perspective; yes, the other apparent blocks of wood which inhabit this earth do respond to stimulus and can strike back; what the US does in the world has consequences.

    Who is to say the US government wouldn’t have carried out the same foreign policy without 9/11? Certainly Clinton needed no such justification to attack Serbia and pursue utterly murderous sanctions against Iraq, nor did Bush I need any such justification for the US to go to war with Iraq after the invasion of Kuwait. Nor was any such justification needed to commence the Vietnam War. Since when has the US needed to justify in any half-way legitimate/rational way it’s foreign policy aims? Sorry, but for me, it doesn’t add up. The US was attacked because of what it does in the world. And it goes without saying that the US gov. will exploit such attacks for all they’re worth.

    1. Should be held accountable??!!?? Hell, 9-11 was a Mossad/Mossad asset/CIA job..if you don't know that by now then you know nothing..

  10. Chomsky doesn’t mention Israel when he talks about Iran, he says it is the state overriding business in order to punish Iran. Oh wait, since our state and the Israeli state have such a “special relationship” I guess it’s a needless distinction.

  11. Yes,Israel leads the campaign of punishment against Iran.In fact everyone sees that
    “all” the other countries are drawn by Israel in this adventure.Every time when an American politician meets an Israeli one follows new threatens against Iran.
    I think that at Geneva,where almost all states will take part,excepting Israel,USA and Canada, and where will be adobted a decision which considers Israeli’s policy in occupied territories as a crime against humanity,should be pronounced a strong opposition against these threatens and support for Iran rights to develop nuclear technology according with NPT Treat.

  12. Great job Scott!

    For so long, I’ve been waiting for “AntiWar” to have Chomsky on as a guest.
    You guys didn’t disappoint.


    However, like Benjamin, I would have liked further discussion about elite decision-making.

    For example, Scott brought up the issue of oil.
    Problem was, he oversimplified Palast’s argument as the U.S. wants “low oil prices”.

    Greg Palast’s actual argument was that there were conflicting interests within elite decision-making. One side, the neo-Cons wanted low oil prices. Another side, the oil men, wanted higher prices.

    So if the discussion had continued along those lines…
    I think Benjamin’s question might be answered.
    There are competing interests within the establishment.


    But let me propose an answer for Benjamin…

    Why would the United States block trade with Cuba (despite business interests)?

    As Chomsky said, Cuba isn’t a threat because of its army.
    It’s a threat because of its “successful defiance” of the United States.

    Right now, Cuba is dirt poor & blockaded…NO TRADE.
    But look the tactical gains they’ve achieved across Latin America.
    Lat Am’s largest Oil (Venezuela) & Gas (Bolivia) reserves are controlled by leaders outrigh worshipful of Cuba (Venezuela-Chavez, Bolivia-Morales).

    With those resources, they’ve created economic alliances like ALBA & PETROCARIBE that are solidly pro-Cuban & “defiant” of the United States. This has had a huge effect on voting at the UN, OAS, & MERSCOSUR.

    If that’s what Cuba can do without trade…
    The United States (elite) must truly fear what Cuba can do WITH TRADE.

    So, like the situation described by Greg Palast, there might be conflicting interests within the establishment.

    One sector (like Palast’s neo-Con characters) might want short-term gains from trade with Cuba. But another sector (like Palast’s oil-men characters) might fear that this opening puts many other interests in jeapordy.

    Hence, the resulting policy.

  13. Sorry…
    I’d like to correct a mistake in my last post.

    Scott actually asked Chomsky if the U.S. desired “high oil prices”.
    I accidentally reversed it in my previous post (“low oil prices”).

    Unfortunately, we’re unable to edit after submitting.
    Hence, this post.

  14. Incredible that Chomsky said that Americans may still benefit from empire despite the almost total corruption of the political class. So, let me get this straight – the corrupt network of the industrial-military and bankers, the NSA evesdropping, the consumption of capital across the board and outsourcing due to the overvalued currency, the enormous and unsustainable debts…. yeah that’s a net benefit. A country on the verge of collapse and a populous completely shielded from the truth, but hey, the jury is out on whether Americans benefit from empire!

    If Chomsky every bothered to pay attention to economics (free markets being a pre-requisite of anarchism after all), I expect his world would fall apart. I also found his history of the US to be somewhat slanted towards his thesis of the USA being an absolute evil empire from day one. We all know about the disposession of native americans and the era of slavery, but can we not say that this was of its time? Are the ideas of liberty and libertarianism somehow invalid because the founding fathers were by no means perfect? I think not. Chomsky is a statist, believes in statist controls such as world government. He sees fallacies everywhere, but I fear he will never see the fallacy of socialist anarchism.

  15. Thank you very much Scott Horton and for this excellent interview with what is surely the most consistently committed US voice for peace and against empire over many many decades. I know you guys don’t mesh with Chomsky politically but what always strikes me about his views on US foreign policy is how fully they hinge on simple straightforward moral notion to which all decent people can and should subscribe. This universal aspect makes his criticism so powerful and indispensible, I think. This excellent interview again demonstrates this. So thanks again

    To Paul Escobar: damned good analysis of the ultimate influence of Cuba’s “bad” example across Latin America and its relation to US special interests.

  16. Andy,

    I tend to agree with you.

    I’m tempted at times to think of Professor Chomsky as our “superfluous man” — our Albert Jay Nock. Alas, this is only true in one way: Chomsky understands and admits the truth about the origins of all political states: conquest and confiscation.

    But beyond that he and Nock and others like Nock have little in common.

    Moreover, Nock was as civilized as they come and a master and admirer of western norms and British manners, and thus he could and did draw on those for examples of how we might make the best of bad situations.

    As much as I appreciate Professor Chomsky’s insights, I’m not aware of anything he’s written wherein he’s tried (as Nock did) to point us toward examples of the humane and wise.

  17. Andy, Chomsky meant “America” will benefit as in generic measurements, relative to other countries, not the average welfare of the people. He said that the people are most often short changed, their interests superseded by of the business and state class.

    As for your spiel on economics, first off, anarchism does not necessarily entail free markets, especially not the one Chomsky advocates: anarcho-syndicalism.

    His history his accurate. What part of it is erroneous? His narrative his sound.
    “of its time” is as cynical and morally depraved as you can get, and reveals why you would have a problem with Chomsky’s correct analysis.

    As for his “statism”, as you mentioned he’s an anarchist, in that one should probe at the hierarchal authoritarian institutions and try to justify their legitimacy, which is dependent on its nature. If the nature of the UN, for example, can be justified, then it can, and rationally should be, advocated.

  18. Congratulations and hats off to Scott and antiwar radio for this fantastic interview with Noam Chomsky. Try to get him back on whenever you can.

  19. I agree Monkey; great listening and something a bit different for antiwar 🙂 Thanks for letting him talk a lot Scott; I appreciate your interviewing skills
    (and I still don’t mind hearing your views too).

  20. To Paul Escobar: I agree with Paul J that you make a good point regarding Cuba. I’d always thought that Chomsky’s idea of the US hating a ‘bad example’ was a bit speculative. But it is born out by what you say.

    To Paul J: Are you Paul Jay of Real News? 🙂

  21. Thanks Antiwar and Scott H for the long overdue interview. Although I disagree with a lot of the economic ideas that the Antiwar crew holds, featuring solid writers and thinkers that care about ending the suffering our country is responsible for, like Giraldi, Porter, Pilger, Floyd, and now finally Chomsky, keeps me coming back. Keep up the good work.

  22. Like others, I’m glad Scott finally had Chomsky on – or perhaps, more accurately, that Chomsky was finally able to fit Antiwar Radio into his heavily burdened schedule.

    Some readers may be interested in an article of mine that appeared a couple months ago, largely a critique of one view with which Chomsky has been associated – the view that U.S. motives in the Gulf and Central Asia, while indeed “largely about oil” (in Greenspan’s words) – is not much about maintaining “access” to the oil of those regions for purposes of meeting its own internal “needs.” I believe I show that there is a large amount of evidence bearing on this issue which has not been adequately taken into account by those who assert it (including such statements as Scott and other libertarians occasionally make, to the effect that access can’t be the motive since we can always “_buy_ the oil.”) Article linked here:

    To express two of my basic complaints (despite my great admiration for both Chomsky and Horton): (1) Is it too much to expect from generally well-informed commentators, when discussing Gulf hydrocarbons and U.S. motives, some acknowledgment of the evidence that the remaining resources there have been massively exaggerated for years, and that the largest fields in each country are already in irreversible decline? (2) Is it too much to expect some concrete consideration of the basic fact that “development” – as achieved or aspired to – is overwhelmingly bound up with the using up of exhaustible energy resources.

    Regarding (1), to my knowledge, the closest anyone’s come on Scott’s show to acknowledging the true situation is Scott Ritter, who as mentioned the relation between U.S. support for Iran’s nuclear program (under the Shah) and the view that Iranian oil is exhaustible (though without explicitly noting the context that at the time of these decisions, both U.S. and Iranian oil production had recently peaked – in 1970 and 1974, respectively).

    Regarding (2), Chomsky did hint in one or two places that the fact that oil is finite has implications for survival, without giving any specifics. The subsequent discussion of the differential effects of global financial turmoil was notably detached from this reality, however. When assessed in the light of the oil predicament, the possibility that the U.S. system will remain comparatively intact, may be valid in the short term (the next year or two), but should not be allowed to obscure the fact that the present scale of development in the U.S., Europe, China, Japan, etc., is completely unviable per se. People need to understand this if there is to be any hope of a transition to alternate means of life support.

    Steve Athearn

  23. Chomsky’s information on the HDI is waaaaay inaccurate. China is currently ranked 94th, while India is 134th. See what Peter Schiff thinks about the standing of the US after the collapse.

  24. It seems that Chomsky forgot that Israel and its amen corner may have something to do with the pressure for war. This should come as no surprise. Jeff Blankfort has been warning us about Chomsky’s closeted Zionist sympathies for years.

  25. To me laissez-faire capitalism and extreme socialism are both tools in the pouch of the naturalist, anti-Christian enemy..
    What needs to be getting more attention is what Rep. Paul Kanjorski ( D-Pa. ) admitted on C-SPAN which was that the current economic problems were the result of an ” electronic run on the bank” that resulted in the electronic hemorrhaging of $550B in just ” an hour or two.”
    Rep. Kanjorski was accosted by an irate caller complaining about the banking bail-out..
    “Why did we do that? We did that because…On the previous Thurs. ( Sept 11th ) at about 11 am the Fed Reserve noticed a tremendous drawdown of money market accts. in the US to the tune of $550B, being drawn out in the matter of an hr or two.. The Treasury opened its windows to help, pumped $105B in the system and quickly realized they could not stem the tide..We were having an electronic run on the banks..They decided to close the operation, close down the money accts and announce a guarantee of $250,000 per acct so there wouldn’t be further panic out there..If they had not done this there estimation was that by 2 o’clock that afternoon, $5.5Trillion would have been drawn out of the money mkt system of the US, which would have collapsed the entire economy of the US, and within 24 hrs the world economy would have collapsed..we talked about what would happen-it would have meant the end of our economic and political system as we know it……somebody threw us in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean w/o a life raft and we’re trying to determine which is the closest shore and whether there’s any chance in the world to swim that far..we don’t know…..”
    That’s the Chairman of the House Capitol Markets subcomittee with barely concealed panic in his voice..The date on which this hemorrhaging is said to have taken place, Sept 11, is the same date America’s financial headquarters were attacked 7 yrs earlier..It started the “war on terror” benefiting a certain ethno-theocratic state in the Middle East..The time fram this monetary hemorrhaging is said to have taken place was betwn 9 and 11 am, which coincides with the time frame of the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, with the first tower being struck before 9 am and the second tower collapsing at roughly 10:30 am..
    People who note the hundreds of “odd” items dealing with 9-11, incl. but not limited to the arrest of hundreds of Israeli intell. operatives, some seen cheering as the Twin Towers were crumbling, will consider that the current financial crisis-rather than being an “accident”-may be another act of sabotage on the part of the same malicious entity..

  26. In this country the truth only comes out by accident…Real news is what the important people don’t want you to know, the rest is just advertising.
    W. Randolph Hearst said something like that once.

  27. Mr. Horton's questioning of Noam Chomsky was probing and incisive as always.

    One of Chomsky's unusual hypotheses here was that the US “empire” might even “pull it off” in the end. He supported this, in part, by saying that the Europeans' investments in the US Treasury bonds have significantly increased since the present financial crisis started, thus “indicating a trust” in the US system.

    In fact, in the absence of industrial productivity – and thus well before the present financial crisis – a mere trust in safety of placing foreign monies in the US was the _only_ thing that has kept this ship from sinking.

    In that connection, I read in the news over this past week that Russia (of all places) had purchased some $100 billion of US Treasury bonds since last year.

    If true, the question still remains whether such sums are of any significance for the “outcome” – or merely prudent diversifications of funds (for big Mother Russia $100 billion is not much).

  28. It always amazes me that people who attack Chomsky for his supposed beliefs don’t have a clue. The fact that he has for years (See: The Fateful Triangle) supported a single, binational Israeli/Palestinian state is either ignored or misrepresented by those who are ideologically challenged. Furthermore, Chomsky is not a statist, a “free” marketer, or a “gatekeeper” of anything, and thoughts to the contrary are delusional.

  29. I first heard him on Amy Goodman’s radio show…anyone who is anti-neo-con can’t be that bad..He has a spot in that book Neo-Conned and Neo-Conned again….I suppose next Richard Perle will say that his real name his Glenn Mcgillicutty as fast as he’s trying to distance himself from himself..

  30. In reply to “the legendary Bill”: Thanks for pointing out the significant words of Rep. Paul Kanjorski, Chairman of the House Capital Markets subcommittee. However, I must take issue with your suggestion, which you make on the basis of no other evidence than a coincidence of dates, that the hemoraging incident on 9/11/2008 “may be another act of sabotage on the part of the same malicious entity” that committed the acts of 9/11/2001. My own view is that the whole finanacial and economic system is completely unsustainable, based as it is on the drawdown of exhaustible resources. The current financial crisis has other proximate causes, to be sure, but I think that statements such as Kanjorski’s are best interpreted in light of this basic predicament. Invoking secretive malicious entities sabotaging our otherwise permanent prosperity is a diversion from this basic reality. Among much other relevant literature, see again my “Largely About Access” article on or “Who’s talking about the peaking of global oil production,” on Global Public Media.


  31. You’re right there’s nothing permanent about it. Thomas E. Woods Jr. has an excellent article on the Fed in the new issue of the American Conservative….. but no, it wasn’t just a coincidence…history is not just one big coincidence after another..Nor is it one conspiracy after another…But history may have started with one, i.e.; the serpent tempting Eve..Be sure conspiracies have been more the norm rather than the exception…And why should we expect less?
    The people who control the system like to play with dates like that..and other things…Fold a $20 bill into an airplance recently?..Twin towers burning…hole in the Pentagon on the other side….Don’t you see? THEY LIKE TO MAKE THERE MOVE, GET AWAY WITH IT-THEN BRAG ABOUT your face, and there’s nothing you can do about it..Except pray which is the only thing we have left that may work.

  32. Thank you, Scott, for a great interview–just enough probing to lead him to the areas that you want his views on, and then the patience and good manners to let him speak and develop his ideas. Excellent work.

  33. Chomsky made the point that imperial interests can override business interests.

    but in this statement is the unstated presumption that imperial interests and business interests are somehow different, 1, and that these differences in long term strategic planning can be determined and measured by outside parties, 2.

    this reasoning is shaky at best, it must suppose that the imperialists (government?) and business men publicly state their aims and goals, honestly and completely.

  34. What did Chomsky lie about? Not saying he didn’t but………..
    By the way the creation of the so-called “Federal” Reserve itself was a conspiracy..The book Creature from Jekyll Island by Griffin covered it well..loaned it out once, never got it back..

  35. Johan,

    I don’t think Chomsky is advocating the traditional “Peak Oil” theory.
    (The simplistic argument that there isn’t enough oil to fuel us)

    I think he’s referring to LIGHT CRUDE.
    The cheap stuff that’s easy to extract & refine.
    It enters the market quickly, & helps stabilize world prices.

    Just about every “establishment” expert acknowledges this form of crude is running out. And with it, the ability to keep world oil prices artificially low (through Saudi overproduction, etc.).

    That DOES NOT mean we run out of oil.
    It just means we turn to HEAVY CRUDE (Canada & Venezuela).

    Problem is, this stuff is expensive to extract & refine.
    You need long-term high energy prices to justify its extraction, economically.

    This is what Chomsky’s referring to.
    That the costs of turning to these heavy sources (not just financial, but also environmental) imposes a modified “Peak Oil” scenario on the world.

  36. Somebody essentially help to make seriously articles I might state. That is the very first time I frequented your web page and so far? I surprised with the analysis you made to make this actual post amazing. Magnificent process!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.