비됴를 올린 이유는 스크랩이 붙어 잇기 때문입니다..
세상은 더 급박해 지고 살벌해 졋는데....사람들의 생각은 더 게으로고 나태해졋습니다.
다른소리 생각으로는 80년대 민주화투쟁만큼의 강력한 사회 운동이 필요한 시대가 바로 지금이라고 생각합니다.
그 시절, 관념적으로 생각햇던 것들이 지금은 하나 하나 다 구체화 되어 현실로 들어나고 잇습니다.
현실에 대한 정말 치열한 인식과 논쟁이 필요한 시기는 지금입니다..
그런데 우리 주변에는 온통 수구 꼴통과 수구 꼴통보다 더 악질적인 자신들의 모습을 들어낸 진보 꼴통들 뿐입니다.
이런 것이 답답한 것이지요..
길이 잇다면...견딥니다...
그런데 길이 보이지 않는다는 것이지요.
그 누구와 어떤이야기를 해 봐도......이미 정치화되어 고착되어 버린 너무 세련된 양당체체의 개 소리 말고는 없습니다.
기껏해야 유시민을 복사해 놓은 듯한 쥐쇄끼들과 무슨 이야기를 할 수 잇겟습니까?
결국은 민주당, 노무현으로 귀착됩니다.....
빨갱이, 주사파 타령질이나 처 하는 년놈들과 욕짓이나 처 하는 것은 ....감성적인 후련함이라도 주지만..
그래도 갈보 보다는 화냥년이 더 좋다는 깨진 cd판의 반복되는 상동효과는 머리가 아플지경입니다.
그것도 갱상도 말도 들어 보세요.....증말 이가 갈립니다.
한때 운동권이엇지만 이제는 민주당에서 독사 또아리를 틀고 정착한 똑똑한 것들은 지들이 다 안다고 생각합니다..
그런데 이런것들은 항상 가장 기본적인 것에서 틀립니다.
그래서...기껏 해야...통렬하게 갈보년을 비웃어 줄 수 잇는 능력은 보여줄수 잇겟지만....어차피 자신은 화냥년일 수 밖에 없습니다.
그러니 보통의 여자의 모습도 보여줄 수 없는 것이지요.
정말 갈보들 밖에 없는지...그래서 화냥년이 최선의 선택인지...
다른소린 그것이 틀렷다고 말 하고 싶은 겁니다..
다른 방법이 없습니다..
석학들의 주장을 같이 읽고...같이 생각해 보고...토론해 보는 것 말고...
아래 비됴는 두편입니다.
바둑에서는 ....복잡할 수 록 간단하게 생각 하라는 말이 잇지요.
우리가 다 알고 잇다고 생각하는 것을 우리는 잘 모르고 잇습니다.
석학들은 항상 그런것을 체워줍니다..
Chris Hedges: All intellectuals of our generation, at least if they’re genuine intellectuals, are, in some sense, children of Noam Chomsky. No single contemporary intellectual has broken more ground or elucidated more of our reality as a society, nation, and empire than Noam Chomsky. He is a world renowned linguist, philosopher, cognitive scientist, essayist, social critic, as well as a fearless political activist. He is the author of more than 150 books on topics that include linguistics, the press, the inner workings of empire, the Israel-Palestine conflict, and the war industry.
He is a laureate professor of linguistics at the University of Arizona and an institute professor emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His books include Hegemony or Survival; For Reasons of State; American Power and the New Mandarins; Understanding Power; The Chomsky-Foucault Debate: On Human Nature; On Language; Objectivity and Liberal Scholarship; The Fateful Triangle; and many others. His latest book is Notes on Resistance: Interviews by David Barsamian. Joining me is Professor Noam Chomsky.
David Barsamian 의 촘스키 인터뷰
So Noam, I want to begin with a quote David mentions in the book, from Edward Said’s preface in the 25th anniversary edition of Said’s book Orientalism, about the role of intellectuals in perpetuating the crimes and avarice of empire.
These are Said’s words: “Every single empire in its official discourse has said that it is not like all the others, that its circumstances are special, that it has a mission to enlighten, civilize, and bring order and democracy, and that it uses force only as a last resort. And, sadder still, there always is a chorus of willing intellectuals to say calming words about benign or altruistic empires, as if one shouldn’t trust the evidence of one’s own eyes watching the destruction and the misery and death brought by the latest civilzatrice.”
-모든 제국은 공식적인 담론에서는 자신들은 다른 제국과 같지 않으며, 상황이 특별하고, 계몽시키고, 문명화하고, 질서와 민주주의를 가져 오는 사명을 가지고 있으며, 최후의 수단으로만 힘을 사용한다고 말해왓다. 그리고 더 슬픈 것은, 가장 최근의 문명화의 임무(특히 15세기에서 20세기 사이에 토착민의 현대화와 서구화를 촉진하기 위한 군사 개입 및 식민지화가 필요하다는 정치적인 논리) 초래한 파괴와 비참함과 죽음을 지켜보고 있는 자기 자신의 눈을 믿어서는 안 된다는 것처럼, 자비롭거나 이타적인 제국에 대한 마음을 달레주는 말을 하려는 의지적인 지식인들의 합창이 항상 있엇다는 것이다."
.........................에드워드 사이드 오리엔탈리즘 에서
이 사람은 스스로를 지식인 이라고 햇습니다........그리고 꼬릿표를 붙혓지요.....
-문재인 정권을 위한 어용 지식인이 되겟다(..willing intellectuals)
이런 자가 스스로를 지식인 이라 칭 하는 철딱써니 없는 깡다구를 부릴 수 잇을 만큼 한국의 지적 환경이 열악하다는 것이지요.
서울대 나왓고, 거리 투쟁 쬐마 햇고 구속 되어 조사 받고 야당 생활하면서 옳바른 소리 쬐마 똑똑하게 처 하면 ...자동뽕으로 지식인이 되는 것이라 생각 햇나 보지요?
이런 자가 지식인이라면 개가 웃을일입니다.
지적환경의 열악함은 ...패를 갈랏을때...더욱 분명해 집니다.
패는 모든것을 단순화 시킵니다....................
이쪽 아님 저쪽...우리편 아님 저쪽편.....존놈 아님 나쁜놈....흑 아님 백...민주화 아님 수구 꼴통....우리 교주 아님 저쪽 교주..
경상도 아님 전라도...민주당 아님 국힘당...
그런 환경에서는 이런 책으로도 얼마든지 돈을 벌어 치부 할 수 잇고...똘들을 모을수 잇고..푸닥거리가 가능해 집니다
스스로 지식인이라 자칭 할 수 잇는 미친개 깡다구가 만들어질 수 잇는 최선의 환경이 만들어지는 것이지요..
그런데 노무현이 조선일보와 싸웟습니까???
개가 웃겟습니다..
노무현이 삼성과 싸웟습니까??
누가 대통령 같습니까??
Can you talk about this battle between these intellectual posers and genuine intellectuals, a battle that I think has defined much of your own life?
Noam Chomsky: Well, Edward’s comment is quite accurate, as far as I’m aware. I can’t think of an exception to it. And it’s one of the reasons why the talk about American exceptionalism is a ridiculous joke. Every other empire has been… Made exactly the same absurd claims that we have, and that includes the most distinguished intellectuals. That’s the part that’s quite striking, I think. So it takes their predecessor in imperial domination, Britain.
Just now, after a couple of hundred years, there’s the bare beginning of reflection, scholarship on the horrendous atrocities that the British Empire carried out for centuries. And actually, there were a few who did recognize it, like Adam Smith near the beginning, who condemned the savage injustice of the British in India at a time when everyone was either not paying attention or lauding it.(아담 스미스에 대한 이해도 지금은 약간은 달라진듯 합니다...스미스= 자본주의= 시장 왓다 주의....라는 도식으로는 설명할 수 없는 스미스의 다른 주장의 존재를 사람들이 이해하기 시작햇고....스미스의 국부론의 주장이 지금 우리가 단편적으로만 알고 잇는 경제학의 시장과도 매우 다르다는 것을 더 많은 사람들이 알게 되기 시작한 것이지요....오히려 자본주의에 대한 비판으로 스미스의 국부론이 인용되는 경우도 많습니다) But overwhelming… But that’s a rare exception. And as I say, it’s even some of the most distinguished figures.
So it’s hard to find a modern intellectual who’s more worthy of acclaim and respect than John Stuart Mill. Very few can shine his shoes. Take a look at his writings on the British Empire. So in 1859, an important year, he wrote an article on intervention. Even taught in law schools today. But, as usual, with his writing, careful, judicious, basically he says intervention is wrong, but he says there are some exceptions.
The exception, surprisingly, is England. England is such an angelic power that it just must intervene even though others can’t understand our nobility. He publicly [inaudible] cannot comprehend that our interventions are just for the benefit of the world. But we intervene in India, which is what he was recommending, further expansion of the British Empire in India. It’s just for the benefit of the barbarians. And even if others can’t understand it and accuse us of all sorts of things, we have to continue.
https://cafe.daum.net/othersound/slB2/66
이 내용 그래로 입니다.
혹자는 칼 막스의 아세아적 생산양식이나...영국의 인도 지배에 대한 견해도 같은 방식으로 해석합니다.
칼 막스 또한 제국주의자이며 오리엔탈리즘에서 벋어나지 못 햇다는 주장입니다..
판단은 여러분이 하시기 바랍니다........다른소린 모르겟습니다.
Well, what was particularly interesting about this was not only the content from a highly distinguished figure, but the timing was right after some of the worst atrocities that Britain carried out in India, the crushing of what they call the Indian mutiny. Barbaric, vicious attacks. And Mill, of course, knew all about them. They were discussed in Parliament. He himself was an officer of the East India Company(동인도 회사), knew exactly what was going on.
이런것 알고 나서 밀의 자유론을 아무렇지도 않게 읽을 수 잇다면....참 대단한 깡다구 라고 할 수 밖에 없습니다.
작가와 책은 구분해야 한다고 합니다....
작가에 촞점을 맞췃을때 그런것 때문에 지나처 버리기 아까운 너무 좋은 것들이 책에 녹아 잇기 때문입니다.
그런데 이완용의 국부론....같은 것이 잃혀 질까요??
다른소린 이문열의 책을 읽지 않습니다......모르면 읽겟지요....알고는 안 읽혀집니다.
유시민의 책이 읽혀집니까??..................다른소리에겐 안 됩니다.
도산 안창호와 춘원 이광수..
안창호는 실력 양성론, 춘원은 민족 개조론을 주장햇습니다.........두 주장은 토씨만 몇개 틀린 뿐 같습니다.....
그런데 안창호의 실력양성론은 위대한 독립운동 지침서가 되엇지만..
이광수의 민족개조론은 친일 반역서적이 되엇습니다...
음식을 먹느냐 마느냐 보다는 ....어떻게 소화해 내는가...가 더 중요하다.???
알렉산더는 독약을 약 처럼 먹고 일어 낫다고 합니다....(물론 썰이겟지요만)
여러분이 여러분 스스로 판단해 보세요..
더 많은 것을 얻을 수 잇겟다 싶으면 .....작가와 작품을 구분 하면 될 것 같습니다.
And furthermore, he knew that the purpose of the intervention was to expand Britain’s narco trafficking empire. Britain, at that time, was running the biggest narco trafficking empire in history. They needed the opium from India to carry it forward. The purpose was to break into China by violence and deceit and compel the Chinese to accept British manufacturers, which they didn’t want, and British domination and control. Mill knew all of this in one part of his mind, but was writing what I just said in another part of his mind.
And unfortunately that’s not untypical. In fact, you mentioned genuine intellectuals. They’re a very rare species. And you take a look at the term “intellectual” came into regular usage in its modern sense at the time of the Dreyfus(드레프시) trial in France. There were some writers, artists. Émile Zola was the leading one who did strongly defend Dreyfus against outrageous [inaudible] charges that led him to be sent off to a prison island. But they were bitterly attacked by the mainstream of intellectuals.
The immortals of the Académie Française attacked these writers and artists who dare to criticize our marvelous institutions, the army, the state and so on. Actually, Émile Zola himself had to flee for his life. Flee France. And that’s the norm. There are what you’re calling genuine intellectuals around the fringe, but they’re not treated nicely. How badly they’re treated depends on the nature of the society. We can trace this back to Classical Greece when the guy who had to drink the hemlock and commit suicide was the one who was disturbing, corrupting the youth of Athens by asking too many questions.(소크라테스 문답) Well, that’s the pattern through history. There’s a fringe not treated nicely.
Chris Hedges: So it’s my perception, and you were there, that there was more space for independent intellectual thought in academia and the press, public intellectuals, C. Wright Mills, and that this space has closed over time. I mean, your own work is often not included in university syllabi because it’s considered too controversial. Would you agree that that space has narrowed? And if you do agree, why do you think it’s happened and what are the consequences?
Noam Chomsky: I’m not sure that it’s happened, actually. We tend to forget what things were like in the past. First of all, there was the whole McCarthyite period, which had cast a pall over all the academic fields. But if you look back, say to the 1960s, you could hardly find a Marxist economist, let’s say. And finding outstanding economists like Paul Sweezy couldn’t get a position.
폴 스위지의 꺽힘 수요 곡선과 과정시장
(요즘 경제학 책에서는 볼 수 없습니다....다른소리가 공부 할 때 만도 대표적인 과점시장 이론 이엇습니다)
Now you can find a scattering of lefty economists. The same in other areas, I think. The effect of the activism of the 1960s and its aftermath has had some effect in the opening of the media and the professions. There’s more critical scholarship in many areas than there was at the time, which is not a high bar to pass, I should say. But you can get a kind of a sense of this by looking at a journal like The New York Review of Books, probably the main journal of moderately liberal, moderately left intellectuals.
So starting in about 1967, ending in about 1972, a couple of years there, the journal was open to critical intellectuals. [inaudible] Sherman, Paul Lauder, [inaudible], Peter Padilla Scott, number of others. Then it closed off. Early ’70s, mid ’70s, closed off. More recent years, it began to open up in some areas. So for example, you just couldn’t touch anything having to do with Israel. Literally nothing, couldn’t say a word until about mid ’90s or so. Now, you can have some critical commentary, mainly by people living in Israel. That makes it easier.
And if you look at what this is reflecting, that’s reflecting the general mood among young intellectuals. The Review tried to keep a little bit to the critical side of the general mood. Late ’60s, early ’70s was a period of considerable activism and engagement, so it was reflected in The Review. Died off in the mid ’70s, they shifted with it. So it continues. But I think all in all over the years, I would say that there’s maybe somewhat more opening now than there was back in the ’50s when McCarthyism was very tight, and into the ’60s when you just barely began to get some openings.
I think you can easily understand the reasons. If you take a look at… The academia is mostly moderately liberal, but moderately liberal means almost completely subordinate to an official doctrine and ideology. Can’t go a millimeter beyond it. And so if there’s occasional exceptions, that’s a reflection of the pressures of activism and engagement, mostly students.
--))결국 학문적인 비판과 자유도 현실의 지원이 없으면 불 가능 하다는 것입니다..
메카시즘에서 숨구멍을 뚫게 한 것도 활동가들과 거리의 사람들이고
이스라엘에 대한 비판의 소리가 가능하게 한 것도 그들 거리의 사람들입니다.
한국의 진보의 증발은 거리와 현실에서 진보가 사라져 버린 탓입니다.....
죄다 노무현교 배로 갈아 올라타...가라앉아 버린 것이지요.
노무현 교도-문재인 교도-이재명 교도......의 무한 루핑의 저수에 빠저버린 것입니다..
그 누구고 정치 담론에서 예외일수 없고...그들의 때거리 수와 문자 폭탄의 힘은 너무 막강합니다.
이런 환경에서 움츠러들지 않는다는 것이 오히려 이상하지요.
미국의 진보 지성의 세계가 증발해 버린 꼭 같은 방식으로 한국의 진보 지성도 말라 버렷습니다.
유시민, 조국, 김어준 따위가 지성을 자칭하는 세상이니......뭘 바랄 수 잇겟습니까??
지옥이지요.....
Chris Hedges: I want to talk about the role of liberals. You’ve pointed out that they are tolerated by the ruling capitalist elite as long as they do not question the virtue of the rulers or the structural and social systems that sustain the elites. And of course they become the attack dogs on those who do, people such as yourself. Do liberals do more damage than good? And can you explain how they’re used to discredit critics?
꼭 같은 질문을 한국의 지성에 해 보시기 바랍니다.
한국의 민주주의는 이미 삼성과 강만을 위한 체체로 정착햇습니다....두말할 필요가 없이 노무현이 일등 공신이지요.
그들은 이미 기득권이고 체체입니다....민주주의란 기층 인민들의 해방과 평등을 위한 것이 아닌 기득권 수호의 참 편리한 수단이 되어 버렷습니다..
씁쓸한 것은 .....그들이 불과 10여년 전만 해도 그 민주주의를 처절하게 외첫던 자들이엇다는 것이지요..
Do liberals do more damage than good?
진보가 선보다 악을 더 한것이냐??
다른소리의 닶은 그렇다..........입니다.
진보는 민주주의를 더 왜곡시켯습니다..
다른소리에게 이 민주주의라는 단어만큼 소름끼치게 싫은 단어는 없습니다.
Noam Chomsky: It’s very clear. Take somebody like Howard Zinn, who had an enormous impact on the consciousness of the modern generation. Just opened up doors for them that they’d never seen before. He was hated by the liberal intellectuals. Bitter attacks on him. [inaudible] is a very good, interesting book by David Detmer called Zinnophobia, who runs through, in detail, the bitter attacks on Zinn by liberal historians, mostly, and takes them apart and shows that they’re almost total lies and distortion.
But what’s interesting is about the savagery. They regarded him as a real danger and went after him. Your phrase is accurate, like attack dogs. Didn’t affect his audience of young people, which remained, but it was a severe attack. Others, some of the most outstanding scholars… Scholarship [inaudible] recognized their contributions are still not part of the curriculum. People like Gabriel [Kolko], for example, one of the most outstanding scholars of the Cold War period.
But you’d find it pretty hard to find his books. A lot of people cribbed from his books because he does amazing scholarship, but you’re unlikely to find it on a reading list. And that’s pretty common. The liberal intellectuals are basically saying, we’re the limit of criticism. You don’t go a millimeter beyond this. If you do, that’s dangerous. The one thing, it affects our standing as the courageous critics.
We don’t want to be exposed as what’s sometimes called stenographers of power. People who basically accept the reigning ideologies and repeat them. We want to be perceived as courageous defenders of the right and just against power systems. But you know better than I do because of your long experience, but I have the same impression about the media, too. Give you an example, and you may recall that after the Tet Offensive, Freedom House launched a huge attack against the media. [inaudible]. Peter Bracero condemning the media for being so anti-American that they lost the Vietnam War.
They were lying about it, crimes committed by the United States and so on. Well, I actually went through the two volumes. Probably the only person who read them. One volume was documentation, the other was commentary. The commentary was almost total fabrication, had almost nothing to do with the documentation. There’s a long section of my book with Ed Herman on manufacturing consent. The last part goes through this in detail.
What was interesting to me was the reaction of journalists. They didn’t like it. They didn’t like to be defended as honest, courageous journalists who did their job, but within the framework of the doctrinal system. So if there’s an atrocity and you slaughter a lot of civilians, it’s a mistake. It’s not. It’s a normal policy. They didn’t like to be told, you’re doing courageous and honorable work contrary to the lies that are being said about you, but you’re caught within a doctrinal framework.
My impression was they very much disliked it. Got a lot of… Very little comments on them. Well, I think that you can tell much better than I whether that’s an accurate perception, but I think it’s pretty much true of liberal academic work. And you can see it not just in the United States. Take, say, England. Take a look at the attack on Jeremy Corbyn. It’s very striking. I mean, Jeremy Corbyn was trying to create a Labour Party that would actually be a constituent party, with participation of its constituents, and a party that would answer to their needs.
The whole establishment came down on him like a ton of bricks led by its left liberal component like The Guardian. They hated this. Concocted all kind of fanciful tales about antisemitism. This was just recently exposed, not in England, by Al Jazeera in a detailed study of documents that came out of the Labour Party.
Barely discussed in England, a couple of words, and [inaudible] want to hear it. But he was virtually kicked out of the Labour Party on totally fraudulent charges, but mainly because of this effort to undermine establishment liberalism by creating a genuine popular left party with participation. They don’t want that. Well, that’s kind of similar to what we see here.
Chris Hedges: You’re referring to the Al Jazeera report, The Labour Files, which is really brilliant and, of course, I think shames the British media, because that should have been their job. I want to ask whether you… What is the motivation for these liberals, these figures in the media, in academia? Do you think it’s just craven careerism?
알 자지라의 그 비됴입니다.
https://www.yna.co.kr/view/AKR20201029194400085
조금이라도 의식잇는 사람들이라면 코빈의 실패를 ...코빈의 개성의 실패, 코빈의 정책의 실패, 코빈의 노동당의 실패 로 보는 사람은 거의 없습니다.
영국 민주주의의 실패입니다.
영국의 전통적인 보수주의(리버럴) 민주주의 시스템적인 실패로 봅니다..
그리고 그 리버럴의 무엇이 문제인가의 그 단면을 촘스키는 이야기 하고 잇습니다.
김대중을 경험해 본 세대들에게.....코빈에 대한 기존 시스탬의 마녀몰이는 어렵지 않게 이해 될 수 잇습니다.
노무현에 대한 마녀 몰이는 전혀 다릅니다...
노무현에 대한 진보, 서민이라는 수식은.....한 마디로 노무현교 교도들이 만들어낸 코메디지요.
노무현은 삼성과 강남만을 위해 철쩌하게 변절한 정치인이고...
그들은 그런 변절을 진보 서민 이라는 프래임을 씨워 더 한층 격렬하게 신 자유주의와 친 시장 정책을 추진하게큼 기술적이고 세련된 마녀 몰이를 통해 노무현을 자신들의 노예로 철쩌하게 부려먹엇지요..
그리고 임기가 끝나자 효용이 다 끝낫쓰니... 먹다 버린 음식처럼고 곧 바로 서민질 쇼판에 던주주엇지요..
가장 많은 빈부격차를 벌렷고
가장 많은 부동산 투기질을 하게 하엿고
가장 많은 비 정규직을 만들어 낸.......................3관 참피온의 위업을 달성한 가장 위대한 서민 대통령
돌것써,,,
Noam Chomsky: It’s that, but I think it’s a lot easier to accept and conform than to attack power, for obvious reasons.(권력과 싸우는것 보다는 수용하고 따르는 것이 훨씬 더 쉽다) So it’s just easy to fall into it. If you’re in… Starts when you’re a student. You get signals saying, don’t do this. I mean, you get it in the media, I’m sure you’ve seen it. A young reporter gets a little too critical. His editor says, why don’t you take a job as a police reporter for a while and calm down? Too critical. They don’t run your stuff. You conform, you can move ahead.
And it’s the same with a young academic. If you just hang on and don’t give up, you’re often kicked out. People like Norman Finkelstein, for example, just wouldn’t conform. Great scholar, wonderful teacher, can’t get a job. As a job, as an adjunct. Those are the kinds of pressures there are, and it’s just a lot easier to conform to them.
I mean, the people who are giving you this fatherly advice are nice people. You don’t want to offend them, so I’ll just go along with them. And then you internalize it. Becomes part of your own beliefs. That’s, I think… Looks like the mechanism that I see, and as I say, you’ve got a lot more experience in the media, but I suspect it’s kind of the same.
Norman Finkelstein
Chris Hedges: Well, you were unofficially blacklisted in The New York Times. I remember the executive editor Bill Keller, at one point, in a conversation with him, using your name as a kind of derogatory slur against people in the newsroom who might admire your work. I doubt he’s ever read a word you wrote. I want to talk about, and you’ve been very good –
Noam Chomsky: [inaudible] that… I’m maybe the only person with the honor of being informed by NPR, the liberal radio station, that I’m the one person they’ll never allow to be interviewed.
Chris Hedges: Right. I want to talk about – And you’ve been very good. I lived, of course, as you know, overseas for 20 years, and I’m acutely aware that the way most of the world perceives us is not how we perceive ourselves.(한국 예외) And, of course, the danger is that so much of foreign policy and our relationship to the rest of the world is founded on these false perceptions. I wondered if you could talk about how this works and why it’s dangerous.
Noam Chomsky: That’s interesting. It’s quite true. We see it right now. For example… Just give you a couple of examples right this minute. Take a look at the current issue of Foreign Affairs main establishment journal. Pretty liberal, pretty open by media standards. Has a major article by two leading figures: Fiona Hill, Angela Stent on the Ukraine War, of course bitterly condemning Putin as the worst person since Hitler and so on.
Fiona Hill
Angela Stent
세칭 한국의 외교 전문가, 국제관계 전문가 라는 년놈들은 다....이런 것들의 글을 읽고...도사라도 된 듯한 개 소리를 씨불리고 잇다고 보면 됩니다.
그들에게 이들은 교주이며, 성서제작자들입니다..
이들이 ...푸틴이 미친개라고 하면 미친개인 것이고....손을 덜덜 터는 정신 분열자라고 하면 정신 분열자인 것이지요.
그런데 이들은 지들이 미친개이고 손을 덜덜떠는 정신질환자인 것은 죽어라고 모릅니다.
But it also has a big attack on the Global South. Says that they don’t understand how noble we are, they refuse to go along with us, what’s wrong with them? And then comes an interesting line. Says they even sink so low that they dare to compare the Russian invasion of Ukraine with US intervention in Iraq and Vietnam.--러시아가 우크라인을 침공한 것과,,,미국이 이락이나 베트남전에 끼어든 것은 전혀 다르다고 생각하는 사람은 ...미국 자신과 영국과 이스라엘과 한국 정도 말고는 지구상의 그 누구도 다르다고 생각하는 사람은 없습니다..
노무현교 똥파리때들의 구역질 나는 내로남불은 ....완벽하게 미국놈들의 정신질환과 일치 합니다..
-우리 교주가 처 먹은 돈은 생계형 범죄.....니들의 교주의 형사범죄완 전혀 다르다...
-취지지지ㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣ
I mean, anybody in the Global South would fall off their chairs when they hear that. Yeah, it’s true they don’t think it doesn’t compare because it’s absolutely nothing like that. Vietnam? I mean, this is the worst atrocity since the Second World War. They were violent murders, an intervention was no justification whatsoever. [inaudible] consequence all over [inaudible]. But how come they can’t see that these were just maybe mistakes?
But when Russia does it, it’s the most horrible crime since the Holocaust. Well, that’s why… Let me give you another example. There’s a lot of euphoria and commentary claiming that India has finally broken with Russia and that Prime Minister Modi condemned Putin at a meeting where they had in the summer, and the criticism… It’s based on half a dozen words. They did have a conversation in which Modi began by saying, war is not the way we should look for peace.
-))꼭 같은 개소리는 고대로 한국 언론에 공명되엇습니다....인디아가 푸틴을 욕햇다...끼야호오ㅗㅗㅗㅗㅗㅗㅗ
That’s the part that’s quoted. I took the trouble of looking up his talk on the Indian government website. It’s a love letter to Putin, saying, war is not the way we should work together for peace. Our relations are very warm, as they’ve always been. We honor and respect you, we want to work with you forever, and so on. All of that got cut out. This has been noticed by distinguished Indian commentators, but it’s the way news gets filtered through, so we can’t even see what other people think of us.Now, this happens all the time. (노무현교 꼴통들의 ...우리 교주님만 위대한 서민 교주님이시다...는 사마니즘이 만들어지는 과정과 같습니다..그들은 다른 말을 듣지 못 합니다.....교주님에 조금이라도 불 명예스러운 것은 다 듣지 말아야 할 사탄의 목소리가 되는 것이지요...그래서 걸러지고,,,교주보다 더 악질적인것과 비교 하여 무시됩니다.....화냥년이 갈보만 물고 늘어지는 원리입니다..............이런것의 반복이 지금의 노무현 사마니즘이라는 기이한 정신질환이 만들어져 정착하게 된 과정입니다)There was a Gallup Poll a couple years ago, International Gallup Poll, which asked the question, “Which country is the greatest threat to world peace?” Nobody else was even close. The United States was way on top. Way below, four below, was Pakistan, probably inflated by the Indian vote. It ran China, the rest of them not even, barely even mentioned. Well, it wasn’t reported in the United States. You don’t report things like that.
So yeah, you don’t know what other people think of us. Why is this important? Well, we go our own way. We are exceptional. We are right. If somebody in the rest of the world doesn’t like it, there’s something wrong with them. But mostly we don’t even hear about it. It’s just, of course everybody supports us, because we’re so obviously right. That’s how you go on from atrocity to atrocity.
Chris Hedges: That was part one of my interview with Professor Noam Chomsky. His new book, his Notes on Resistance: Interviews by David Barsamian. I want to thank The Real News Network and its production team: Cameron Granadino, Adam Coley, Dwayne Gladden, and Kayla Rivera. You can find me at chrishedges.substack.com.
Chris Hedges: Welcome to part two of my interview with Professor Noam Chomsky. All intellectuals of our generation, at least if they are genuine intellectuals, are, in some sense, children of Noam Chomsky. No single contemporary intellectual has broken more ground or elucidated more of our reality as a society, nation, and empire than Noam Chomsky. He is a world-renowned linguist, philosopher, cognitive scientist, essayist, social critic, as well as a fearless political activist. He is the author of more than 150 books on topics that include linguistics, the press, the inner workings of empire, the Israel-Palestine conflict, and the war industry. He is a laureate professor of linguistics at the University of Arizona and an institute professor emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
His books include Hegemony or Survival; For Reasons of State; American Power and the New Mandarins; Understanding Power; The Chomsky-Foucault Debate: On Human Nature; On Language, Objectivity, and Liberal Scholarship; The Fateful Triangle; and many others. His latest book is Notes on Resistance: Interviews by David Barsamian. Joining me for part two of our interview is professor Noam Chomsky.
I wondered if you could speak about the origins of authoritarianism and neo-fascism in the United States, as well as much of the rest of the world, from Viktor Orban in Hungary to Narendra Modi – You mentioned him last week – In India. What are the forces that created these political monstrosities? And I wonder how similar this moment in history is to the 1930s?
Noam Chomsky: Well, that touches a personal… Has personal meaning to me. I’m old enough to remember the ’30s, and there’s a certain irony. In the 1930s, as a child, I could sense the enormous fear that fascism was spreading inexorably over the world. The Nazis first started [inaudible]. [inaudible] school newspaper in Oregon. It was about the fall of Barcelona, the [inaudible] in Spain. Austria had gone. Czechoslovakia had gone. Now Spain is gone; is it ever going to end? There was, at that time, a sign of hope – The United States. The United States was breaking from the fascist pattern, but there were fascist elements here with the New Deal, new labor action, all beginnings of social democracy.(뉴딜 정책과 새 노동운동, 사회적 민주주의 모든 시작에는 파시스트적인 요소가 잇엇다....)It was counter to the collapse of continental Europe to fascism.
Unfortunately, it’s not being replicated. In some ways, even the opposite. Take a look at Orban’s Hungary that you mentioned. That’s a striking case. Orban has created what he called an “illiberal democracy”. It means no democracy. State power takes over, destroys the media, destroys the academic world, no political parties, no independent institutions. Created a reactionary, Christian nationalist, racist state. That’s Viktor Orban. That’s the ideal of the Republican Party. We see it. About a month ago, there was a conference in Budapest of the far right organizations in Europe, many with neo-fascist origins. In Budapest, naturally, because that’s the ideal. The star participant was the Conservative Political Action Conference. It’s basically the core of the Republican Party.
They actively participated. Trump gave a speech lauding Orban’s vision of the future. And Tucker Carlson went wild about it. He worships him in a documentary about it. A couple weeks later, there was a conference in Dallas, Texas, run by the same group, Conservative Political Action Conference, core of the Republican Party. Who was the keynote speaker? Viktor Orban. That’s the ideal to which we want to strive. Racist, [inaudible] fascist, Christian nationalist, illiberal society which crushes independent thought, independent media, to the extent that they are, and other institutions.
Tucker Carlson
Well, in a couple of weeks, there’s going to be a vote about that in the United States. The Supreme Court has already been basically handed over to these forces. [inaudible] makes speeches at the Vatican in which he almost says [inaudible]. Most reactionary Court in memory taking up this coming term, some really scary cases they’ve had no reason to take up other than as an effort to try to undermine democracy and lay the basis for takeover of the country by a far right minority party. the Republican Party. I hate to call it a party anymore. They can be a permanent governing party as a minority party. [inaudible] mechanisms, including cases the court has decided to take up like Moore v Harper, which could lay the basis for legislators and states of simply overturning the popular vote. Could go to that point.
These are all developments taking place right here, perfectly open. Not only taking place in Europe. The Modi case, I think, has slightly different origins. That’s creating a racist Hindu ethnocracy in a country with a very large Muslim population and tearing to shreds Indian secular democracy. It fits into the pattern with somewhat different sources.
In the West, I think a large part of what’s happening, a very large part, is the bitter, savage, class war that’s been conducted for the last 40 years. It’s called neoliberalism. It even has rhetoric about markets and so on. But that’s widely misleading. It’s basically savage class war. And it was understood by the leaders. It starts with Reagan and Thatcher. Their first moves in office were to attack, undermine the labor movement, opening the door for the corporate sector to enter with illegal strike-breaking efforts, organization efforts tolerated by the criminal state. That made sense. If you’re going to carry out a bitter, savage class war, better eliminate all the means of defense.
And it’s gone on for the United States. We have measures of it. I’m sure you know that the Rand Corporation about a year ago came out with an estimate that about $50 trillion – That’s not pennies – $50 trillion had been transferred to the pockets of the top 1%, or to a fraction of them, mostly in the last 40 years of class war. Meanwhile, real wages have stagnated, and for [inaudible] workers, benefits have collapsed.
In fact, it’s quite striking. You look back at the 1970s. The United States was not all that different from other industrial powers in such things as cost of healthcare or availability of healthcare, mortality, incarceration, measure after measure. Then it started splitting bad enough in the other industrial societies. England is much like the United States, to some extent, in Europe.
Well, what all these things have done is create waves of anger, resentment for institutions, hopelessness, and it’s just fertile terrain for demagogues. Trump’s a perfect example where [inaudible] comes, stands with a sign in one hand saying, “I love you,” while the other hand is stabbing you in the back.
(한국에서는 노무현이 이 트럼프의 역할을 햇지요,,,,,
한 손으로는 난 서민, 기층 민중들을 사랑한다고 씨불리면서.....다른 한손으로를 삼성과 강남의 세상, 시장 올빵과 한미 fta을 타결하고 철쩌하게 노동자들만 조잣습니다...비 정규직 보호법(양성법)은 2년 단위로 영원히 비 정규직만 쓸 수 잇는 허용한 자본가들만을 위한 탁월한 법안이엇습니다..
다른소리가 철들고 정치를 알기 시작 하면서 지금까지 경험햇던 가장 죶 같은 정치인이 노무현입니다..
증말 소름이 끼치게 싫습니다..)
His entire legislative program’s a bitter attack on working people and the poor. Similar things have been happening in Europe. Individual cases, you can see differences, but it’s pretty common all over. I mean, it’s not the first time in American history.
You look back at the 1920s, it wasn’t all that different from today. The labor had been crushed by Woodrow Wilson’s repressive actions. Red Scare, the worst repression in American history. They used the Espionage Act to undermine political parties, the Socialist Party, independent thought, independent media, labor. Huge inequality. That was then. We’re living in a similar period.----월슨의 이 시대를 진보의 시대(Progressive Era)라고 합니다....금박의 시대(Gilded Age), 의 현기증 나는 빈부격차와 자본가의 독점적인 지배력에 제동을 걸엇다는 것입니다....그런데 그 내용을 들여다 보면...과연 이 시대를 진보의 시대라고 할 수 잇겟느냐.....는 것인데......촘스키는 아나키트트 답게 냉소적입니다.
노무현 정권5 동안
가장 많은 빈부격차가 벌어졋고
가장 많은 부동산 투기질이 일어낫고
가장 많은 비 정규직이 만들어졋습니다....................................이 사람을 진보 라고 말 할 수 잇겟냐는 것이지요.
개가 웃을 일이지요.....진보의 개가..
토마스 피케티는 저서 31세기 자본 에서......미국의 현 상황이...금박의 시대(Gilded Age) 보다 더 악질적이다는 점을 이야기 햇고
이렇게 된 이유는 정책 때문이라고 햇습니다..
그리고 정책이 현재의 외곡을 낳앗다면...정책으로 현재의 왜곡을 풀수 잇다고 하엿습니다 ..
그런데..
현대의 민주주의가 ...과연 그런 정책을 만들어 낼 수 잇는 체제라고 생각합니까??
. Then I said, well, there are many different causes for different [inaudible]. But I think there’s one fundamental strain that underlies all of them. When you destroy the social order, destroy the possibilities for people to organize and protect themselves, atomize the society, people living with precarious jobs. Go through Trump territory, rural towns in the United States. The industries are gone thanks to Bill Clinton’s new liberal globalization programs, which were explicitly designed to undermine American labor and to support investor rights and corporate rights, and did that, in fact.
Labor was opposed to those, but they were dismissed. Press wouldn’t even talk about the proposals. Well, how has this supported young people living? Mortality is even increasing, which is unheard of, in the white working class. Nothing like that’s happened. [inaudible] they’re called by economists deaths of despair. This has been going on for the last couple of years. In this kind of environment, you can get support for greater fascist elements of the Trump variety, Orban, Meloni in Italy [inaudible] in England. [inaudible] crop up, this is fertile territory for them. And I think the right answer, if it can be achieved, is what was done in the ’30s. Labor movement revived and political organizations revived. Labor action took place. Sympathetic administration. You’ve got the origins of social democracy. A lot of things to criticize there, but it’d be a step forward for basic human rights and bills here.
Chris Hedges: I want to ask about the Democratic Party, because this slow-motion corporate coup d’etat, to steal a line from John Ralston Saul, produced these figures like Clinton, who you mentioned, Tony Blair.(한국은 노무현을 만들어 냇습니다.....삼성과 강남과 시장과 fta에 환장하다 처 먹은 뇌물이 뽀록나자 되진...천하의 쥐쇄끼) The labor had some voice in the Labour Party in the UK and in the Democratic Party. And as you correctly pointed out, Clinton betrayed labor.(한국의 노무현의 노동자에 대한 배신은 클린턴 따위의 nafta 와는 차마 비교가 안 됩니다)
노무현교 쥐쇄끼때들의 김문수에 대한 욕설은 증말 ....구역질이 난다고 햇지요??
행여 혹여 또 오해는 마시라........김문수가 좋다는 소리가 아니다.....갈보나 화냥년이나 다 싫다는 소리다........응??.
We now see the Biden administration that is not able to fulfill its most tepid campaign promises including $15 minimum wage, his Build Back Better plan. To what extent is the ineffectiveness and even alliance with the Democratic Party with corporate America to blame for the rise of this neo-fascism?
Noam Chomsky: Considerably. It starts in the late Carter years. The Democratic Party in the 1970s basically abandoned whatever commitment it had to the working class and the poor, became a party of affluent professionals,(지금의 한국의 민주당에서도 이런 역겨운 냄세가 나지요......고학력 프로페소날 일 수록 민주당을 지지 한다며.....항상 씨불거리지요....참 자랑스럽겟써요......이가 갈리게.) the kind of people who show up at Obama’s fancy parties to listen to Beyonce.(비욘세) The last gasp of solicited concern for the interest of working people was the Humphrey-Hawkins Full Employment bill of 1978. Carter didn’t veto it, but he watered it down so that it was toothless and voluntary. Since then, it’s hard to find anything. So yes, that means that there’s no defense for working people in the political system.(한국상황도 같습니다...노조는 단지 민주당의 별동대로 작동하는 것 뿐이지요...그 나마 없는 것 보단 나으니..)
To Biden’s credit, he did better than I expected, I should say. On the domestic front, not international. So take the Build Back Better program, which I think probably came out of Bernie Sanders’s office in the Senate Budget Committee and was based on lots of activism on the ground mostly by young people, just as the climate program was. That wasn’t a bad program. It was cut away step by step by 100% Republican opposition. Republicans aren’t a political party. They’re some other kind of organization.(한국의 국힘당, 민주당이라고 뭔 차이가 잇을까요.....다른소린 한국의 민주당은 종교집단 같아 보입니다......처 먹은 뇌물이 뽀록나자 좆 같다면 되진 경상도 교주님만을 위한 광기집단..) Got to block everything that might help the public, that might come down to the benefit of the other party. So block everything, and a couple of right-wing Democrats have gone along.
And you can argue that Biden could have fought much harder for it. He’s not a fighter. He’s not [inaudible]. Well, nevertheless, by the standards of the past, he did take some steps back towards a time when the Democrats had at least some kind of concern for working people and the poor. Couldn’t get very far with it. The shift to the right over the past couple of generations is pretty startling. Then you go back and you look at somebody like Dwight Eisenhower. I remember when Eisenhower was elected in ’52. I thought the world was coming to an end. How can we have such a reactionary president?
And I look back now, it looks like the liberal positions are not all that different from Bernie Sanders in many areas. Strong supporter of the New Deal. Speeches saying that anybody who doesn’t think the workers should have the right to organize doesn’t belong in our political system. That’s conservatism back in the 1950s. Bernie Sanders, who I think is doing a great job, is considered very radical with positions that, by our past standards or by European standards, are like moderate social democracy.
Well, the country’s really shifted in the last 50 or 60 years, mainly with the neoliberal assault, which we should regard as what it is – Savage class war. And one of the major victims is all organized human society. It’s led by climate deniers. It’s 100% of the Republican Party. Trump, of course. They’re going to kill us all. Maximize the use of fossil fuels. Eliminate measures to mitigate the disaster.
We have a narrow window in which we can overcome what will be the final crisis for human beings on Earth. Narrow window is being closed. And these forces, they already have the Supreme Court. They’re likely to take Congress. They’ll lay the basis for undercutting Democratic elections by all sorts of means that we’re familiar with. They may become a permanent minority party leading the way over the precipice joyfully with the strong support of the corporate sector, which is gleeful as [inaudible] bloated with profits as it’s racing to destroy the world. It’s an astonishing picture.
Chris Hedges: I want to ask about foreign policy and Ukraine. We’ve given some $50 billion in weapons and aid to Ukraine. That’s almost the entire budget of the State Department and USAID. You, Seymour Melman, and others have written about the permanent war economy and the economic and social consequences of that. Unchecked militarism is often cited by historians such as Arnold Toynbee as the principle reason for the collapse of empires. Is this where we are? And if we are, what does collapse look like? Given the current rhetoric and the perpetuation of the war in Ukraine, it may look like a nuclear holocaust.
Noam Chomsky: Well, there are very unique characteristics here. You captured US policy accurately. Official US policy, continuously reiterated by defense secretary Lloyd Austin and others, is that we must perpetuate the war in Ukraine in order to severely weaken Russia, meaning no diplomatic settlement. Perpetuate the war. Meanwhile, we are pouring out resources into destruction. Others are as well. We keep on the present course, we’re going to go over the precipice. We’re already reaching irreversible tipping points. The World Meteorological Association just, I think, yesterday, a couple days ago, came out with an analysis saying we’ve got to do double renewable electricity by 2030 or else we’re done for. And we have to end fossil fuel use by what’s called net zero by 2050. And we shouldn’t be misled by that. Net zero can mean, and the corporate sector wants it to mean, keep using fossil fuels and pretend to remove the poisons from the atmosphere. Not that.
When they talk about net zero, they mean stop using them except at the fringes. Don’t rely on them. Well, that’s quite a task. It’s feasible. But instead of working on that, what we’re working on is maximizing the use of fossil fuels. We need them for the war in Ukraine. We need them because the gas prices are too rotten and so on. In fact, sometimes when you look at what the human species is doing, you don’t know whether to laugh or cry.
You can take one of the best newspapers in the world, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz. It’s a very good newspaper. Critical, independent newspaper. It has a lead article today lauding the agreement between Lebanon and Israel over the natural gas fields in the Mediterranean near the border. Just take a look at the scientific analysis. A week ago, Israeli scientist [inaudible] came out with analyses showing that their earlier estimates were far too conservative, that the Eastern Mediterranean was going to rise two and a half meters by the end of the century. 10 feet, roughly. Can you imagine what that means? Here you have Lebanon and Israel squabbling over who will administer the coup de gras when the two countries collapse under water. And if you wanted to write a satire on the human species, you wouldn’t know how to do it because what they’re doing exceeds satire.
And the same thing is happening in South Asia. Same thing is happening with Ukraine. Maximize destruction. Don’t move to negotiate a settlement. I’ll try to stay something about that. [inaudible] announced that [inaudible]. It’s what almost all the world wants, back to that question we discussed the last meeting about not knowing what people want. I mean, almost the entire world is pulling for a negotiated settlement right now. Even three-quarters of Germans through Europe. No. Can’t have it. Got to keep the war going to weaken Russia, pouring out fossil fuels, reversing the limited measures to try to deal with the overwhelming crisis we’re facing.
If you look at the details, you hardly know how to talk about them. Take a look at the corporate sector. I’m sure you saw this, but a couple of weeks… One of the big concerns of scientists is the heating of the Arctic is going much faster than the rest of the world, which exposes the permafrost. Permafrost has a huge, colossal amount of carbon. If it melts, it all goes into the atmosphere. Well, one of the oil companies, ConocoPhillips, their scientists figured out a clever way to slow down the warming of the permafrost, some technique for driving cooling [inaudible].
Why aren’t they doing it? So that they can harden the surface of the permafrost and drill for oil. Are we all insane? I mean, you [inaudible] Biden. Yeah. What’s left of the climate bill – A little bit, not much – Provides credits for carbon removal, removal of carbon from the atmosphere. So ExxonMobil’s going into new fields that have so much carbon in them that they don’t want to use them for oil. And they’re drilling there so they can get carbon out, which they can then remove by some mostly non-existent technology, and get credits or subsidies from the government. It’s like capitalism going insane. Not just savage capitalism. They’re going totally insane. All of this is happening before our eyes.
Chris Hedges: It’s like the end of Easter Island. I want to ask whether you think the corporate state is reformable, or does it have to be overthrown the way the decayed Communist regimes in Eastern Europe and the old Soviet Union were overthrown? I know you support Extinction Rebellion(멸종저항), as do I. That’s certainly the position they’re coming from.
Noam Chomsky: Well, I can understand the reasoning, what I was just discussing, which is just a tiny example, supports the reasoning. But there’s a problem: Time. Look at the time scales. We’re dealing with a huge problem of heating destroying the environment. Compare that with a possible time scale for large-scale change in our socioeconomic system. They’re not in sync. The timing for dealing with the climate catastrophe is much narrower. So like it or not, we’re going to have to deal with this problem within a reformed, controlled, regimented state capitalist system. We can work on trying to go beyond at the same time. We shouldn’t give that up. But I think that’s the real world that we’re living in. That’s not impossible. Remember that before the neo-liberal class war over the last 40 years, there was a period of what’s called regimented capitalism. Not beautiful by any means, but under control.
That’s when you had conservatives like Eisenhower strongly support labor [inaudible] very high growth rate [inaudible]. Pretty egalitarian, a lot of programs [inaudible]. No financial crisis because the treasury department was doing its job. It ended with Reagan [inaudible] and Richardson. And then financial crisis after crisis and bail-outs and so on. But that didn’t happen in the ’50s and ’60s. Now, it was capitalism and other state capitalism, plenty of flaws, serious runs with [inaudible] at least not suicidal like the current system. So I think it’s possible. At the same time, I think we should be working to lay the basis and consciousness and institutions for going well beyond.
Chris Hedges: Great. That was professor Noam Chomsky. His new book is Notes on Resistance: Interviews by David Barsamian. I want to thank The Real News Network and its production team: Cameron Granadino, Adam Coley, Dwayne Gladden, and Kayla Rivera. You can find me at chrishedges.substack.com.