Speaker 1: Pushkin. This is Talk Easy. I'm Sam Fragoso. Welcome to
Speaker 1: the show. Today. I'm joined by linguist, historian and renowned
Speaker 1: professor G. Noam Chomsky. Chomsky is considered the founder of
Speaker 1: modern linguistics and one of the most cited scholars in
Speaker 1: contemporary society. He's author dozens of books on subjects including
Speaker 1: syntactic structure, the mass media propaganda Machine, The Power of activism,
Speaker 1: American foreign policy, and the Perils of neoliberalism. Chomsky is
Speaker 1: currently the Laureate Professor of Linguistics at the University of Arizona.
Speaker 1: He's also, as of this week, ninety three years old.
Speaker 1: You wouldn't know it from this conversation, which covers so
Speaker 1: much ground so quickly. I did all I could just
Speaker 1: to keep up. In doing so, we discuss President Biden's
Speaker 1: response to the omicron variant, our distorted definition of personal freedom,
Speaker 1: what the new infrastructure built actually means for communities of color,
Speaker 1: the Kyle Rittenhouse Verdict, the state of the GOP, how
Speaker 1: critical race theory is being used as a cover term
Speaker 1: for Christian nationalists, and what we can actually learn from
Speaker 1: nineteen thirties America. For those keeping score, this is Chomsky's
Speaker 1: third appearance on Talk Easy. As always, I'm grateful for
Speaker 1: his time, his insight, and above all, his unending curiosity,
Speaker 1: even at age three. I hope you enjoy No I'm Chomsky,
Speaker 1: thank you for being here. Glad to be with you.
Speaker 1: This week. In response to the omicron variant, President Biden
Speaker 1: released a new pandemic strategy that includes hundreds of vaccination sites,
Speaker 1: boosters for all adults, new testing requirements for international travelers,
Speaker 1: and free at home tests. Most controversially, he implemented a
Speaker 1: new travel restriction on eight African nations. I wanted to
Speaker 1: start here with you because in April of this year,
Speaker 1: you went on the As Reclined Show and you said,
Speaker 1: all of the albums we face are international. The pandemic
Speaker 1: is international. We are, in fact committing suicide right now
Speaker 1: in the rich countries with eyes open by monopolizing vaccines.
Speaker 1: If we don't spread vaccines to Africa, poor countries in Asia,
Speaker 1: it's going to come back and hit us like a
Speaker 1: sledge hammer. Are we in the process of being hit
Speaker 1: by that sledge hammer. Yes, it's not only monopolizing the vaccines,
Speaker 1: but protecting the rights of the pharmaceutical corporations. Not to
Speaker 1: allow others like South Africa to produce their own vaccines.
Speaker 1: We have to remember that the current international neoliberal globalization
Speaker 1: regime provides extraordinary protection to the corporations unprecedentedly long patents
Speaker 1: on not only the product but also the process. So Maderna,
Speaker 1: for example, where the basic research was paid for by
Speaker 1: the taxpayer and the distributions were paid by taxpayer money.
Speaker 1: South Africa has a pharmaceutical industry, could have been producing vaccines.
Speaker 1: In that case, we wouldn't have had no very likely
Speaker 1: would not have had an omicron A mutation. But by
Speaker 1: withholding actually the actual vaccines and also the processes for
Speaker 1: producing them, we're virtually guaranteeing that there will be a
Speaker 1: variants mutations developed, which of course will come back right
Speaker 1: to us. The United States, for once, hasn't been the
Speaker 1: worst on this issue. It's Germany which has been the
Speaker 1: most extreme in insisting that the process rights of the
Speaker 1: pharmaceutical corporations be guaranteed, and maybe ironically Germany is now
Speaker 1: one of the hotspots. You said, we haven't had one
Speaker 1: of the worst responses, but are you surprised by how
Speaker 1: we've handled the variant thus far? Unfortunately, not let's take
Speaker 1: a much more serious case, the survival of the human species.
Speaker 1: A week ago in Glasgow, countries of the world got
Speaker 1: together to deal with the existential problem of environmental destruction.
Speaker 1: We either deal with that very soon or else everything
Speaker 1: else's moot doesn't matter. Well, there were actually two events
Speaker 1: in process in Glasgow. There was one inside the holes
Speaker 1: where the gentlemen few ladies were or rating to one
Speaker 1: another discuss ways to avoid doing anything, agreeing to meet
Speaker 1: next year maybe we'll do something then, but essentially doing
Speaker 1: very little. There was another event in the streets. Tens
Speaker 1: of thousands of people, mostly young people, were demonstrating, calling
Speaker 1: for employing the means that are available are feasible to
Speaker 1: overcome the crisis and to move on to a much
Speaker 1: better world. Well, that the omicron crisis is a small
Speaker 1: copy of that serious but much less significant to a
Speaker 1: matter of millions of deaths, maybe tens of millions of deaths,
Speaker 1: not a central destruction of the species. On the subject
Speaker 1: of the climate crisis, I want to go back to
Speaker 1: the wording you just used. All of the problems we
Speaker 1: face are international, but they're also interconnected. And I think
Speaker 1: when we talk about this looming crisis. If the pandemic
Speaker 1: is any indication, there are still many who refuse to
Speaker 1: wear masks get vaccinated in the name of personal freedom.
Speaker 1: What makes us think will respond to the climate crisis
Speaker 1: in any different way? Oh, this is a very strange
Speaker 1: concept of personal freedom. So for example, suppose I don't
Speaker 1: happen to like to stop at red light. I'd rather
Speaker 1: go through them if there's no imminent danger, and my
Speaker 1: first personal freedom is infringed by that red light. Or
Speaker 1: maybe I would like to take my assault rifle and
Speaker 1: walk around a shopping wall shooting it randomly. Chances are
Speaker 1: I'll never hit anybody, but it's an infringement on my
Speaker 1: personal freedom if a police officer stops me. Securious notion
Speaker 1: of freedom, which incidentally nobody has ever brought up. It's
Speaker 1: brought up in this case as part of the manufactured
Speaker 1: hysteria about the COVID vaccine. I mean, for decades in
Speaker 1: the United States there have been mandates in schools on
Speaker 1: children having vaccines. You want to send your kid to
Speaker 1: school without a measles and polio vaccine, you can't because
Speaker 1: children have a right to a safe space. It's just
Speaker 1: the COVID vaccine, which has been turned into some sort
Speaker 1: of special demon mostly by the far right, though there
Speaker 1: are some left elements who join as well. But it's
Speaker 1: just a special thing that was developed in connection with
Speaker 1: the COVID vaccine. So we can ask what this specific
Speaker 1: sociological phenomenon is, but has nothing to do with personal freedom.
Speaker 1: There is no personal freedom to say I want to
Speaker 1: harm people, I'm free to do it. What do you
Speaker 1: make of that specific sociological phenomenon. I think it's connected
Speaker 1: with the breakdown of society and a much broader way.
Speaker 1: We have been subjected to forty plus years of a
Speaker 1: neoliberal assault on the general population, and one of the
Speaker 1: things it's done is exactly what those who proclaimed at
Speaker 1: first Margaret Thatcher there is no society, only individuals cast
Speaker 1: out on the market to somehow survive. Of course she
Speaker 1: was lying, and she knew it. There's plenty of society, rich,
Speaker 1: complex society for the rich and powerful to defend themselves,
Speaker 1: but the rest of us, aside from the privilege sector
Speaker 1: that they serve, we have no society. So break down
Speaker 1: everything that Reagan was the same, or whoever wrote his
Speaker 1: speeches was the same. He was probably watching cowboy movies,
Speaker 1: but as inaugural address, as you recall, had the famous
Speaker 1: lines about how government is the problem, not the solution.
Speaker 1: We have to get rid of government, which is the
Speaker 1: one organized form for the general society. The government is
Speaker 1: mainly responsive to the rich and powerful, but it is
Speaker 1: somewhat responsive, somewhat accountable to the general population, and it
Speaker 1: is the only national organization which has that property. So
Speaker 1: we have to get rid of it. Do you get
Speaker 1: rid of decisions? When you get rid of government, the
Speaker 1: decisions continue to be made, They just are made in
Speaker 1: the private sector, which dominates government. Make sure that governments
Speaker 1: work in their interests but basically is unaccountable to the public.
Speaker 1: That was made explicit in this case by the economic
Speaker 1: guru of the neoliberal attack, Milton Friedman, who wrote an
Speaker 1: article in which he explained that corporations have no responsibility
Speaker 1: to the public. Their sole responsibility is to self enrichment.
Speaker 1: That's it. Why put all this together add something else?
Speaker 1: The Reagan and Thatcher or their advisers mates understood exactly
Speaker 1: what they were doing. They made certain that when you're
Speaker 1: launching this major attack against the population in which there
Speaker 1: will be no society, just atomized individuals, you have to
Speaker 1: make sure that they have no way to defend themselves.
Speaker 1: So their first act, both Thatcher and Reagan, was to
Speaker 1: attack unions using what in fact were illegal measures like
Speaker 1: permanent replacement workers outlawed throughout the world, opening the door
Speaker 1: for corporations to say, come along, you can do the
Speaker 1: same thing. We all have to destroy the ways for
Speaker 1: working people to defend themselves. Clinton picked up and pursued
Speaker 1: the same thing. End result of this is a huge
Speaker 1: assault on the population. There are actually some measures of
Speaker 1: it which are worth keeping in mind. I may have
Speaker 1: mentioned them before, but again the highway robbery that's taken
Speaker 1: place during these forty years. They use a more polite term.
Speaker 1: They call it transfer of wealth. So what is the
Speaker 1: transfer of wealth from the working class and the middle
Speaker 1: class lower ninety percent in income? Transfer of wealth from
Speaker 1: them to the very top. Their estimate is almost fifty
Speaker 1: trillion dollars in forty years. Take what's happening in Congress.
Speaker 1: The Republican Party, which is the party of the super
Speaker 1: rich and the corporate sector have established a couple of
Speaker 1: red lines. One red line is you cannot touch the
Speaker 1: Trump tax cut. They love to talk about deficits when
Speaker 1: Democrats are creating deficits to help poor people. But their
Speaker 1: one legislative achievement was the Trump tax cut, a tax
Speaker 1: cut for the very rich and the corporate sector, stabbing
Speaker 1: everyone else in the back. Second, you cannot fund the
Speaker 1: Internationality Internal Revenue Service because the IRIS goes after tax cheats,
Speaker 1: and by far the major tax cheating tens of billions,
Speaker 1: probably trends of dollars, is the very rich and the
Speaker 1: corporate sector. You couldn't have a clearer indication of what
Speaker 1: a gang of hypocrites and cowards and slaves of the
Speaker 1: wealth this party has become, this idea that the Republicans
Speaker 1: are clearly in the pocket of the wealth. I want
Speaker 1: to stick with that because just this week the new
Speaker 1: infrastructure law signed by President Biden includes almost fifty billion
Speaker 1: dollars to protect communities against climate change. Now, the primary
Speaker 1: issue here, as you've probably read, is that historically, wealthier
Speaker 1: white communities, with both higher property values and the resources
Speaker 1: to apply for competitive programs, receive the bulk of federal grants.
Speaker 1: So in this case, to receive a grant, there are
Speaker 1: two major hurdles for low income communities. If they are
Speaker 1: awarded a grant, communities are required to pay a share
Speaker 1: of the project, often twenty five percent, which is unaffordable
Speaker 1: for most struggling towns and counties. The local governments then
Speaker 1: have to clear those obstacles and then have to demonstrate
Speaker 1: that the value of the property that would be protected
Speaker 1: is greater than the cost of the project. And so
Speaker 1: we're in agreement that the Republican Party is in the
Speaker 1: pocket of the one percent. And yet this bill passed
Speaker 1: by President Biden is once again in favor of that
Speaker 1: white one percent community that is more likely to get
Speaker 1: these environmental grants than communities of toller. How do we
Speaker 1: reckon with that? I suspect that the more liberal Democrats
Speaker 1: would have preferred a different formulation. But in order to
Speaker 1: get anything at all past the Republican opposition, you have
Speaker 1: to put conditions in that benefit the rich white community.
Speaker 1: Otherwise it can't pass. You'll never get a Republican vote
Speaker 1: for it. This is an old story. It used to
Speaker 1: be the Democrats back in the days. You go back
Speaker 1: to the nineteen thirties forties, when the Democratic Party was
Speaker 1: a coalition of northern Liberals and Southern Democrats outspoken bitter racists.
Speaker 1: If the New Deal wanted to get any measures passed
Speaker 1: that would help people, they had to put in racist conditions,
Speaker 1: otherwise the Southern Democrats would kill it. Southern Democrats the
Speaker 1: racist segment. They were Democrats until Nixon. Nixon realized that
Speaker 1: if the Republican Party is going to be viable, ah,
Speaker 1: they have to find a voting base. You can't get
Speaker 1: voters by saying we work to serve the super rich
Speaker 1: and the corporate sector. You don't get votes that way.
Speaker 1: So the Republicans had to turn to what are now
Speaker 1: called cultural issues. Well, one of them is race. So
Speaker 1: Nixon's Southern strategy was quite openly designed to induce the
Speaker 1: Southern Democrats to shift to become Republicans. And the way
Speaker 1: to do it was but to insinuate that Publicans would
Speaker 1: become the racist party, so you can join us. What
Speaker 1: you just described is just another manifestation of it on
Speaker 1: subject of race. As the Kyle Rittenhouse case played out,
Speaker 1: we were all following the news day after day. What
Speaker 1: did you make of those proceedings? Technically, in a very
Speaker 1: narrow sense, the jury verdict could be justified. The laws
Speaker 1: of self defense are so expansive that if you just
Speaker 1: say I feel threatened, that's self defense, And of course
Speaker 1: the gun laws in the United States are so crazy
Speaker 1: by international standards, you can argue that this is legal
Speaker 1: within the framework of American law. The more interesting questions
Speaker 1: are different. What kind of a society in which young,
Speaker 1: probably disturbed kid can pick up a rifle, can go
Speaker 1: across state lines and decide that he's going to protect property,
Speaker 1: meaning protect white property from alleged black marauders. What kind
Speaker 1: of a society is it in which that can happen.
Speaker 1: That's not about Rittenhouse, it's about the society. The second
Speaker 1: interesting thing is what the Republicans are doing, from Fox Television,
Speaker 1: like Tucker Carlson to Donald Trump to Marjorie Green, turning
Speaker 1: to make this disturbed kid a hero of who's almost
Speaker 1: certain to appear at the Republican National Convention next time.
Speaker 1: In fact, three House congressmen justice past week have said
Speaker 1: that they would hire Kyle Rittenhouse as an intern in
Speaker 1: their office. Oh. I think he's going to go much
Speaker 1: higher than that. Maybe he'll be appointed attorney general in
Speaker 1: a Trump's next next incarnation. I don't blame him. His
Speaker 1: young kid. He bro doesn't even know what he's doing,
Speaker 1: but he's playing along with it and they're exploiting him.
Speaker 1: You know this. He listened to Tucker calls and this lovely,
Speaker 1: sweet and white boy, you know, trying to defend the
Speaker 1: white race, and it's just wonderful. They'll turn him into
Speaker 1: something huge. It's not the first time it takes a
Speaker 1: Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan was not particularly popular during his
Speaker 1: term in office. He look at the approval ratings. During
Speaker 1: Reagan's term, they were moderate. In fact, at the time
Speaker 1: he left office, his approval ratings were not high at all.
Speaker 1: But after he left office, a huge propaganda campaign was organized,
Speaker 1: the Reagant Legacy campaign, to turn him into a divine creature,
Speaker 1: which had nothing to do with his hideous record, but
Speaker 1: it was very successful. Now he's regarded as a semi divinity.
Speaker 1: Now they can do the same for Tucker. Carlson's a sweet,
Speaker 1: lovely white boy who's been so badly treated. In my view,
Speaker 1: he is neither sweet nor lovely. But you did mention
Speaker 1: the next incarnation of Trump. What do you think that
Speaker 1: next incarnation looks like. There's a good possibility that Trump
Speaker 1: will be re elected in twenty twenty four, even if
Speaker 1: he loses the electoral vote by many millions. I'm after Roland.
Speaker 1: Twenty sixteen, he lost the electoral vote by three million,
Speaker 1: twenty twenty by seven million, became very close to winning.
Speaker 1: If in twenty twenty four it will be a lot easier.
Speaker 1: Republicans are hard at work at the state level to
Speaker 1: ensure that honest elections can't take place. They're working hard
Speaker 1: to intimidate election advisers, so anybody who's not in their
Speaker 1: pocket is afraid to even be there. They want to
Speaker 1: destroy American democracy in order to insure their power, and
Speaker 1: they'll use whatever means they can. In fact, McConnell says,
Speaker 1: it's straight out, we have to make the country ungovernable.
Speaker 1: We have to harm the country as much as possible
Speaker 1: so that it'll be blamed on the party in power,
Speaker 1: on Democrats, and then we can come roaring back. Let's
Speaker 1: organize anti mandate campaigns so as many people as possible
Speaker 1: will die from the omicron variant. Then they'll blame it
Speaker 1: on the Democrats and we can come back into office.
Speaker 1: I mean, what is the word for that? I don't
Speaker 1: have the word. But if you can't think below that,
Speaker 1: how do you meet it or how do you combat it?
Speaker 1: The only way you can combat. It is the only
Speaker 1: way that's ever existed, popular organization, activism on the ground,
Speaker 1: educational efforts, organizing, finding the right kinds of activities that'll
Speaker 1: reach people instead of alienating them. You have to reach
Speaker 1: out to the Republican worshippers of Trump. There are people too,
Speaker 1: They can be reached, especially younger ones. It just has
Speaker 1: to be done to cut away at this worship of
Speaker 1: a extreme criminal, maybe the worst criminal and human history, literally,
Speaker 1: who is dedicated to destroying the human species as quickly
Speaker 1: as possible in the interests of the fossil fuel industry
Speaker 1: and the big banks that stuff his pockets in the
Speaker 1: pockets of his friends. There's been nobody like that before,
Speaker 1: and I think the people can be reached. If they can't,
Speaker 1: we're essentially finished. Before the break, you were talking about
Speaker 1: this Trump worshiping, but this kind of worship is not new.
Speaker 1: I want to go back to seventeen forty one where
Speaker 1: David Hume published of the First Principles of Government. In it,
Speaker 1: he writes, nothing appears more surprising than the easiness with
Speaker 1: which the many are governed by the few, and the
Speaker 1: implicit submission with which men resign their own sentiments and
Speaker 1: passions to those of their rulers. Yes, it's the first paragraph,
Speaker 1: the opening paragraph of what is really, in many ways,
Speaker 1: the first modern political science text is First Principles of Government.
Speaker 1: It's amazing, it amazed him, should amaze us that the
Speaker 1: governed who have He goes on to say, the govern'd
Speaker 1: have the power if they decide to use it, but
Speaker 1: they are kept under control, as he says, by consent.
Speaker 1: Its consent that is the measure, the means by which
Speaker 1: this magic is achieved. That the small group of rulers
Speaker 1: can continue to control the mass of the population harming it.
Speaker 1: But they consent, Well, you have to break that consent.
Speaker 1: One of the ways to break the consent is by
Speaker 1: organized activity. That's why the neoliberal rulers have tried so
Speaker 1: hard to destroy unions. Unions are the major way in
Speaker 1: which people break free of the enforced consent, and the
Speaker 1: answers rebuild them, rebuild the means of self defense, and
Speaker 1: use them to overcome the highway robbery and instruction that's
Speaker 1: going on in front of our eyes. What are some
Speaker 1: concrete examples of us breaking from that enforced consent. You
Speaker 1: go back fifty years and look at the United States
Speaker 1: in the nineteen sixties to different country. Federal housing was
Speaker 1: segregated by law. Blacks could not apply for federal housing.
Speaker 1: There were anti sodomy laws. There were at misagenation laws
Speaker 1: that were so extreme that the Nazis were used to
Speaker 1: accept them. Women were, by law still regarded as property,
Speaker 1: not as people. Wasn't until nineteen seventy five, under the
Speaker 1: pressure the rising feminist movement, that the Supreme Court determined
Speaker 1: that women have the rights of what's called peers. Prior
Speaker 1: to that official American law, women were property, not people,
Speaker 1: property of their father, handed over their husband. It's a
Speaker 1: much more civilized country than it used to be. That's
Speaker 1: why there are such efforts on the part of their
Speaker 1: right wing to focus on what they call cultural issues
Speaker 1: to try to beat back this rising civilized character. Take
Speaker 1: a crt critical race theory. It's perfectly frank and open
Speaker 1: among those who wield the weapon that they haven't a
Speaker 1: clue what it is and don't care. Actually, Christopher roof Of,
Speaker 1: the main proponent, just said straight out, look, this is
Speaker 1: a cover term for everything we don't like, and what
Speaker 1: he means is any attack on white supremacy, on Christian nationalism.
Speaker 1: And then you try to mobilize parents by inflaming them
Speaker 1: with fabricated tales about how the Comi Democrats are trying
Speaker 1: to teach your sweet little white boy that because of
Speaker 1: his white skin, he's a Nazi oppressor. That's what they're
Speaker 1: trying to do to your little children, these monsters. So
Speaker 1: parents get enraged and attack school board meetings and so
Speaker 1: on and so forth. We should recall that in the
Speaker 1: nineteen thirties there was a serious, very serious problems. The
Speaker 1: depression was very deep, much worse than anything today. People
Speaker 1: really suffered, and basically there were two ways out. One
Speaker 1: way out was picked by continental europe fascism. The other
Speaker 1: way out was picked by the United States social democracy,
Speaker 1: the New Deal, which gave enormous benefits to much of
Speaker 1: the population. Well, you take a look today, situations almost reversed.
Speaker 1: The United States is moving into a kind of proto
Speaker 1: fascism under the Republican Party leadership. Europe is holding on
Speaker 1: more or less to the remnants of social democracy, those
Speaker 1: that survived the neoliberal selt. That's basically the world today.
Speaker 1: You were born in nineteen twenty eight, You came of
Speaker 1: age in the nineteen thirties. By the time this episode airs,
Speaker 1: you will have turned ninety three, Is that correct? Yeah,
Speaker 1: just a couple of days. How are you thinking about
Speaker 1: time these days? I'm always act as if it's stretching
Speaker 1: out infinitely before me. No point thinking about anything else.
Speaker 1: As much time as there is will use it, and
Speaker 1: you always have. But you've also been grappling with how
Speaker 1: best to use your time, dating back to the late
Speaker 1: nineteen sixties. In October of nineteen sixty eight, around the
Speaker 1: Vietnam War, you sat down for an interview at MIT,
Speaker 1: where you were also teaching. You said, people come to
Speaker 1: me and say, why don't you do ten times as
Speaker 1: much against the war? Obviously, trying to stop the war
Speaker 1: is in different order of importance than my work in linguistics.
Speaker 1: It's vastly more important. So I criticize myself, but I
Speaker 1: don't know of any ideal solution other than by feeling
Speaker 1: guilty most of the time. Do you still feel that
Speaker 1: guilt day to day. I feel there's more that could
Speaker 1: be done that I could do, but I think I
Speaker 1: do what can be done within reason. There are things
Speaker 1: I can't do anymore. Like I used to go to demonstrations,
Speaker 1: participate in civil disobedience, get arrested, spend a couple of
Speaker 1: days in jail. It's just not physically possible for me anymore.
Speaker 1: There are a lot of other things I can't do,
Speaker 1: but do what I can. There's more that could be done.
Speaker 1: All of us know that, But you have to survive.
Speaker 1: I should say I spend a fair amount of time
Speaker 1: on profession work too. It's intellectually exciting for anyone. Things
Speaker 1: like that keep you alive. Maybe it's writing poetry or
Speaker 1: listening to music, or playing in a band, or taking
Speaker 1: hikes or whatever it is. You do the things that
Speaker 1: enable you to survive, even though you could. You know
Speaker 1: that you could be working on the kinds of problems
Speaker 1: we're talking about. You can't criticize that. I know of
Speaker 1: no one who doesn't do that. Now, I'm just trying
Speaker 1: to imagine what kind of band you would be part of. Well.
Speaker 1: I once played music. There was a an MIT Harvard
Speaker 1: band and there was one professional in the group, student
Speaker 1: at the New England Conservatory, real musician, who she kind
Speaker 1: of organized it. And once they needed an extra guitar
Speaker 1: player and they didn't have a guitar player, so she
Speaker 1: tried to convince She did convince me to play the guitar.
Speaker 1: But what I had to do. My task was to
Speaker 1: pluck on one string, which I could do, but to
Speaker 1: move my fingers as if I was playing the guitar
Speaker 1: so it would look like it. And she showed me
Speaker 1: how to do that, and I took part in a concert,
Speaker 1: plucked on my string and went like this. That's my
Speaker 1: musical career. It was short lived, but I'm glad we
Speaker 1: have it on record here. Before we go, you mentioned
Speaker 1: how you can't go out to social demonstrations anymore. You know,
Speaker 1: you can't protest and potentially get locked up for a
Speaker 1: couple nights. But I've been thinking about activism as we
Speaker 1: head into twenty twenty two. Throughout the Vietnam War, you
Speaker 1: had against protesting, you had them protesting the war, and
Speaker 1: then civil rights, and you've seen the waves of youth activism.
Speaker 1: Do you think we are more effective activists now than
Speaker 1: in the late sixties in many ways? Yes. For one thing,
Speaker 1: activism in the nineteen sixties many people who weren't there
Speaker 1: have an image of it which is quite misleading. There
Speaker 1: was a lot of real activism in the late sixties.
Speaker 1: Take the Vietnam War. I was living in Boston at
Speaker 1: the time. Boston's probably the most liberal city in the country.
Speaker 1: We could not have a public demonstration against the war
Speaker 1: until late nineteen sixty six because it would be assaulted
Speaker 1: and broken up violently, often students pro war students. That's
Speaker 1: the most liberal city in the country. As late as
Speaker 1: March nineteen sixty six, we tried to have andi warre
Speaker 1: demonstration in a church, thinking maybe that would be safe.
Speaker 1: Church was attacked. Okay, it wasn't easy in those days.
Speaker 1: By the late sixties things had changed. Then you could
Speaker 1: get a million people coming to Washington. It sort of
Speaker 1: dropped off quickly in the seventies, few things, but not much.
Speaker 1: That was a brief, very important period very well. May
Speaker 1: have prevented Nixon from using nuclear weapons in Vietnam, fair
Speaker 1: or evidence for that. It was one of a number
Speaker 1: of things. In the early sixties, mid sixties, there were
Speaker 1: major demonstrations in the South. Howard's In, my friend howards
Speaker 1: In and I went down to one in Jackson, Mississippi.
Speaker 1: Very brutal state police at attacking people, brutalizing them. It
Speaker 1: wasn't simple, it wasn't easy, but they did take place.
Speaker 1: And all of these things had an impact. They were
Speaker 1: part of a developed, a mass movement that did lead
Speaker 1: to significant change. So these are things you have to
Speaker 1: protect by constant engagement. Your opponents don't rest, they're relentless,
Speaker 1: they don't stop. They have plenty of power, plenty of wealth,
Speaker 1: and they're going to fight for the kind of country
Speaker 1: that they want. So if you want to what we
Speaker 1: would call a civilized, decent country, you're going to have
Speaker 1: to work for it. In fact, if you want to
Speaker 1: survive at all, you're going to have to work for it.
Speaker 1: Those tens of thousands of young people in the streets
Speaker 1: of Glasgow, we're doing what has to be done if
Speaker 1: the human species is going to survive for very long. Basically,
Speaker 1: what you're saying is the only way to beat back
Speaker 1: against fatigue is embracing the bicycle theory. Yes, that's the
Speaker 1: only way. Can you explain to people what that is? Well,
Speaker 1: if you're riding a bicycle, if you keep going fast enough,
Speaker 1: you don't fall off. If you slow down, you're full,
Speaker 1: and it's a good Listen well, Professor Chomsky, I thank
Speaker 1: you for continuing to ride that bicycle, both on this
Speaker 1: show for a third time and in your life, and
Speaker 1: happy birthday to you, Thank you, pleased to be with you,
Speaker 1: and that's our show special thanks to Valeria Chomsky and
Speaker 1: of course, Professor Noam Chomsky. If you'd like to listen
Speaker 1: to our first two conversations from twenty twenty, you can
Speaker 1: find those on our website at www dot com easypod
Speaker 1: dot com. If you enjoy today's episode, I'd recommend our
Speaker 1: talks with Naomi Klein, Doctor Cornell west ruckerd Bregman, Representative
Speaker 1: il Han, Omar Richard Powers, Genea Future Cohn, Navaniel rich
Speaker 1: and Gloria Steinem To hear those and find more Pushkin podcasts,
Speaker 1: listen on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever
Speaker 1: you get your our podcasts. You can also follow us
Speaker 1: on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram at talk easypod. If you're looking
Speaker 1: for a holiday gift and want to purchase one of
Speaker 1: our mugs, they come in cream or navy, or even
Speaker 1: our record with fran Leebwitz, you can do so at
Speaker 1: talk easypod dot com slash shop. In case you missed it,
Speaker 1: we'll be donating one hundred percent of the proceeds to
Speaker 1: Covenant House, which focuses on supporting homeless youth. If you'd
Speaker 1: like to learn more about their work, We've included links
Speaker 1: on our website at talk easypod dot com slash shop.
Speaker 1: Of course, this show wouldn't be possible without our team.
Speaker 1: Talk Easy is produced by Caroline Reebok. Our executive producer
Speaker 1: is Jennick so Bravo. Our associate producer and the editor
Speaker 1: of today's talk is Caitlin Dryden. Our assistant editor is
Speaker 1: Clarice Gavara. Today's episode was mixed by Ben Tolliday, illustrations
Speaker 1: by Christia Shanoi, video and graphics by Ian Chang, Derek
Speaker 1: gaberzak Ian Jones and Ethan Seneca. Special thanks to Patrice Lee,
Speaker 1: Kaylin Ung, Shilo Fagan, Nikki Spina, and Callie Serringis. I'd
Speaker 1: also like to thank the team at Pushkin Industries, Justin Richmond,
Speaker 1: Heather Faine, Mia LaBelle, Maggie Taylor, Nicole Morano, Maya Kanig,
Speaker 1: Carly Migliori, Jason Gambrel, Jacob Weisberg, and Malcolm Gladwell. I'm
Speaker 1: San Fragoso, thank you for listening to Talk Easy. I'll
Speaker 1: see you back here next week for our annual holiday special.
Speaker 1: Until then, stay safe and so long.