In Zeiten schwerer Not beherzigt nun der Spiegel diesen netten Ratschlag.

(medialens)

"All around us, unseen, our media are being continuously cleansed, pore-deep, of important rational comments for the simple, crude reason that they threaten profits."

And now there's this regurgitated, reheated guff about Obama's vestigial connections with Bill Ayers, a former member of the Weathermen, an American homebrew terrorist group from the 60s/early 70s. While Ayers was infrequently associated with Obama in his early Chicago days, it should be noted that during the years of peak Weathermen activity Obama was the ripe old age of 9 (while Sarah was about 5). So what are we to make of this? That Obama was somehow osmotically or otherwise influenced by Weatherman activities before he hit his teens? If that's possible, then why isn't Sureshot Sarah also under the influence of gun-toting crazies? (heh heh....)

But this is dumb, box-of-rocks-wise. And hypocritical, since most folks know that John McCain's Vietnam activities involved (cough) bombing of residential areas in Hanoi and elsewhere. Oh yeah! So Obama is tarred by association with someone never convicted of killing anyone, yet McCain, civilian-bomber-extraordinaire, is a war hero. You betcha.

Where could this approach take us, eh? How about...

Shock Election News: Expert air analysts in the McCain camp confirm that Senator Obama has deliberately breathed air molecules once by inhaled by Adolf Hitler, Genghis Khan, and Saddam! Next up - water molecule analysis shows connections to Emperor Caligula, Pol Pot, and Noam Chomsky!!

Y`know, if all this were happening in a world without the internet, I think I'd probably go completely nuts, insane, bugf*ck as hell and getting in line for the rubber room. But knowing that this BIG DAMN noticeboard has little corners devoted to such wonders of focussed rage as Get Your War On, or the Daily Mash, is essential to resisting the isolation inherent in the international commodity carnival we have to confront day in day out. For enlightenment-through-anger see the following:

http://www.236.com/video/2008/get_your_war_on_news_cycle_1_9305.php

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/international/obama-defends-'creationist-psycho-bitch'-remark-200809111247/

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/international/obama-means-to-make-you-his-beeatch%2c-palin-tells-white-women-200810061302/

Hona hemen helbide elektronikoa: Noam Chomsky

The arguments attributed to Chomsky by Dean are a bit unconvincing, however.  I agree with the idea that some creativity is involved language acquisitions and it is not a clear hear and repeat process.  If it were, language never would have developed to begin with.  However, it is not clear that there is a mental device that helps to aid in language acquisition.  Can children simply be forming rules via some generic rule forming mechanism in the brain, and not one that is specific to language.  This rule formation will be useful in other child learning.  For example, arithmetic could make use of a generic rule forming device.  Children learn that 1+1=2 and 2+3=5, and after a little practice can add large numbers that they have never seen before with little trouble.  To me, this is analogous to language acquisition.  By Chomsky's arguments, we should also have an Arithmetic Acquisition Device to aid us in this.  I'll have to investigate further to see if he has anything to say about this.

Also, it is important to remember that I am reading summary of his ideas as interpreted by the writer of the book.  Once done with this, I plan read some actual Chomsky.  Maybe the argument will be more convincing their.  It will definitely be more thorough.

Mais pas chez Openlasource, "souriant certes mais ........... VIGILANT":

Et objectifs, nous savons féliciter notre mairie, quand le travail est bien fait : "c'est bien !".

Le panneau qui oriente vers le consulat du Maroc a été redressé (je vous rappelle notre demande du 18 Aout dernier dans notre article " C'est fait le panneau...").

Openlasource relevait aussi dans ce même article que des traces d'une "volée de plombs" vieille de plus de 5 ans restaient bien visibles. Elles le sont toujours, nous penchons pour l'oubli, mais il n'est pas trop tard pour agir.

Alors encore un petit effort et ça sera (presque) parfait.

Épilogue : " Le pouvoir ne souhaite pas que les gens comprennent qu'ils peuvent provoquer des changements." Noam Chomsky

- Chomsky seems to think that the best way for humans to collectively organize themselves should be the way that allows for the most creative expression. In the movie, he points to the way that even simple conversations demonstrate the human capacity for creative thought. The society to be avoided then in the one that reduces any human being to a tool or cog in a machine. I find this criteria for political organization compelling. Are there other criteria, even ones that must be held in tension? For example, a parent is a "cog" of sorts in his or her children's machine and vice versa.

- There is a point in the movie where Chomsky talks about the need to justify coercion or control. He point's to the example of a parent coercing a child to behave. He goes on to say that most of the coercion we see is far from justifiable. Can I think of other examples of "justifiable coercion"?

- Do sports and entertainment train us in irrational submission to authority?

- Chomsky talks about a course in "intellectual self-defense." What might some components of my personal course look like? What do I need to do to defend myself?

- Chomsky speaks of two competing views of the press's role in a democratic society. For the first one, he uses a quote from Justice Powell. Powell says that the press is meant to enable citizens to control represantative government. Chomsky says there is an alternative and dominant conception, however, that posits democracy as a game for elites. Chomsky quotes someone (I can't remember) as saying that democracy "makes people so curious and so arrogant that they will never submit to civil rule." Several of Chomsky's book titles come from proponents of this view - some of the names that came up surprised me. His book "Manufacturing Consent," for example, gets its title from a Walter Lippman  passage about the press. The title "Necessary Illusions" comes from a Reinhold Niebuhr book. In this understanding of "democracy," society is broken up into at least a few different classes with power disproportionately divided between them. In this conception a large part of the public is meant not to think. According to Chomsky, they are marginalized and/or reduced to apathy. Somewhere between the elite group and the majority of the public lies the political class. This political class can move between the elite and the rest, but its main function is to disseminate thought that supports the status quo. My guess is that I would fall somewhere into this class of people. I consume a lot of media, and I seem to have adopted a lot of the dominant values of our culture.
A couple of questions:
1) What are some ways that I can challenge my own political class?
2) How can we move the press from a "game for elites" to "enablers of people"?

- I'm pretty sure Noam Chomsky would be called a "blame-America-first liberal" if he were ever to appear on Fox News. In the documentary, Chomsky is accused a few times of under-emphasizing the atrocities of others (such as the Communists) and over-emphasizing the United States. I was struck by Chomsky's response and consistency. Basically, what he said was that we have more control over our own actions than over other people's. What are some of the things that America sees the speck before the plank? What can I affect?

Sidenote: Chomsky told a story about his schooldays where he tried to stick up for a kid that was being picked on. Chomsky talked about how he got scared and ran away and still feels guilt over that. He says that he should have stood by the underdog. I see this as progressive values at their best.

By Stephen Lendman – Chicago | The Palestine Chronicle, Sep 22, 2008

Said was passionately against Palestine being turned into an isolated prison wherein Israel repeatedly attacked mostly defenseless civilians with tanks and F-16s.Born in West Jerusalem in 1935. Exiled in December 1947. Said was diagnosed with chronic lymphocytic leukemia in 1991, a malignant cancer of the bone marrow and blood. At 6:45AM on September 25, 2003, he succumbed (at age 67) after a painful courageous 12 year struggle. Tributes followed and resumed a year later. In a testimony to his teacher, Professor Moustafa Bayoumi called him "indefatigable, incorruptible, a humanist and devastatingly charming....leav(ing behind) legions of followers and fans in every corner of the world. I am lost without him....I miss him so."

Chomsky called his death an "incalculable loss." A year later, Ilan Pappe said "his absence seems to me still incomprehensible. What would have happened if we still had Edward with us in this last year....another terrible (one) for the values (he) represented and causes he defended." Tariq Ali referred to his "indomitable spirit as a fighter, his will to live, (my) long-standing friend and comrade," and described his ordeal:

"Over the last eleven years one had become so used to his illness - the regular hospital stays, the willingness to undergo trials with the latest drugs, the refusal to accept defeat - that (we thought) him indestructible." Leukemia kills, and in response to Ali's questions, his doctor said there was "no medical explanation for (his) survival." No doubt Dr. Kanti Rai made a difference. Said spoke of him reverentially - of his "redoubtable medical expertise and remarkable humanity" that kept him going during his darkest times, and there were many. He later described months in and out of the hospital, "painful treatments, blood transfusions, endless tests, hours and hours of unproductive time spent staring at the ceiling, draining fatigue and infection, inability to do normal work, and thinking, thinking, thinking."

Yet, as Ali recounted, in the end the "monster (overpowered him), devouring his insides (but when) the cursed cancer finally took him the shock was intense." Palestinians had lost their "most articulate (and powerful) voice....(he's) irreplaceable."

Veteran Palestinian-American journalist Ramzy Baroud agrees. He called 2003 a bad time for Palestinians to lose one their iconic best and described him like many others: He "stood for everything that is virtuous. His moral stance was even more powerful than (his) essays, books and music (as critic, scholar and consummate artist)....He was an extraordinary intellectual, thoughtful....inimitable" and never silent or compromising in his beliefs or virtue. No "wonder he....was adored by (his) people (and) detested by the" forces he opposed.

Phyllis Bennis called him "one of the great internationalist intellectuals of our time....a hero of the Palestinian people (and) the global peace and justice movement as well....(my) great mentor, a challenging collaborator, a remarkable friend....his passion, vision, wit (and fury against injustice) will be terribly missed."

Daniel Barenboim called him a "fighter and a compassionate defender. A man of logic and passion. An artist and a critic....a visionary (who) fought for Palestinian rights while understanding Jewish suffering." In 1999, they jointly founded the West-East Divan - an orchestra for young Arabs and Jews who collaboratively "understood that before Beethoven we all stand as equals....Palestinians have lost a formidable defender, the Israelis a no less formidable adversary, and I a soulmate."

Rashid Khalidi is the Edward Said Professor of Arab Studies at Columbia where Said taught for nearly 40 years as a Professor of English and Comparative Literature. He called him "a man of vast erudition and learning, of extraordinary versatility and remarkable (interdisciplinary) expertise." We've lost "one of the most profound, original and influential thinkers of the past half-century (and) a fearless independent voice speaking truth to the entrenched powers that dominate the Middle East."

On September 30, 2003, Columbia University paid tribute as well. It mourned the passing of its "beloved and esteemed university professor." Called him one of the world's most influential scholars, and said "the world has lost a brilliant and beautiful mind, a big heart, and a courageous fighter."

When he learned of his illness and its seriousness, Said decided to write (from memory) a biographical account of his childhood, upbringing and early years in Palestine, Lebanon and Egypt. Titled "Out of Place, A Memoir," he called it "a record of an essentially lost or forgotten world....a subjective account of (his life) in the Arab world" of his birth and formative years. Then in America where he attended boarding school, Princeton for his bachelor's and master's degrees, and Harvard for his doctorate.

He began "Out of Place" in 1994 while recovering from three early rounds of chemotherapy and continued to completion with the help and "unstinting kindness and patience" of the "superb nurses" who spent months caring for him as well as his family and friends whose support helped him finish.

He recounted a young man's coming of age. Of coming to terms with being displaced. An American. A Christian. A Palestinian. An outsider, and ultimately the genesis of an intellectual giant. An uncompromising opponent of imperialism and oppression, and an advocate for his peoples' struggle for justice and self-determination. No one made the case more powerfully or with greater clarity than he did - in his books, articles, opinion pieces, and wherever he spoke around the world. He made hundreds of appearances and became a target of pro-Israeli extremists. They threatened him and his family. Once burned his Columbia University office, but never silenced him or ever could. Nor did the FBI in spite of over 30 years of surveillance the way it monitors all prominent outspoken activists and intellectuals and many of lesser stature.

Said's great writings include Orientalism (1978) in which he explained a pattern of western misinterpretation of the East, particularly the Middle East. In Culture and Imperialism (1993), he broadened Orientalism's core argument to show the complex relationships between East and West. Colonizers and the colonized, "the familiar (Europe, West, us) and the strange (the Orient, East, them)."

His writings showed the breath of his scholarship, interests and activism - on comparative literature, literary criticism, culture, music and his many works on Israeli-Palestinian history and conflict - combining scholarship, passion and advocacy for his people in contrast to the West's one-sided view of Arabs and Islam. He championed equity and justice. Denounced imperialism, and believed Israel has a right to exist but not exclusively for Jews at the expense of indigenous Palestinians.

The 1967 war and illegal occupation changed everything for him. It radicalized him. Set the course of his intellectual career and activism, and made him the Palestinians' leading spokesperson for the next 37 years until his death. He advocated a one-state solution and wrote in 1999: "The beginning is to develop something entirely missing from both Israeli and Palestinian realities today: the idea and practice of citizenship, not of ethnic or racial community, as the main vehicle of coexistence."

In a lengthy January 1999 New York Times op-ed he elaborated: "Palestinian self-determination in a separate state is unworkable (after years earlier believing otherwise). The question (now isn't separation) but to see whether it is possible for (Jews and Palestinians) to live together (in the same land) as fairly and peacefully as possible. What exists now is a disheartening...bloody impasse. There is no way for Israel to get rid of Palestinians or for Palestinians to wish Israelis away....I see no other way than to begin now to speak about sharing the land that has thrust us together, sharing it in a truly democratic way, with equal rights for each citizen."

This diminishes life and aspirations for neither side. It affirms self-determination for them both together in the same land where they once lived peacefully. But it doesn't mean "special status for one people at the expense of the other." For millennia, Palestine was the homeland for many peoples, predating the Ottomans and Romans. It's "multicultural, multiethnic, multireligious." There's no "historical justification for homogeneity" or for "notions of national or ethnic and religious purity....The alternatives (today) are unpleasantly simple: either the war continues (with its unacceptable costs)" or an equitable way out is found, obstacles notwithstanding.

Oslo wasn't the answer, and Said denounced it in its run-up and weeks later in a London Review of Books piece titled "The Morning After." In stinging language, he referred to "the fashion-show vulgarities of the White House ceremony, the degrading spectacle of Yasser Arafat thanking everyone for the suspension of most of his people's rights, and the fatuous solemnity of Bill Clinton's performance, like a 20th century Roman emperor shepherding two vassal kings through rituals of reconciliation and obeisance (and) the truly astonishing proportions of the Palestinian capitulation."

For him, Oslo was plainly and simply "an instrument of Palestinian surrender, a Palestinian Versailles," and worst of all is that a better deal could have been had without so many "unilateral concessions to Israel." The same goes for the 1978 Camp David Accords and every "peace" negotiation to the present except the "permanent status" 2000 Camp David "generous" and "unprecedented" offer that Arafat turned down and was unfairly pilloried for spurning peace for conflict.

Said was on top of everything to the end as reflected in "The Last Interview" - a documentary film less than a year before his death. After a decade of illness, he agreed to a final film interview at a time he was drained, weakened and dying, yet found it "very difficult to turn (himself) off." It was a casual conversation between himself and journalist Charles Glass reflecting on his childhood, upbringing, writing, scholarship, involvement with Yasser Arafat, and strong opinions and activism on Palestinian issues.

It was in all his writings and outspokenness - so powerful, passionate, virtuous and a testimony to his uncompromising principles. He described "Sharonian evil." His blind destructiveness. His terrorism in ordering the massacring of children, then congratulating one pilot for his great success. The patently dishonest media. Its one-sided support for Israel. Its suppressing other views. Its turning a blind eye to the grossest crimes against humanity, day after day after day. Of relegating public discourse to repetitive official propaganda. Of subverting truth in support of power and privilege.

Of turning Palestine into an isolated prison. Suffocating an entire people of their existence. Of impoverishing, starving and slaughtering them. Of attacking defenseless civilians with tanks and F-16s. Of blaming victims for their own terror. Of creating a vast wasteland of destruction and human misery. Of sanctioning torture and targeted assassinations as official policy. Of committing every imaginable human indignity and degradation against people whose only crime is their faith, ethnicity, and presence. Whose only defense is their will and redoubtable spirit. Of enlisting world support for the most unspeakable, unrelenting campaign of terror and genocide.

Of pursuing an endless "cycle of violence" and consigning Palestinians to a "slow death" in defense of imperial interests and the national security state. Of pursuing peace as a scheme for "pacification." Of placing the onus for it "squarely on Palestinian shoulders." Of "putting an end to the (Palestinian) problem." Of placing huge demands on Palestinians and making no concessions in return. Of calling resistance "terrorism" while ignoring oppressive occupation as the fundamental problem. Of seeing Palestinians endure and survive in spite of every imaginable assault, affront and indignity. Of piling on even more and seeing an even greater will to survive and prevail.

Said was passionate on all this and more. He was uncompromisingly anti-war and denounced America's "war on terror." The country "hijacked by a small cabal of individuals....unelected and unresponsive to public pressure." The Democrats supporting them "in a gutless display of false patriotism." The entire power structure characterizing Muslims as enemies. Passing repressive laws. Creating the obscenity of Guantanamo and other prisons like it.

Their self-righteous sophistry of so-called "just wars" and evil of Islam. The near omnipotence of the Zionist Lobby, Christian fascists, and military-industrial complex. Their hostility to Arabs and claim to be "on the side of the angels." Their inexorable pursuit of war and power. The media in lockstep supporting "hypocritical lies" masquerading as "absolute truth." The silencing of dissent. Of mocking and betraying democracy. Of making a total sham of decency, humanity and justice. Of letting a few extremists create their own "fantasy world" to run the country for their own corrupted self-interest.

Said said it all, and ended one opinion piece as follows: "Jonathan Swift, thou shouldst be living at this hour." But even he might have blanched in disbelief considering the current state and potential horror of its consequences. Said understood. He's sorely missed when we need him most.

-Stephen Lendman contributed this article to PalestineChronicle.com. Contact him at: lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. (Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com, and listen to The Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Mondays from 11AM—1PM US Central time.)

The first is to question whether we are actually dealing with, as it were, "semi-socialism [i.e., for the rich]": since its creation during the FDR administration, the Fed has always had the responsibility of being what's called the "lender of last resort," and it has performed this function several times, most notably during the savings and loans crisis twenty years ago. Theoretically at least, the Fed's action is a capitalistic solution to a capitalistic problem, i.e., the boom-bust cycle and the Darwinian weeding out of faulty sectors of the market. Therefore, this is not even regulation per se, much less (semi-)socialism.

The only difference between the current action and its precedents is the sheer awesome scale of the lending -- leading me to the second thought. At $700 billion, the bail-out equals the budget for the on-going Iraq War (cf. here and here as well).  That's no small potatoes.  Can the American taxpayer really shoulder the looming multi-trillion dollar deficit?  Whoever becomes president of dire necessity will have to balance the budget and tackle the deficit, which probably means slashing social programs and raising taxes on all classes of society.  This isn't an easy sell with the electorate, nor is it just or imaginative (do we really need more neoliberalism to fix what is essentially a neoliberal bungle?), but at least with Obama we can expect the rich to shell out this time, too.

In summary, then, Bush hasn't gone socialist, just more capitalist.  Nevertheless, Noam Chomsky makes a very good point when he remarks that what we've been seeing since the Reagan administration has been a process of socializing cost and risk and privatizing profit (click on the image above).   The difference, however, lies in the fact that whereas in a socialist system the society shelled out via taxes, in a capitalist system it is shelled out via debt and taxes.

What's really peculiar about the current action is that,

(a) the Fed intends to purchase the toxic debt at "hold-to-maturity" value, not the market value, meaning the companies receiving the bail-out will actually make a profit (twice what they're selling their debt portfolios for!).  Evidently the hope is to inject a massive amount of cash into our financial system (read: here).

And (b) the Fed hopes to eventually auction off the debt portfolios its purchasing. The question is, to whom? Will this debt continue to circulate in the global financial system, wreaking havoc (or dependency) wherever it goes?

At any rate, it really remains to be seen whether even the current action can actually turn the tide against severe recession. At least we can take heart that a depression is unlikely.

On a side note, I thought this congresswoman's remark was good:

Meta.Live.Nu was selected by the Burning Life organisation to get land access in order to be present at Burning Life 2008.  On show is the experimental 'information-art' installation by Ze Moo:

"Grid Gypsy Camp: Brazil"

http://slurl.com/secondlife/Burning%20Life%20(Tigris)/222/222/22

This cross-reality, information-art installation is our reply to this years Burning Man / Burning Life theme "The American Dream". It is partly inspired by the Burning Man festival, partly inspired by the Terry Gilliam movie 'Brazil' (1984), and partly inspired by the article "Avatars consume as much electricity as Brazilians" by Nicholas Carr. Other inspirations into this interactive mixed media art piece come from various real global social, political and enviromental issues.

Next to this, Meta.Live.Nu at BL 2008 will also present some sculptures by invited artist Herman Bergson.

Meta.Live.Nu special thanks: Tooter Claxton, Arcadia Asylum, Cel Edman, Amanda Dench, Talia Tokugawa, Talen Morgan, Luv Ock, Jamal Mfume, Ryan Linden, DFM RTV INT, De Balie Media, Freeteam, DDS,

Burning Life is a non-commercial virtual festival of Art, Fire and Community. It is the virtual version of the American Burning Man festival and starts saturday 27 september 2008 in Second Life.

* All Burning Life sims close for maintenance: Saturday sept. 27, SL 6:30 am PDT (= 15:30 CEST)
* Gates Open to the public, Saturday sept. 27, SL 9 am PDT (= 18:00 CEST)
* Center Camp stage fires up, Saturday sept. 27, SL 11 am PDT (= 20:00 CEST)

Official Burning Life website:

http://burninglife.secondlife.com

Websites for participants:

http://BurningLife.org (http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Burning_Life)

http://BurningLife.info (http://vburn.org)

Other Burning Life websites:

http://BurningLife.com

http://flickr.com/groups/burninglife

http://secondlife.wikia.com/wiki/Burning_Life

.

This post was updated at 5 october,18:10 CEST

More updates coming up!

Professor Noam Chomsky is one of the country's most famous writers and social comentators. Some people say he has opened the eyes of millions of young people with his books, most filled with leftist rants meant for the young adult target market. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor has done his job (so to speak) in the political forum revolving 9/11

Not only does Chomsky hug planes, he even says that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman in Dallas. Anyone who still supports the Warren Commission hoax after forty years of countering proofs is either ill-informed, dumb, gullible, afraid to speak truths to power or a disinformation agent. MIT, where Chomsky has worked for decades, has a very good physics department (MIT is the largest university contractor to the military). Perhaps he could visit them and learn why it is physically impossible for Oswald to have been anything more than the "patsy" that he (accurately) claimed to be. Or even the fact that buildings don't eat planes for breakfast like most of the 9/11 'amateur videos show'

The truth is that Chomsky is very good in his analysis within certain parameters of a limited debate -- but in understanding the "deep politics" of the actual, secret government, his analysis falls short. Or maybe he has something to hide ?

Professor Chomsky was apparently part of a study group in the late 1960s that was investigating what really happened in Dallas (ie. he was a skeptic of the official story). It seems likely that Chomsky did indeed figure out what happened - and decided that this was too big of an issue to confront.

"If they are strong enough to kill the President and strong enough to cover it up, then they are too strong to confront directly . . . if they feel sufficiently threatened, they may move to open totalitarian rule."

His words speak for themselves and the coward that he is.

• Een taal is dan volgens de generatieve theorie een eindige of oneindige verzameling van zinnen die door een eindige verzameling van regels – de grammatica- wordt gevormd. De grammatica moet volgens chomsky eindig zijn, omdat hij er van uitgaat dat “the grammar cannot simply be a list of all morpheme or word sequences since there are infinitely many of these” (p. 18).

• De Engelse taal is oneindig volgens Chomsky omdat uitingen recursief van vorm kunnen zijn zoals boven genoemd, dus de conclusie volgens chomsky is, dat de grammatica van die taal recursief gedefinieerd moet zijn. Zonder recursie zou een taal volgens de generatieve definitie immers eindig moeten zijn, en dan zou je dus slechts een eindig aantal mogelijke zinnen en constructies hebben.

Recursie was dus het herhalen van dezelfde structuur, ofwel inbeddingen, maar de herhaling vindt op een ander niveau plaats en vindt plaats terwijl de eerste ook nog aan de gang is. Dus zoiets als bij het vooruitdenken van mogelijke zetten tijdens een eigen spelzet.

Dus recursie maakt “het gelijktijdig optreden van ‘hetzelfde’ op een aantal verschillende niveaus mogelijk” (Hofstadter : Gödel, Escher Bach, hoofdstuk 5, pag. 173, druk ui 2006). Het impliceert dus dat er een proces plaatsvindt, waarbij in het proces opnieuw dat proces wordt aangeroepen, maar dan net iets anders. Dus een structuur wordt op dezelfde manier opnieuw aangeroepen, terwijl het eerste nog aan de gang is.

Ik denk dat dan misschien het verschil met analogie dan is, omdat je bij analogie als je de herhaling impliceert dat je dus een proces herhaalt, dus een structuur opnieuw gebruikt, maar dan met een ander element, terwijl het eerste proces al is gestopt. Hofstadter zegt nog over recursie: “Recursie is waar hetzelfde-maar-toch-anders een centrale rol speelt. Recursie berust op het gelijktijdig optreden van ‘hetzelfde’ op een aantal verschillende niveaus”(zelfde pagina als boven). Dus hij zegt daarmee dan ook dat het eigenlijk een soort van analogie is, alleen dat het proces net iets ander is, omdat het gelijktijdig op verschillende niveaus kan plaatsvinden.

Dat is dan misschien vergelijkbaar met de functie om een grootouder te bepalen die ik probeerde uit te leggen. Namelijk dat je terwijl je bepaalt of A, C’s grootouder is, je in hetzelfde proces deze functie nog een keer aanroept, maar dan om te bepalen of B misschien C’s grootouder is en dan om te bepalen of A B’s grootouder is. Dan heb je dus drie niveaus waarbij dezelfde functie wordt aangeroepen.

Maar vreemd is natuurlijk dat de Generativisten, omdat ze zien dat recursief denken mogelijk is bij mensen, concluderen dat dan de grammatika van een taal recursief moet zijn. In principe wel een logisch gedachte, als je van de taaldefinitie van Chomsky uitgaat, want als taal door een eindige grammatica gegenereerd moet worden, dan is een recursieve grammatica de enige oplossing om tot oneindig aantal verschillende zinnen te komen. Maar je zou ook zoals Everett het ziet recursie as a tool that’s made available by the brain’ (http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/everett07/everett07_index.html) kunnen zien.

Um não-Manual para contadores de histórias e afins

O tema é bem simples. Mais simples ainda do que o aspecto a que se refere: A mitologia e a mania dos seres humanos viverem, incansavelmente, contando e ouvindo histórias.

Como surgem as histórias? De onde elas vêm? Para que servem? Uns acham que elas pairam por aí, desde que o mundo é mundo, contaminando as mentes, se infiltrando nos sonhos de alguns loucos que as registram para que se perpetuem como retratos, exemplos, lições para a humanidade.

Outros acham que elas são construídas de forma cerebral, pragmática, a partir de fórmulas precisas, que capturam o modo de ser das pessoas, a maneira como elas percebem os fatos do cotidiano, e se emocionam, ficando fascinadas por eles, como diante de truques de mágica.

Os dois conceitos parecem exatos. E são. Ao que se sabe, o conhecimento humano só se estabelece assim, aos trancos e barrancos, por intermédio de saltos e tropeços ao acaso.

Pragmatismo e empirismo. Ciência e acaso. Razão e emoção. Sendo este, para o bem e para o mal, o sentido de nossa existência, é esta também a energia que nos impulsiona no ato de contar, ler e ouvir histórias.

Estudiosos das linguagens humanas como Noam Chomsky, por exemplo, são enfáticos em afirmar que o que nos move, em todos os aspectos de nossa vida, são os impulsos emocionais, a reação irreprimível que temos diante de uma ação ou agressão do meio. Talvez não seja um acaso que um dos mestres absolutos da literatura fantástica John Ronald Reuel Tolkien ('Senhor dos Anéis'), tenha sido um lingüista como Chomsky.

Todas as linguagens, ou seja, toda a capacidade que temos de interagir com a natureza, transformando-a, comunicando-nos uns com os outros e, da mesma forma, nos transformando também, por intermédio da fala, da música, dos signos escritos, das cores, etc. estaria relacionada, diretamente à reações emocionais muito básicas, gravadas há séculos e séculos, no nosso cérebro primitivo. Simples como água corrente.

Segredos e truques de linguagem, uns adquirem com o tempo – talvez o melhor mestre desta arte – outros, obtém seus macetes a partir de um (sempre acessório) método.

Histórias. O prazer de escrevê-las não devia ser conspurcado por nenhum frio método científico e, realmente, não é isto o que propomos aqui. A razão é mais do que evidente: É impossível. Ninguém vira um escritor, ao menos razoável, seguindo apenas métodos. A bula não é a cura. A receita não contém todos os segredos do bolo. Há que se ralar, ralar e ralar e se conformar com o fato, inquestionável, de que todas as histórias já foram criadas e contadas. Há muito tempo.

É com este modesto propósito que decidimos trazer até vocês – aqueles que não conhecem, é claro - o trabalho fantástico de dois mestres contadores de histórias que se dedicaram, juntos, um a partir do outro, a definir como e porque as histórias são contadas. No processo, eles nos ensinam também a tirar o melhor proveito do ato de contá-las, nos dando pistas de como elas funcionam enfim; como as mil faces ou versões de um mesmo fato podem resultar numa experiência sensorial inebriante e inesquecível, ou num enfado decepcionante.

Simplificado sob sua forma mais elementar, o sistema de autoria de Chistopher Vogler baseado na obra de Joseph Campbel, reproduzido a seguir, não é, absolutamente, um manual. São estruturas narrativas extremamente flexíveis que podem – e na verdade devem - ser alteradas sempre, segundo as particularidades de cada história, de cada platéia, de cada tipo de leitor. A ordem estabelecida pode ser invertida ou alterada de inúmeras maneiras. Algumas partes podem, inclusive, ser suprimidas, apenas insinuadas ou subentendidas em entrelinhas, etc.

Deve-se levar em conta, sobretudo, que as estruturas narrativas mudam muito com o tempo e no espaço. Para se conquistar e reter a emoção de leitores ou platéias, o fator surpresa é sempre fundamental. O uso de estratagemas, cada vez mais inusitados, é uma regra constante. Os mapas da estrutura narrativa aqui expostos, bem como o papel desempenhado por cada um dos arquétipos citados neste contexto, devem estar a serviço, portanto, da narrativa, do desenrolar de seu transcurso, que precisa ser sempre surpreendente.

A melhor chave para se entender a proposta de Joseph Campbel ('O homem das mil faces' ou 'A Jornada do Herói') e Christopher Vogler ('A Jornada do Escritor') talvez seja compreender que, apesar de serem muitas, quase infinitas, as variações possíveis no ato de se contar uma história, no fundo, estamos contando sempre as mesmas caquéticas e míticas histórias, de uma mesma Jornada Ancestral que pode ser concebida como uma saga-matriz, única, comum a todos os seres humanos, que é a seguinte:

“Um homem (ou mulher), faminto e sem alternativa, sai de sua caverna em busca da comida que terá que conseguir a qualquer custo” ou “Um herói (ou heroína) sai de seu seguro mundo comum para se aventurar num mundo hostil e estranho”.

Tudo nesta proposta é simbólico. A ‘Jornada’ pode ser externa ou interna, íntima, ou seja, pode ser uma aventura física propriamente dita, com heróis, vilões, etc. ou uma história que se passa na mente e/ou coração do personagem. O que se segue, a história em si, são as surpresas ocultas nas curvas – a Vida - até se chegar ao destino inexorável do homem - a Morte.

A seguir, as etapas da Jornada do Herói, seguindo o roteiro criado por Christopher Vogler, dirigido à roteiristas e escritores em geral.

------------------------------

A Jornada do Escritor

1- Mundo comum

A maioria das histórias leva o personagem principal para fora do seu mundo comum, cotidiano, em direção a um mundo especial, novo e estranho. Antes de mostrar alguém fora de seu ambiente costumeiro, obviamente primeiro deve-se mostrá-lo em seu mundo comum, para traçar um contraste nítido entre esse universo ordinário e o mundo especial no qual este alguém adentrará.

2 - Chamado à Aventura

Ao herói é apresentado um chamado à aventura, um desafio de grande risco. Uma vez apresentado esse chamado, o herói não pode mais permanecer indefinidamente em seu mundo comum.

3 - Recusa do chamado

É normal qualquer herói sentir medo após ser chamado à aventura. Quando o herói recusa, é necessário que em algum momento surja alguma influência para que ele vença esse medo. Pode ser um encorajamento do mentor; uma nova mudança na ordem natural das coisas. Quanto maior for o medo do herói em entregar-se à aventura, maior será o vínculo emocional do espectador com a 'aventura'.

4 - Encontro com o Mentor

Nesse ponto da história, o herói já deve ter encontrado um mentor. A relação entre o mentor e o herói é um dos temas mais comuns na mitologia. A função do mentor é preparar o herói para enfrentar o desconhecido quando ele atravessar o primeiro limiar. O Mentor só pode ir até certo ponto com o herói, a partir do qual o herói deve prosseguir sozinho ao encontro do desconhecido. É importante frisar: Um herói pode ter vários mentores.

5 - Travessia do Primeiro Limiar - fim do primeiro ato

O herói encorajado ingressa enfim no mundo especial, dispõe-se a enfrentar a s conseqüências de lidar com o problema ou o desafio apresentado pelo chamado á aventura. Este limiar geralmente marca a passagem do primeiro para o segundo ato

6 - Testes, Aliados e Inimigos

O herói encontra seres, coisas ou elementos que o experimentam, desafiam ou estimulam a seguir na aventura, aprende em suma as regras deste mundo especial no qual ingressou. Estes testes e encontros com aliados, geralmente, se dão em espaços físicos especiais, espécies de ante-salas de ‘postos de fronteira’ entre o mundo comum e o outro mundo.

7 - Aproximação da Caverna Oculta

O grande portal da aventura, local ou estado onde os maiores desafios podem ou devem estar à espreita do herói. Segundo limiar a ser atravessado este deve ser um lugar aterrorizante que não pode ser evitado por que é lá que está escondido o objeto da aventura, aquilo que o herói precisa conquistar para que a sua aventura faça sentido.

8 - Provação Suprema

Rito de passagem. O herói entra na caverna oculta e passa por seu maior desafio ou sofrimento, no qual quase sucumbe. É o momento de vida ou morte, de maior suspense porque o expectador não sabe se o herói conseguirá escapar da força hostil contra a qual está se defrontando.

9 – Recompensa - Fim do segundo ato

Momento de alívio. Conseguindo sobreviver á provação suprema o herói adquire o direito de se apossar da recompensa, o objeto de toda a aventura. Momento de esclarecimento, compreensão, lucidez, encontro de uma solução para todos os dramas e dúvidas vividos pelo herói até aqui. Redenção.

10 - Caminho de volta

Obstáculos e novos desafios representados pela perseguição que o herói passa a sofrer das forças vingadoras, remanescentes daquelas contra as quais combateu que, em geral não foram totalmente destruídas. Momento no qual o herói decide que precisa voltar ao mundo comum, de qualquer modo, e que existem ainda novos desafios em sua vida, daqui para frente.

11 – Ressurreição

O herói precisa passar ainda pela última grande provação que é destruir definitivamente as forças vingativas que o perseguiram e o encontraram. Novo momento de vida ou morte no qual o herói vence com louvor e cruza enfim o terceiro limiar sendo totalmente transformado pela experiência.

12 - Volta com o Elixir - Fim 3o ato

O herói retorna ao mundo comum com uma bênção ou um tesouro que beneficia este mundo comum. Caso não traga este elixir, esta prova material de que viveu e venceu a aventura, o herói terá que recomeçar seu caminho de novo.

--------------------------------

Os arquétipos

1. Arauto – aquele que anuncia ou chama a mudança, o que motiva. Nova energia, pessoa, condição ou informação que desequilibra de vez o herói, obrigando-o a tomar a decisão de enfrentar o desafio principal. É o arquétipo do arauto que entrega ao herói ‘o chamado á aventura’. O Arauto pode ser, portanto, uma pessoa boa ou má, ou mesmo uma força, um elemento da natureza.

2. Camaleão- aquele que introduz a dúvida, a confusão, que imprime suspense na história porque não se sabe exatamente de que lado ele está- aquele que não é o que aparenta ser, volúvel. Mais uma função dramática do que um arquétipo comum, o camaleão pode ser usado por qualquer personagem segundo as necessidades da história.

3. Guardião de limiar- obstáculos, empecilhos (humanos, animais, físicos ou não, como neuroses, medos, demônios interiores ou exteriores, vícios, dependências psicológicas, limitações pessoais) que se antepõe ao herói diante de um importante ponto da jornada que precisa ser ultrapassado- capatazes do vilão ou mesmo aliados do herói com a função de testar sua disposição para os desafios que virão.

4. Herói – Palavra grega = 'proteger e servir’. disposto ao sacrifício para beneficiar o próximo - ego, ser distinto dos demais- o que se destaca, distinto do grupo, aquele que se separa da tribo para defendê-la. Função de ser a janela através da qual se enxerga a história e que deve possuir características variadas tantas quanto pode possuir uma pessoa (mistura de características universais). Crescimento, processo, ser em transformação- aquele que mais cresce com a experiência da jornada – disposto a tudo ou relutante de tudo que por fim se decide ou é levado a se decidir pelas circunstâncias. Solitário, solidário ou catalizador. Ser que se acha separado em várias partes que precisam ser incorporadas para se tornar um ser integral.

5. Mentor- velha ou velho sábio. Aquele que guia- inspiração divina, deus ou aquele que entusiasma (‘en theos’) id (dentro de nós) consciência, um dos pais- madrinha ou padrinho – professor, mestre, aquele que presenteia e recompensa (dá a chave, o segredo) com o talismã - provedor, inventor – motivador- o que planta e inicia (inclusive sexualmente)- aquele que dá o exemplo (bom ou mau). Mentores podem ser ‘caídos’, relutantes e patéticos, continuados (designam missões), múltiplos (vários mentores, um por cada missão), cômicos (como amigos confidentes)- xamãs, flexíveis (pode estar conjugado em qualquer outro arquétipo).

6. Pícaro- aquele que zomba com sabedoria da ordem mal estabelecida, do que não é real ou não deve ser levado a sério. Inimigo natural do status quo. Aquele que alerta que é necessária uma mudança. Aquele que alivia as tensões que estão prestes a produzir uma explosão fora de hora. Geralmente, os pícaros são coadjuvantes, mas, em muitos casos podem ser utilizados como muito acerto como heróis (heróis picarescos), neste caso costumam ser heróis catalisadores, que mudam o caráter dos outros personagens sem mudar a si próprios.

7- Sombra- entidade conflitante, energia do lado obscuro, aspectos não expressos, irrealizados ou rejeitados de alguma coisa, ou ser, partes obscuras de nossa personalidade, recalques escondidos. Estas qualidades, do ponto de vista do herói, aparecem, normalmente, nos antagonistas, inimigos e vilões, mas, podem ser também aliados que discordam da forma como o herói se conduz na história e tentam fazer de outra forma, criando um conflito. Como o Camaleão o Sombra pode ser utilizado como função dramática em qualquer personagem.

(Publicado, originalmente, em www.overmundo.com.br)

“It has made the technology of the culture industry no more than achievement of standardization and mass production, sacrificing whatever involved a distinction between the logic of the work and that of the social system.”

The culture industry absorbs pure art and manipulates it into a standardized product. Also, in order to succeed, the artist him/herself must be absorbed and assimilated; socially edited—so to remove all coarseness, true originality and innovation, in order to fit into a model of success (72).

According to Horkeimer and Adorno, the culture industry is totalitarian, self-policing and has a built-in system of reinforcement. It strengthens itself the more it grows and the general public, in fact, likes its system of filters and controls and has come to rely on it. At the helm of the culture ship is ruler, or führer; the most powerful force in the system being those parties with the most capital. “The people at the top in the culture agencies, who work in harmony as only one manager can with another … have long since reorganized and rationalized the objective spirit.” Capitalism confines the consumer to the serving class, and therefore limits he/she from receiving the whole picture—or seeing the forest for the “filters” that are at work upon him/her (79).

This is similar to the power at play in "A Propaganda Model" as outlined by Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky, but not identical.

“A propaganda model focuses on this inequality of wealth and power in its multi-level effects on mass media interests and choices,” Herman and Chomsky write (280).

Herman and Chomsky propose a multi-tiered system of control in which news/communication is filtered so that only what is “safe” to the reputations, bank rolls and perpetuation of those in power is delivered to the public. But instead of framing this form of manipulation as iron-fisted, totalitarian and practically omnipotent, Herman and Chomsky break it down into five filters which they define to be not as overtly fascist, though potentially just as forceful and manipulative.

The five filters that Herman and Chomsky discuss are 1.) “Size, ownership profit orientation of the mass media.” That is, the clear concentration of wealth and media resources which belong to an elite, uber-wealthy segment of the population. Namely, about two dozen families and a handful or other “outside directors.”

2.) “The advertising license to do business.” That is, the persuasion of advertiser dollars over the slant of the content. For example, editorial staff in a form of media dependent on ad sales for revenue, such as a newspaper, might hesitate to run a story in which an interviewee criticized the business practices of one of the newspaper’s ad clients, let’s say, such as The Gap, for fear that the client would cancel ads and therefore forfeit revenues (289-292).

3.) “Sourcing mass-media news.” Because media outlets are limited in budgets and staff numbers to gather news, they rely on a set group of “official,” “available” sources, such as press agents from the U.S. armed forces, church and special interest groups and government officials. Collecting news from these sources inherently allows the debasement of objectivity, for information provided comes from the vantage of the sources and is most likely slated to protect the source’s own best interests. (292-298)

4.) “Flak and the enforcers.” Flak is the negative responses generated sometimes by advertisers, the government, religious interests, other media outlets, etc. in response to statements or programs generated by a media source. For example, an editorial run in a newspaper deriding The Gap for abusing its workers in unregulated sweatshops. Flak could be the corporation’s response to the editorial in the form of scolding, writing a response column denying the abuses, or withdrawing the purchase of pre-negotiated advertising space. Flak can not only tarnish a media outlet’s reputation and hurt subscription numbers or affect viewership, it can cost actual dollars if/when advertisers withdraw ads in response to flak fallout. (298-300, 302-304)

5. “Anticommunism…” as fervor and national religion. Herman and Chomsky show how making examples of the communist plight can be set in motion to instill fear of anything or anyone who is perceived as different, pro-Socialist, or critical of Capitalism (i.e. dissidents) (300-302).

Herman and Chomsky conclude by defining who uses propaganda models and for what reasons. For example, they cite the presses failure to cover the torture of Turkish political prisoners and break up of trade unions in Turkey in 1980 because of a concealed U.S. government interest in supporting the “martial-law” state in Turkey (302). Conversely, Herman and Chomsky discuss the way the American press jumped to cover rights violations of Polish trade unions at a time under Reagan’s presidency when the U.S. government wanted to appear pro-business and pro-Free Trade (303).

Again, as in the Horkheimer/Adorno reading, those in power, or those who held the greatest wealth would be at the reins of a propaganda campaign. Samely, the filterization of information and the ad hominem forced adherence to a culture standard lies in the hands of those with the greatest power and wealth, who stand to benefit the most, from controlled responses of the general public (and preordained, orchestrated buying patterns).

I can see that some people are having a difficult time understanding this, so let's spell this out as clearly as I can:

Since we socialists can't seem to agree on even the colour of shit, there are about as many different interpretations of socialism as there are socialists.  But the one thing that we have in common (along with some anarchists such as Noam Chomsky) is that we believe that the state can (and should) be used for a time to curtail the power of capitalists, to remove them from their position of ridiculous power and to redress the gross imbalance in wealth that they have accumulated for themselves while 18 million people (3 times 9/11) die globally every year due to poverty.

Fascists on the other hand believe in using the power of the state to preserve and enhance the power of capitalists (see, for instance, the collusion between Nazi Germany and the infamous Krupp family or Mussolini's Corporatist régime) at the expense of workers.

I know, I know, it's hard.  They both deal with the state AND capitalists!  It's so confusing.  But here's an easy mnemonic device to help remember the difference between the two for next time.

Saying that Bush's fascist move this week is actually the same thing as "socialism" just because it involves the state and capitalists is a bit like saying that cancer-causing cigarettes are the same thing as chemotherapy because they both involve cancer and its spread.

~

See Also:

More proof that liberal economics is a radical right-wing ideology

Now, the Human Rights Watch group has issued a scathing, but an apparently disingenuous, report on human rights in Venezuela.  Below, I cut and paste part of an article that answers some of the myths in the HRW report, but first think.   Is there any country that elects a leader by landslides that takes away their rights, or that commits human rights abuses?  Truly, only in the USA, under what has become an Orwellian society, do we continually elect leaders that abuse our human rights.  In the rest of the world that doesn't happen in free and fair elections.  Check out the talking points below:

MYTH: "Discrimination on political grounds has been a defining feature of the Chávez presidency."  

FACT: Human Rights Watch deems the 2002 coup against the elected government "the most dramatic setback" for human rights in Venezuela in the last decade, but criticizes President Chavez's own public condemnations of the unconstitutional overthrow as examples of "political discrimination" against the opposition. On the contrary, President Chávez last year pardoned political opponents who backed a failed 2002 coup against his democratically elected government. "It's a matter of turning the page," Chávez said. "We want there to be a strong ideological and political debate -- but in peace."[i] In this spirit, the government has often welcomed input from the opposition, for example, inviting the leaders of student protests to address the National Assembly.

MYTH: The Chávez administration has an "open disregard for the principle of separation of powers - specifically an independent judiciary."

FACT: Human Rights Watch wrote in an earlier report that "When President Chávez became president in 1999, he inherited a judiciary that had been plagued for years by influence-peddling, political interference, and, above all, corruption...In terms of public credibility, the system was bankrupt." Under Chávez though, Human Rights Watch admitted that access to justice in Venezuela was improved by the expansion of the court system.[ii] Also, the World Bank found that "the [judicial] reform effort has made significant progress - the STJ [Supreme Court] is more modern and efficient."[iii] Testament to the strength of democratic institutions in Venezuela is the ability of the National Electoral Council to uphold decisions unfavorable to lawmakers, such as the "no" victory in the December 2007 referendum on constitutional reforms.

MYTH: "[Chávez] has significantly shifted the balance of the mass media in the government's favor... by stacking the deck against critical opposition outlets."

FACT: As was true at the time of the 2002 coup against Chávez, Venezuela's media is dominated by opposition voices. The "anti-government" media mentioned by Human Rights Watch still maintains the largest share of the nation's public airwaves, and their frequently extreme criticisms of the government have included calling for the overthrow of elected leaders (as in 2002). There are no major pro-government newspapers in Venezuela. The new government-funded television and radio outlets, such as TVes - Venezuela's first public broadcaster - and TeleSur - a regional network with support from multiple countries - have a much smaller reach than the private outlets. Furthermore, the government has never censored or "shut down" opposition media. The private channel RCTV faced a non-renewal of its broadcast license due to persistent legal violations including inciting political violence, but the station easily made the switch to cable.

MYTH: The Chávez government "has sought to remake the country's labor movement in ways that violate basic principles of freedom of association."

FACT: The Chavez government has actively promoted the formation of labor unions and bargaining by organized labor, but has not co-opted this sector. The National Workers' Union (UNT) was founded in April 2003 by workers supportive of government policies. In 2008, the government responded to an ongoing labor dispute between steel workers and the foreign-owned firm Sidor by intervening to negotiate a settlement, and when this was found to be impossible, the government reasserted state control over the Sidor plant in response to worker demands. The steel workers themselves were also allowed to purchase a share of the business themselves and thereby assert more control over the company.

MYTH: The Chávez government has pursued an "aggressively adversarial approach to local rights advocates and civil society organizations."

FACT: The Chávez administration has encouraged local leaders to create community councils that let localities identify and address their own problems - from garbage collection to school construction. The concept comes from the belief that local groups know what is lacking and know what they want for their communities. Community councils democratize local government and give people the funding and capacity to make decisions for themselves. Also subject to local decision-making are many of the social missions that are designed to help reduce poverty in the most marginalized areas of the country. Health clinics, educational centers, subsidized food markets and other initiatives rely on local volunteers and are accountable to these communities.

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/3812

Truly, this must be part of the drive to demonize Chavez and his government and eventually overthrow him in a coup or civil war, much like Allende was overthrown in Chile in 1973.  This sort of move makes perfect sense if one is familiar with such works as "Deterring Democracy," by Noam Chomsky, or "Confessions of an Economic Hitman," by John Perkins (I think).

The US needs this sort of demonization in order to drum up domestic support for its future actions so that when it removes Chavez, it will be supported by the general populace of the USA.  My job is to let my little voice out so that some might see what our secret combinations are up to.

Mas eu acho que um Choco Chomsky venderia mais; além de soar muito mais crocante, teriam ainda as hordas de lingüistas que comprariam só pela graça. Mas não seria o único produto!

Na verdade eu gostaria que esse achocolatado se chamasse Soft Palate. Mas não importa, porque de todos os produtos feitos de chocolate, o meu favorito continua sendo aquele em que os segmentos já vêm discernidos!

Ce film n’est pas encore sorti en salles mais on peut l’acheter en DVD en écrivant à Les Mutins de Pangée - BP 60104 - 75862 Paris cedex 18 - contact@lesmutins.org ou en se rendant sur le site : www.lesmutins.org <http://www.lesmutins.org> .

Cet article paraîtra dans la revue Ni patrie ni frontières et se trouve sur le site mondialisme.org

http://www.mondialisme.org/spip.php?article1186

Soyons clairs, dans le titre de ce film ce qui compte c’est beaucoup plus les mots « et Compagnie » que « Chomsky » . En effet, je n’ai pas minuté, mais son interview ne doit pas durer plus de 20 ou 30 minutes sur les 100 minutes du film. Ceux qui veulent connaître les opinions de Norman Baillargeon, de Daniel Mermet ou de Jean Bricmont sur Chomsky ont plus de chances d’être satisfaits que ceux qui croyaient voir vraiment un film composé essentiellement d’interviews de…Chomsky.

De plus l’objet et le fil conducteur de ce documentaire sont un peu confus, tant sur le plan technique que politique. Ce documentaire est construit autour d’une interview radiodiffusée de Chomsky par Daniel Mermet, interview entrecoupée d’ images ou d’extraits hétérogènes de films et d’interviews (1) pour illustrer soit les idées du « plus grand intellectuel vivant » (sic) qui « travaille une centaine d’heures par semaine » (resic), un penseur « entre Bertrand Russel et le sous-commandant Marcos » (waouh ! pourquoi pas entre Marx et Jésus ?), soit d’interventions de disciples de ce grand « anarchiste socialiste ».

Mermet fait d’ailleurs partie de ces journalistes qui mélangent un peu tout par ignorance, ou alors (je ne le connais pas assez pour trancher) qui pratiquent délibérément des amalgames. Ainsi il déclare, dans le commentaire en voix off du film, que les défenseurs des mouvements de libération nationale des années 60 auraient tourné leur veste et seraient déçus parce que les gouvernements issus de ces mêmes mouvements « obligent leurs femmes à porter le voile ».

Cette affirmation est doublement fausse :

– d’une part, on pouvait parfaitement, dans les années 60, lutter pour l’indépendance des colonies sans pour autant accepter de « porter les valises » des futurs exploiteurs de mouvements comme le FNL, le FLN, le PAIGC, le FRELIMO, etc. Peu d’hommes et de femmes anticolonialistes ont été lucides, mais on ne peut cacher et nier leur existence, leurs écrits et leurs actions (visiblement cela ne fait pas partie de la culture affichée de Mermet et Bricmont) ;

– d’autre part, à l’époque, même si la dimension religieuse, musulmane était déjà présente dans les luttes de libération nationale, notamment en Algérie, elle n’avait pas du tout pris la même ampleur qu’aujourd’hui (*). Cette affirmation est particulièrement vicieuse car elle sous-entend qu’il faudrait, si l’on est un authentique anticolonialiste, accepter inconditionnellement l’obscurantisme religieux quand il domine un mouvement de libération nationale. Mais elle a l’avantage d’expliquer pourquoi une certaine gauche (radicale ou pas) soutient aujourd’hui le Hamas et le Hezbollah.

La présentation de Mermet est bien typique de la pensée stalinienne ou tiersmondiste (souvent la différence entre les deux est très mince) selon laquelle : « Soit tu es avec moi, tu me soutiens sans exprimer la moindre opinion et tu fermes ta gueule ; soit tu me critiques et tu es du côté de l’impérialisme. »

On retrouve là d’ailleurs une des grandes faiblesses des livres de Chomsky et de ce film : notre distingué linguiste est toujours extrêmement discret sur les tendances bureaucratiques, étatistes voire totalitaires des mouvements de libération nationale. Lorsque, dans le film, il critique avec raison les bolcheviks, Chomsky ne se rend pas compte qu’à l’époque (en 1917 et dans les années suivantes) ses critiques auraient été dénoncées comme « faisant le jeu de l’impérialisme »… Il ne s’en rend pas compte, mais il adopte exactement, vis-à-vis des mouvements de libération nationale ou des gouvernements tiersmondistes et pseudo-antiimpérialistes du Sud actuels, le profil bas que les bolcheviks ou leurs partisans, lui auraient imposé.

Dans un article du Monde diplomatique d’avril 2001 (« La mauvaise réputation ») Bricmont a écrit :

« Dans les mouvements anti-impérialistes dominait une mentalité de “prise de parti”. Il fallait choisir son camp : pour l’Occident ou pour les révolutions du tiers-monde. Une telle attitude est étrangère à Chomsky, rationaliste au sens classique du terme. Non pas qu’il se place “au-dessus de la mêlée” – rares sont les intellectuels plus engagés que lui -, mais son engagement est fondé sur des principes comme la vérité et la justice, et non sur le soutien à un camp historique et social, quel qu’il soit. »

Et il répète exactement la même chose dans le film. Ce point de vue est aussi le nôtre, malheureusement on ne le retrouve pas vraiment exposé en détail dans les livres de Chomsky ni dans le film, tellement notre auteur se concentre sur une seule chose : la dénonciation (juste) de l’impérialisme américain. Ce n’est pas un hasard si Chomsky est cité par Chavez, icône de l’anti-impérialisme à sens unique. Et ce n’est pas un hasard non plus si Chomsky lui a renvoyé l’ascenseur en ces termes : “Je m’intéresse beaucoup à ses idées politiques. Je pense que beaucoup d’entre elles sont constructives. » (New York Times, 22 septembre 2006). Et d’ajouter, argument massue sans doute, que Chavez a « remporté 6 élections dont le fonctionnement avait été étroitement surveillé » (au sens de « vérifié »).

Il est amusant de noter qu’un intellectuel qui a bâti toute sa carrière et sa renommée, dans le champ politique en tout cas, sur la façon dont les médias et le pouvoir « fabriquent le consentement » de la population, ne s’intéresse absolument pas au fonctionnement de la propagande chaviste étatique et para-étatique…

Chomsky est donc bien dans une logique de « camp historique et social » (en fait purement diplomatique, car il y existe bel et bien un "camp de la classe ouvrière", un troisième camp, totalement différent des camps diplomatiques officiels), contrairement à ce que prétend Bricmont.

Si Chomsky et ses disciples se livrent dans ce film à de nombreuses affirmations péremptoires et contestables, nous n’en donnerons que quatre exemples.

Les fondements du nazisme

Lorsque Chomsky explique que le pouvoir du nazisme a été construit avec des « mots simples » diffusés par le « ministère de la Propagande » (donc après 1933) et qu’il s’agissait pour Hitler de « terroriser l’opinion » en jouant sur des « sentiments et des peurs », il passe sous silence ce qu’ont été les activités concrètes du NSDAP et des SA durant les années précédant la nomination de Hitler au poste de chancelier en janvier 1933 : attaque de meetings des partis communiste et socialiste, meurtres de militants de gauche, attaques de syndicats et de locaux militants, recrutement de dizaines de milliers d’hommes de main, formation de corps paramilitaires, noyautage des syndicats, de la police et de l’armée, tentative de putsch, etc.

Chomsky passe également sous silence ce qui s’est passé durant l’année 1933 et qui ne peut se réduire à quelques techniques habiles de conditionnement des esprits : création du camp de concentration de Dachau, autodafés de livres, attaques contre des magasins juifs, interdiction des partis politiques, généralisation des actions violentes et criminelles des SA, etc. Ceux qui croient, comme Chomsky et ses disciples dans ce film, que le nazisme a réussi à s’imposer à la population allemande principalement parce qu’il aurait mené une propagande habile inspirée des techniques de la communication publicitaire américaine feraient bien de lire les écrits de Daniel Guérin – un communiste libertaire, d’ailleurs : Fascisme et grand capital et La peste brune.

Cela dit, on comprend que Chomsky et ses disciples actuels sous-estiment le pouvoir de la violence réelle des nazis, leur rôle foncièrement anti-ouvrier et anti-révolutionnaire, leur fonction d’agent de destruction physique et matérielle du mouvement ouvrier le plus important d’Europe, et qu’ils surestiment le pouvoir symbolique des médias de l’époque, même si cela les conduit à une analyse complètement anachronique. En effet, une telle opération intellectuelle fondée sur l’escamotage des mécanismes réels du nazisme correspond à une vision du monde et à une sensibilité très actuelles.

Chomsky et ses disciples expriment en effet ce que pensent beaucoup de jeunes altermondialistes, gauchistes ou libertaires, qui aujourd’hui voient le fascisme ou le totalitarisme partout (cf. le ridicule « Sarkozy = Vichy 2 ») au point de banaliser totalement ces termes, et croient que la propagande médiatique serait toute-puissante au point de façonner la réalité sociale et les comportements sociaux. (Notons que Chomsky est parfois un peu plus subtil, comme nous l’explique Bricmont, quand il affirme que ce sont surtout les « classes moyennes » – en clair la petite-bourgeoisie salariée – qui gobent le mieux la propagande merdiatique et que les prolétaires sont doués d’un sens critique bien supérieur à celui des intellos ou des bobos.) Les comparaisons qu’établit Chomsky entre fascisme et démocratie, ou entre totalitarisme et démocratie sont extrêmement partielles et fragiles car il ne s’intéresse qu’aux mécanismes (symboliques) de la propagande, et pas à la violence quotidienne et massive (pas du tout symbolique, celle-là) que mobilisent les partis fascistes ou totalitaires avant d’arriver au pouvoir, puis ensuite pour garder le pouvoir.

Très récemment, le 16 septembre 2008, le massacre de paysans à Cobija, dans le département de Pando, en Bolivie, organisé avec l’aide de mercenaires étrangers, mais aussi de policiers et de cadres de la préfecture locale, tous opposés à Evo Morales, nous rappelle encore une fois que le pouvoir repose fondamentalement sur l’usage concret de la force matérielle. Pas sur des mots, des sentiments de peur et des techniques de lavage de cerveaux. Ce deuxième élément est secondaire dans l’explication de l’avènement et de la perpétuation d’un système dictatorial ou totalitaire.

La « préface » de Chomsky au livre de Faurisson

Sur le débat qui fait rage depuis 28 ans à propos de la pseudo- « préface » de Chomsky (en fait une lettre aux éditeurs non destinée à la publication, selon Chomsky ), Daniel Mermet nous livre son cruel dilemme avec une désarmante naïveté : « C’est terrible pour nous car il y a deux personnes en qui on a confiance Vidal-Naquet et Chomsky. » On a là une bonne illustration de la paresse intellectuelle, du suivisme, de beaucoup de gens de gauche ou d’extrême gauche. Avoir une pensée critique ce n’est pas « faire confiance » aveuglément à X ou à Y, mais se forger SOI-MÊME une opinion, qu’elle que soit la sympathie ou l’admiration qu’on a pour le talent, les connaissances ou les qualités personnelles d’Untel ou Unetelle. Or, il est évident que Vidal-Naquet a raison dans ce film quand il dit que Chomsky refuse de reconnaître qu’il a commis une erreur (2) en accordant sa confiance à des individus comme Pierre Guillaume et Serge Thion. D’autant plus que Thion explique lui-même comment il a trompé Chomsky, dans le film « Manufacturing Consent : Noam Chomsky, les médias et les illusions nécessaires » de Mark Achbar et Peter Wintonick réalisé en 1993.

On peut respecter et comprendre la position de Chomsky sur le droit absolu à la liberté d’expression, y compris des négationnistes, mais dans ce film son argumentation est bancale. Selon lui, « entrer dans le jeu des négationnistes c’est leur donner de l’importance » (et donc il ne faut en aucun cas discuter avec eux ou même réfuter leurs pseudo-arguments). Très bien. Mais alors on ne comprend pas pourquoi signer une pétition et engager une correspondance avec des négationnistes ne serait pas… leur « donner de l’importance », quand on est un intellectuel aussi « prestigieux » et « mondialement connu » que lui ! Les négationnistes ont été nettement plus malins et retors que Chomsky sur ce coup-là. Il s’est fait avoir comme un débutant et n’est même pas capable de le reconnaître 28 ans plus tard… En soi, ce n’est pas grave, mais ce qui est inquiétant c’est que ses disciples continuent à défendre leur maître sur ce qui n’est quand même qu’un point de détail. On peut douter de leur sens critique sur des questions plus importantes.

On remarquera aussi que le même Chomsky qui trouve normal et juste de défendre le droit d’expression des négationnistes (individus et idées qu’il abhorre) est scandalisé par la publication de prétendues « caricatures racistes contre des musulmans » en France. Décidément, en 1980 comme en 2008, le « grand intellectuel prestigieux » Chomsky est bien mal informé. Les caricatures de Mahomet parues dans Charlie Hebdo n’étaient pas des caricatures « racistes » , mais d’abord et avant tout des caricatures dirigées contre une interprétation politique de l’islam et contre la religion… Ce n’est pas du tout la même chose. Et le prétendre c’est vraiment ne pas faire preuve d’un grand « rationalisme »…

Le Cambodge

Dans le film, Chomsky prétend que les méthodes sanguinaires des Khmers rouges auraient été une réponse à la barbarie des bombardements américains. Il explique que les Khmers rouges étaient un groupuscule de 3 000 personnes. A l’époque, 3 000 hommes armés (en fait plutôt 4000), c’était loin d’être un groupuscule insignifiant dans un pays de 9 millions d’habitants : imaginons dans la France actuelle de 66 millions d’habitants une guérilla rassemblant 30 000 combattants soutenus militairement par deux puissants Etats voisins. Personne ne qualifierait sérieusement un tel mouvement de « groupuscule ». Chomsky affirme que c’est à cause des bombardements américains que les Khmers rouges auraient recruté des dizaines de milliers de « paysans en colère, enragés par ces bombardements », et que le tout aurait ainsi engendré une « spirale de violence ».

Chomsky est bien mal informé sur les staliniens cambodgiens (3). Autant on doit lui rendre hommage pour avoir dénoncé le silence de la presse occidentale et les complicités américano-françaises sur le génocide du Timor oriental, génocide qui commença la même année que le génocide cambodgien (1975), autant on doit souligner son ignorance de ce qu’étaient les Khmers rouges et de leurs origines politiques. Les dirigeants staliniens cambodgiens (Pol Pot, Ieng Sary et Khieu Samphan), loin d’être des « paysans en colère », étaient des fils de bourgeois dont une partie avaient fait leurs études supérieures en France dans les années 50. Dès 1962, ils participèrent à la guérilla du FNL sud-vietnamien et furent donc formés militairement et politiquement par les staliniens vietnamiens. Ils furent ensuite rejoints en 1970 par des centaines d’intellectuels cambodgiens des villes qui renflouèrent l’appareil des futurs Khmers rouges. Toutes les idées politiques et les méthodes d’organisation du Parti communiste cambodgien viennent du Nord-Vietnam et de la Chine (notamment celle de la pseudo-Révolution culturelle). Leur science militaire et leurs armes provenaient du Vietnam et de la Chine. Il est donc faux d’affirmer que leurs pratiques génocidaires ne seraient qu’une réaction de défense anti-impérialiste (même si, au niveau événementiel, ce sont les bombardements américains qui ont poussé une partie de la population dans les bras de la guérilla). Les pratiques génocidaires ont été préparées par l’organisation interne de la guérilla. Elles sont le fruit d’un projet idéologique, un produit dérivé du stalinisme (4) et du maoisme.

Ne pas l’expliquer, se contenter de dénoncer la barbarie de l’impérialisme américain (démarche indispensable, bien sûr), c’est s’empêcher de comprendre les sources du totalitarisme stalinien. Rien de sert de critiquer, comme le fait Chomsky, les bolcheviks des années 20, si c’est pour dissimuler ou sous-estimer les origines des mécanismes d’un système fondé sur un Parti-Etat totalitaire 50 ans plus tard. Il existe bien sûr des différences quantitatives et qualitatives entre l’URSS de Lénine, celle de Staline et les régimes de Mao et de Pol-Pot. Mais il est difficile de nier que l’idéologie et la pratique dites « marxistes-léninistes » ont été au centre de la construction de ces Etats.

Bricmont l’Etat et les « ex »

Dans le film et dans l’un des « plus » du DVD, Bricmont essaie de nous expliquer la nouveauté renversante de la pensée chomskienne en citant les noms « peu connus » (dit-il) de Rudolf Rocker et de Diego Abad de Santillan (5). Il se garde bien de nous expliquer les liens précis entre ces deux penseurs anarchistes et Chomsky. Il se contente de nous laisser entendre que LUI il sait. Une attitude typiquement élitiste : en anglais, on appelle cela du « name dropping »…Du saupoudrage chic et choc de noms connus ou mystérieux ….

Bricmont prétend que Chomsky serait mal vu dans l’intelligentsia française à cause de l’hostilité d’ « ex-trotskystes, ex-maoistes, ex-communistes » (on notera qu’il ne dit pas « ex-staliniens »). Bricmont est fort mal informé ou alors très mal intentionné.

Ceux qui ont le plus attaqué Chomsky (BHL, Finkielkraut et Cie) n’ont jamais été trotskystes, et ce n’est pas « l’extrême gauche » qui mène des campagnes contre Chomsky (bien au contraire ses livres sont généralement encensés de façon totalement acritique par les gauchistes de tout poil), mais la droite « intellectuelle », la gauche ultramodérée et des journalistes ignorants (un pléonasme). Où l’on voit qu’on peut être un mec vachement cultivé comme Bricmont et lancer des accusations infondées et confuses contre l’extrême gauche et les trotskystes…

Bricmont veut nous faire croire que Chomsky serait un penseur original, « inclassable », parce qu’il explique que les « multinationales sont les organisations les plus proches des systèmes totalitaires ». Franchement, on ne voit pas ce que cette critique du fonctionnement du capitalisme a d’original. Marx comparait déjà le fonctionnement d’une usine à celui de l’armée ou d’une caserne. Et il dénonçait déjà la « discipline de fabrique ». Il est évident que la constitution d’entreprises multinationales ne pouvait que renforcer ces tendances que Marx avait déjà identifiées 100 ans avant Chomsky.

Par contre, quand Chomsky prétend que, contre les multinationales, les gens n’ont dans l’immédiat qu’une « seule défense, un seul outil c’est l’Etat », non seulement il confond la défense (absurde) de l’Etat bourgeois avec la défense et l’extension constante (indispensable) des droits démocratiques, mais il énonce une banalité réformiste plus que centenaire. Ringarde, quoi…

D’après Bricmont, Chomsky serait « trop original pour faire partie d’un courant » . (On remarquera au passage que, lorsqu’il parle de « courants » , il parle des courants à la mode dans la petite-bourgeoisie intellectuelle, notamment française, pas des courants du mouvement ouvrier, ou des courants du mouvement anarchiste qui visiblement sont moins dignes d’être cités que Lacan, Foucault, Althusser ou Heidegger). Il illustre son propos en utilisant la métaphore suivante : « la cage » (de l’Etat) « nous protège des fauves » que sont les multinationales. On est confondu devant une telle naïveté politique de la part de théoriciens si « originaux » et « novateurs ».

Il existe une interaction telle entre les sommets de l’Etat et les sommets des multinationales que l’on ne voit pas comment la tête de l’Etat (les gouvernements, les hauts fonctionnaires) pourrait constituer le moindre bouclier contre les manigances, manipulations et crimes des multinationales. Quant aux petits fonctionnaires et aux cadres intermédiaires de la fonction publique, en général, ils obéissent et n’opposent pas de résistance aux circulaires, consignes et directives qu’on leur distribue. On le constate déjà aujourd’hui, dans la France "démocratique", dans les préfectures et la majorité des services sociaux vis-à-vis des sans-papiers. On imagine quelle serait l’attitude de la majorité de ces fonctionnaires face à un gouvernement dictatorial ou fasciste.

À moins d’être un partisan des idées de Bernstein, ce social-démocrate allemand de la fin du XIXe siècle… Mais alors, Chomsky ne serait pas vraiment « le plus grand penseur du XXe siècle »….comme veut nous le faire croire Bricmont.

Les critiques ci-dessus exprimées ne doivent pas vous décourager d’aller voir ou d’acheter ce film plutôt confus, mais plein de bonnes intentions. Il souligne involontairement comment les ambiguités, les naïvetés et les lieux communs de l’idéologie citoyenniste et altermondialiste (6) coïncident si bien avec les livres et propos de Chomsky…. En cela, au moins, il est utile.

Y.C.

16/9/2008

* Sur le site de la CNT-AIT un internaute s’oppose à cette affirmation en apportant les précisions suivantes : « La déclaration du 1er novembre du FLN est sans ambiguité. Le premier objectif de sa lutte est : « L’Indépendance nationale par :1) La restauration de l’Etat algérien souverain, démocratique et social dans le cadre des principes islamiques. »(http://www.elmouradia.dz/francais/symbole/textes/1nov54.htm) « Depuis l’indépendance, l’Islam est religion d’Etat ... l’Algérie n’a jamais été un état "laique" de ce que je sache ... La constitution de 96 définit « l’Islam, l’Arabité et l’Amazighité » comme « composantes fondamentales » de l’identité du peuple algérien et le pays comme « terre d’Islam, partie intégrante du Grand Maghreb, méditerranéen et africain. ) « De même l’emblème du FLN, devenu depuis celui de l’Algérie, est un drapeau en partie vert (l’islam) avec un croissant (rouge certes). « Le mouvement des Ulema algériens a su négocier avec le FLN (plus influencé par le nationalisme, concept "occidental" opposé à la oumma islamique) pour prendre sa part du gâteau dans la lutte pour le pouvoir dans le camp des indépendantistes (alors que les rapports avec les "progressistes" de Ferrat Abbas et le MNA étaient le mépris affiché ... Liauzu, L’Europe et l’Afrique méditerranéenne de Suez (1869) à nos jours, Editions Complexe, Questions du xxème siècle, Bruxelles, 1994) « De même, les créateurs du FIS sont d’anciens du FLN ... (http://www.humanite.fr/1997-07-16_Articles_-Abassi-Madani-du-FLN-au-FIS) « La dimension religieuse musulmane était déjà très présente dans la lutte du FLN, mais d’une part il se peut qu’elle ait été dissimilée aux "porteurs de valises", pour qu’ils entendent ce qu’ils avaient envie d’entendre (Marcos fait exactement pareil aujourd’hui, ressortant des fables aux occidentaux émerveillés de sa poésie ...). Et d’autre part, on était alors en pleine époque du socialisme réel triomphant, et il se peut que à l’époque on voyait la religion comme une survivance de vieilles traditions qui de toute façon ne tarderaient pas à succomber avec le progrès social et scientifique amené par l’indépendance. »

Je n’ai pas de désaccords importants avec les remarques reproduites ci-dessus. Je maintiens simplement que la question religieuse n’était pas centrale dans la lutte du FLN dans les années 50, et qu’il faut différencier le FLN de l’islam politique actuel, au risque de commettre un anachronisme et d’affirmer qu’en terre d’islam tous les chats ont toujours été... verts. (Y.C.)

1. Dont des interviews sans intérêt sur des journalistes français qui se prétendent « parfaitement libres » et une déclaration hallucinante d’Arno Klarsfeld. Mais n’était-il pas démago et trop facile d’utiliser les propos de journalistes ou des présentateurs de la télé pas vraiment connus pour leur subtilité politique ou ceux d’un épouvantail UMP mou du bulbe (Klarsfeld) qui considère que « les dictatures tranquilles ne posent pas de problèmes » (sic) ? Qui peut-être mystifié par de avocats affichés du système ?

2. Pour plus de détails cf. http://www.anti-rev.org/textes/VidalNaquet81a/

3. Il est d’ailleurs tout aussi mal informé quand il prétend dans ce film qu’il n’y aurait pas eu de manifestations en France contre la première guerre d’Indochine. Comme l’écrit l’historien Daniel Hémery : « A partir de janvier 1949 - l’on est au cœur de la guerre froide – [le PCF] lance sa première grande campagne de masse contre la “sale guerre” et organise grâce au soutien de la CGT manifestations et grèves ouvrières sur les mot d’ordre “ plus un homme, plus un sou ”, “rapatriement du corps expéditionnaire ”, “ paix au Vietnam ”. Cette campagne a eu un réel écho dans la classe ouvrière qui s’explique notamment parce qu’elle ouvre une perspective de rechange au combat ouvrier après la grave défaite des grandes “grèves rouges ” de 1947-1948. Elle culmine en 1949 et au début de 1950 avec les multiples refus des dockers des ports français et algériens, à l’exception de Cherbourg, de charger et décharger les navires et des cheminots de transporter le matériel de guerre par chemin de fer. » Cf. http://www.europe-solidaire.org/spip.php ?article5086

4. On oublie qu’en 1976 le Parti communiste français fit éditer un livre aux Editions sociales Cambodge, l’autre sourire de Jérôme et Jocelyne Steinbach pour répondre aux critiques contre les polpotistes.

5. Ceux qui voudraient mieux connaître Rudolf Rocker pourront lire le numéro spécial que lui a consacré la revue Itinéraire ainsi que Nationalisme et Culture (Editions libertaires et CNT Editions) et Les soviets trahis par les bolchéviks (Editions Spartacus) Quant à Diego Abad de Santillan ils pourront se reporter au numéro 10 de la revue À contretemps de décembre 2002, intégralement sur le Net. http://www.plusloin.org/acontretemps/n10/index.htm

6. Parmi lesquels des poncifs comme « la lutte contre l’islamisme a remplacé la lutte contre le communisme » ; « pour provoquer une guerre avec un pays comme l’Iran il suffit de monter quelques provocations », etc. Il s’agit généralement de demi-vérités qui demanderaient chaque fois à être méticuleusement démontées, mais nous n’en avons pas le temps ici. Disons seulement qu’elles ne font que perpétrer l’interprétation du monde par les staliniens soviétiques pendant la guerre froide (c’est d’ailleurs pourquoi cette vision est si facilement acceptée et diffusée par les post-staliniens de tout poil) : d’un côté il y aurait le bloc de la paix (les altermondialistes et les Etats du Sud qui dénoncent en paroles l’impérialisme américain) et de l’autre le bloc de la guerre (l’Axe « américano-sioniste »). Comme s’il n’existait aucune puissance impérialiste secondaire en dehors des Etats-Unis (et… d’Israël !!!), et aucun Etat aspirant à devenir une puissance impérialiste majeure y compris dans le Sud…

Aghast at the atrocities committed by US forces invading the Philippines, and the rhetorical flights about liberation and noble intent that routinely accompany crimes of state, Mark Twain threw up his hands at his inability to wield his formidable weapon of satire. The immediate object of his frustration was the renowned General Funston. “No satire of Funston could reach perfection,” Twain lamented, “because Funston occupies that summit himself... [he is] satire incarnated.”

It is a thought that often comes to mind, again in August 2008 during the Georgia-Ossetia-Russia war. George Bush, Condoleezza Rica and other dignitaries solemnly invoked the sanctity of the United Nations, warning that Russia could be excluded from international institutions “by taking actions in Georgia that are inconsistent with” their principles. The sovereignty and territorial integrity of all nations must be rigorously honored, they intoned – “all nations,” that is, apart from those that the US chooses to attack: Iraq, Serbia, perhaps Iran, and a list of others too long and familiar to mention.

Read it:

Towards a Second Cold War?

Kepakarannya di bidang linguistik ini mengantarkannya merambah ke studi politik. Chomsky telah menulis lebih dari 30 buku politik, dengan beragam tema. Dan sejak 1965 hingga kini, dia menjelma menjadi salah satu tokoh intelektual yang paling kritis terhadap kebijakan luar negeri Amerika Serikat. Buku-buku bertema politiknya kerap dianggap terlalu radikal untuk diresensi atau ditampilkan media AS.

Selama lima dasawarsa ini, Chomsky telah menjalin kontrak secara langsung dengan lebih dari 60 penerbit di seluruh dunia dan sudah menulis lebih dari 30 buku bertema politik. Dan baris-baris kalimat dalam tulisannya muncul di lebih dari 100 buku, mulai dari karya ilmiah tentang linguistik, politik, hingga kumpulan kuliah, wawancara dan esai.

Tidak banyak barangkali sosok penulis best seller yang bersikap seperti seperti Noam Chomsky. Bagi dia, menulis buku adalah perpanjangan dari aktivitas politiknya. Bila sebagian besar penulis menghabiskan energinya mencemaskan tentang promosi dan penjualan buku mereka, tidaklah demikian dengan Chomsky. Kritikus yang aktif mengomentari kebijakan politik luar negeri AS ini, selalu menolak melakukan tur standar untuk mempromosikan bukunya. Chomsky bahkan tidak begitu peduli dengan urusan uang muka royalti, pasal-pasal dalam kontrak, dan hak-hak yang diberikan penerbit.

Noam Chomsky juga disebut-sebut sebagai Galilleo Galillei atau Rene Descartes masa depan. empat ribu penghargaan atas karyanya muncul dalam daftar