Noam Chomsky:
Suppose I get on "Nightline". I'm given two minutes and I say Quaddafi is a terrorist or Khomeini is a murderer... I don't need any evidence, everybody just nods. On the other hand, suppose you say something that just isn't regurgitating conventional pieties... Suppose you say
[
clips of Noam from other interviews]
Noam Chomsky:
"The biggest international terror operations that are known are the ones that are run out of Washington", or suppose, you say "What happened in the 1980s is the US government was driven underground", suppose I say "The US is invading South Vietnam," as it was, or "The best political leaders are the ones that are lazy and corrupt", "If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war american president would have been hanged.", "The Bible is one of the most genocidal books in the total canon.", "Education is a system of imposed ignorance", "There is no more morality in world affairs, fundamentally, then there was at the time of Genghis Khan..."
[
Back to speech]
Noam Chomsky:
People will, quite reasonably, expect to know what you mean. Why did you say that ?... You'd better have a lot of evidence... But you can't give evidence if you're stuck with concision. That's the genius of this structural constraint. And in my view, people from Nightline and so on, if they were smarter, if they were better propagandists, they would let dissidents on, let them on more in fact. The reason is, that they would sound like they're from Neptune.
Share this quote