Friends: I couldn't agree more about the value of this lecture. -- Chomsky's use of understatement both in the style of his delivery and in his substance is quite stunning here, even for Chomsky.

 

Also see below, where I've provided several very brief transcribed excerpts from this lecture.  (And by the way: I can only provide the hyperlinks to the copy of the lecture archived at YouTube.  But I believe that all of these segments correspond exactly to the segments laid out above.)

Not sure what elements of the lecture I like the most.  But you will notice that at the very start of Part 4, from its first seconds onward, Chomsky says that the Bible's use of the word 'prophet' is a "bad translation of a very obscure Hebrew word" and that "nobody knows what [the original]  means…."

I asked him what this ancient Hebrew word is. 

 

Chomsky explained:

 

"The original word in Hebrew is 'navi'. There’s also a verb 'lenabe', which means to do what a 'navi' does.  In English it's translated as 'prophet' and 'prophesy', respectively. But that's not what the 'prophets' were doing.  [They were doing what Elijah did.]  That’s why Elijah was called a 'hater of Israel' by King Ahab, the epitome of evil in the Bible.  And strikingly, the flatterers at the court -- centuries later called 'false prophets' -- are the ones who were honored and respected.  Unlike the 'prophets', who were punished.  The model for the future, virtually without exception.  If we want a modern term, it would probably be 'dissident intellectual'."

 

 

And he added: "The whole history of 'intellectuals' should be rewritten I think.  They write the history, so naturally they come out smelling like a rose.  Actually one thing I rather like about the US is that intellectuals aren't taken too seriously.  Good for the character (not that it shows much)."


David Peterson
Chicago, USA

 

 

Noam Chomsky, "Responsibility and integrity: the dilemmas we face," Utrecht, Netherlands, March 15, 2011.  (If you want to watch the question-and-answer section, see above.)

Part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hBKjs8vaO8).

 

 

Part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8bXPzlkiz0), from roughly the 5:46 or 5:47 mark on: "….the task of [Western] intellectuals is to ensure that we know about the East European dissidents -- and we pride ourselves on our heroism in supporting them.  But we don't know about the ones [victims] who we slaughtered and tortured and killed.  That's out of history, not to be remembered….Well, that's the typical task of the intellectuals back to, say, the Vietnam war."

 

 

Part 3 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJE8Ye4EzZA), from roughly the 12:17 or 12:18 mark on: "I said that the Dreyfusards -- that's when the term 'intellectuals' came into common use [ca. 1894-].    There were intellectuals prior to the Dreyfusards.  They weren't called that.  They were called something else.  And it goes back to the origins of record history.  So you go back to, say, Classical Greece.  There was a man who was made to drink the hemlock -- a death sentence -- because he committed a crime: He was corrupting the youth of Athens by challenging false gods, and that's a crime, so you get rid of him.  He was a dissident.  He was treated the way dissidents are treated…." [END PART 3.]  

 

 

Part 4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5hNPpWlRTk), from roughly the 0:04 or 0:05 mark on: "From the Biblical record, we discover that there were dissidents.  And they weren't called that, they weren't called 'intellectuals'.  They were called 'prophets'.  That's a bad translation of a very obscure Hebrew word, nobody knows what it means, but they were called 'prophets'….But if you read the Bible, they were what we would call 'dissident intellectuals'.  They were carrying out what we would call geopolitical analysis, warning that the kings were carrying out actions like alienating the Assyrians and so on, which were going to cause a disaster.  They were calling for mercy and justice for widows and orphans.  They were condemning the crimes of the evil king.  And so on.  Were they treated nicely?  Well, if you go back to the Bible and take a look, they were called 'haters of Israel' -- that's the origins of the phrase 'self-hating Jew' that you hear all the time.  It extends to 'anti-American', meaning critics of your own country.  They were driven into the desert, and imprisoned -- not treated nicely at all. 

 

"But there were intellectuals who were treated very well and honored….Centuries later they were called 'false prophets'.  But they were the flatterers at the court.  And they were doing fine.  And that's the way it works.  Flatters at the court are honored and respected.  The critics are punished one way or another.  How they're punished depends on the society.  But they're always treated badly in one way or another….This is a very persistent theme in history.  You can think-it-through and see if you can find counterexamples.  Actually there are a few counterexamples, and they're very striking.  In today's world, the only really significant counterexamples that I know of at least are in Turkey…." 

 

 

Part 4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5hNPpWlRTk), from roughly the 9:23 or 9:24 mark on: "In fact, you can pretty well determine what the role of intellectuals ought to be by taking a look at what is going on and just turning it to the opposite -- it turns out to be a pretty successful technique of analysis."

 

 

Even more astounding than Chomsky's incisive and wide-ranging intellect is his intellectual courage and honesty.  As the conservative Sidney Hook noted of Bertrand Russell, Chomsky's moral courage is absolute.   And, unlike most pundits whose views change with the winds of opportunism, Chomsky has been remarkably consistent in his values and views over an astonishingly long and fecund career.   
Most astounding of all is Chomsky's complete resistance to "elite capture."   I.e., Chomsky is a world-renowned professor at a major university; in ths sense, he is a member of the American "elite."  Few people in that position, whatever their background, can avoid adopting the attitudes and mindset prevalent in the elite. It is like regulatory "capture" by an industry like banks, where the government regulators get so close to the banks that they end up "seeing the world" in the same way as the bankers do.  
The rarity of such resistance is well illustrated, as Chomsky noted, by the example of World War 1: all the "vigorously free-thinking" and "fiercely independent-minded" scholars lined up in lock-step uniformity behind the chauvinistic, war-mongering policies of their respective governments, with a tiny handful of exceptions, such as Bertrand Russell, Rosa Luxemburg, Eugene Debs, and a grand total of about two or three others in all the belligerent states combined.  

Chomsky is remarkably consistent in his principles and maxims, from the 1960s to today. They're principles worth embodying, in my view, and this video really drives them home:

- All systems of power are illigitimate, unless they can defend themselves through reason;

- Freedom of speech is freedom of speech. There is no grey area;

- Univeral equality. In essence, treat others as you would like to be treated yourself. The same goes for nations. In fact, others should be treated at a higher standard;

- Libertarian socialism, anarchism, as a higher form of society.

The Q&A is excellent as well. Still one of the most important thinkers that I know of. This really is incredibly important viewing.

Noam, thank you so much for your contribution of your topic - "Responsibility and Integrity" - on this video.

Warmly,

 

George Bradford Patterson II

for sharing.