Noam Chomsky cytaty

Źródło: What is Anarchism?, wykład w MIT Wong Auditorium (2013) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oB9rp_SAp2U

Źródło: rozmowa Jaroslava Fiali i Markéty Vinkelhoferovej, Elity władzy nie przyniosą zmiany, krytykapolityczna.pl, 23 grudnia 2012 http://www.krytykapolityczna.pl/artykuly/swiat/20121223/chomsky-elity-wladzy-nie-przyniosa-zmiany

o amerykańskim społeczeństwie.
Źródło: Piotr Gillert, Ameryka w bagnie, „Rzeczpospolita”, 1 grudnia 2007 http://www.rp.pl/artykul/73447.html

Źródło: „Forum”, 16 maja 2011.

Źródło: Jacek Żakowski, Na lewo od ściany, polityka.pl, 6 lipca 2004 http://www.polityka.pl/spoleczenstwo/niezbednikinteligenta/11062,1,na-lewo-od-sciany.read

Źródło: rozmowa Jaroslava Fiali i Markéty Vinkelhoferovej, Elity władzy nie przyniosą zmiany, krytykapolityczna.pl, 23 grudnia 2012 http://www.krytykapolityczna.pl/artykuly/swiat/20121223/chomsky-elity-wladzy-nie-przyniosa-zmiany

Źródło: rozmowa Jaroslava Fiali i Markéty Vinkelhoferovej, Elity władzy nie przyniosą zmiany, krytykapolityczna.pl, 23 grudnia 2012 http://www.krytykapolityczna.pl/artykuly/swiat/20121223/chomsky-elity-wladzy-nie-przyniosa-zmiany

Źródło: Jacek Żakowski, Na lewo od ściany, polityka.pl, 6 lipca 2004 http://www.polityka.pl/spoleczenstwo/niezbednikinteligenta/11062,1,na-lewo-od-sciany.read

Źródło: Jacek Żakowski, Na lewo od ściany, polityka.pl, 6 lipca 2004 http://www.polityka.pl/spoleczenstwo/niezbednikinteligenta/11062,1,na-lewo-od-sciany.read

Źródło: Language and Mind, Nowy Jork 1972, s. 100, cyt. za: J. Aitichson, Ssak, który mówi. Wstęp do psycholingwistyki (ang. The Articulate Mammal), Warszawa 1971, s. 32, 33, tłum. Maria Czarnecka.

Źródło: Jacek Żakowski, Na lewo od ściany, polityka.pl, 6 lipca 2004 http://www.polityka.pl/spoleczenstwo/niezbednikinteligenta/11062,1,na-lewo-od-sciany.read

Źródło: John Lyons, Chomsky, Warszawa 1974, s. 46.

Źródło: „Tarcza antyrakietowa” jako akt wojny, 31 maja 2007, cyt. za: nowakrytyka.pl http://www.nowakrytyka.pl/spip.php?article333, tłum. Jerzy Szygiel

Źródło: Piotr Gillert, Ameryka w bagnie, „Rzeczpospolita”, 1 grudnia 2007 http://www.rp.pl/artykul/73447.html

krytyka usprawiedliwiania kolonizacji.
Źródło: Rok 501. Podbój trwa (1993)

Źródło: wyborcza.pl, 3 lutego 2002 http://wyborcza.pl/1,76498,3668908.html?as=3&startsz=x#ixzz0wJTPIQVX

Źródło: Jacek Żakowski, Na lewo od ściany, polityka.pl, 6 lipca 2004 http://www.polityka.pl/spoleczenstwo/niezbednikinteligenta/11062,1,na-lewo-od-sciany.read

Źródło: rozmowa Jaroslava Fiali i Markéty Vinkelhoferovej, Elity władzy nie przyniosą zmiany, krytykapolityczna.pl, 23 grudnia 2012 http://www.krytykapolityczna.pl/artykuly/swiat/20121223/chomsky-elity-wladzy-nie-przyniosa-zmiany

Źródło: Erozja demokracji i wizje nowego świata

Natomiast Mysie Łajno to podły żółtek.
komentarz do poglądów władz USA wobec państw niezgadzających się na amerykańską dominację, głównie Harry’ego Trumana („stary Józek” to Josif Dżugaszwili, a „Mysie Łajno” to Mao Zedong).
Hegemonia albo przetrwanie (2003)
Źródło: s. 170

Źródło: Domestic Constituencies http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199805--.htm, „Z Magazine”, maj 1998

Colorless green ideas sleep furiously. (ang.)
przykład zdania poprawnego gramatycznie, choć nie przekazującego żadnych konkretnych treści.
Źródło: Semantics. An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, oprac. Claudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger, Paul Portner, Walter de Gruyter, 2011, s. 466.

Źródło: Oliver Stone's Untold History of the United States (2012), tłum. Anna Rajca, Mirosław Filipowicz, odcinek 7

Źródło: Jacek Żakowski, Na lewo od ściany, polityka.pl, 6 lipca 2004 http://www.polityka.pl/spoleczenstwo/niezbednikinteligenta/11062,1,na-lewo-od-sciany.read

Źródło: Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media (1992)

Źródło: Jacek Żakowski, Na lewo od ściany, polityka.pl, 6 lipca 2004 http://www.polityka.pl/spoleczenstwo/niezbednikinteligenta/11062,1,na-lewo-od-sciany.read

komentarz odnoszący się pośrednio do dominacji ekonomicznej Stanów Zjednoczonych i wprost do naiwności lub służalczości (wobec polityków amerykańskich) komentatorów pokroju Davida Ignatiusa.
Hegemonia albo przetrwanie (2003)

Źródło: Quotes 1990s, 1995-1999, The Common Good (1998)

Quotes 1990s, 1990-1994, Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media, 1992
Kontekst: If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don't like. Goebbels was in favor of freedom of speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're in favor of freedom of speech, that means you're in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise.

Quotes 1990s, 1990-1994, Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media, 1992
Kontekst: We're not analyzing the media on Mars or in the eighteenth century or something like that. We're dealing with real human beings who are suffering and dying and being tortured and starving because of policies that we are involved in, we as citizens of democratic societies are directly involved in and are responsible for, and what the media are doing is ensuring that we do not act on our responsibilities, and that the interests of power are served, not the needs of the suffering people, and not even the needs of the American people who would be horrified if they realized the blood that's dripping from their hands because of the way they are allowing themselves to be deluded and manipulated by the system.

Talk titled "On West Asia" at UC Berkeley, March 21, 2002 http://www.chomsky.info/talks/20020321.htm.
Quotes 2000s, 2002
Kontekst: [Israel's military occupation is] in gross violation of international law and has been from the outset. And that much, at least, is fully recognized, even by the United States, which has overwhelming and, as I said, unilateral responsibility for these crimes. So George Bush No. 1, when he was the U. N. ambassador, back in 1971, he officially reiterated Washington's condemnation of Israel's actions in the occupied territories. He happened to be referring specifically to occupied Jerusalem. In his words, actions in violation of the provisions of international law governing the obligations of an occupying power, namely Israel. He criticized Israel's failure "to acknowledge its obligations under the Fourth Geneva Convention as well as its actions which are contrary to the letter and spirit of this Convention." [... ] However, by that time, late 1971, a divergence was developing, between official policy and practice. The fact of the matter is that by then, by late 1971, the United States was already providing the means to implement the violations that Ambassador Bush deplored. [... ] on December 5th [2001], there had been an important international conference, called in Switzerland, on the 4th Geneva Convention. Switzerland is the state that's responsible for monitoring and controlling the implementation of them. The European Union all attended, even Britain, which is virtually a U. S. attack dog these days. They attended. A hundred and fourteen countries all together, the parties to the Geneva Convention. They had an official declaration, which condemned the settlements in the occupied territories as illegal, urged Israel to end its breaches of the Geneva Convention, some "grave breaches," including willful killing, torture, unlawful deportation, unlawful depriving of the rights of fair and regular trial, extensive destruction and appropriation of property not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly. Grave breaches of the Geneva Convention, that's a serious term, that means serious war crimes. The United States is one of the high contracting parties to the Geneva Convention, therefore it is obligated, by its domestic law and highest commitments, to prosecute the perpetrators of grave breaches of the conventions. That includes its own leaders. Until the United States prosecutes its own leaders, it is guilty of grave breaches of the Geneva Convention, that means war crimes. And it's worth remembering the context. It is not any old convention. These are the conventions established to criminalize the practices of the Nazis, right after the Second World War. What was the U. S. reaction to the meeting in Geneva? The U. S. boycotted the meeting... and that has the usual consequence, it means the meeting is null and void, silence in the media.

Quotes 1990s, 1990-1994, Noam Chomsky: A Life of Dissent, 1992
Kontekst: There is a noticeable general difference between the sciences and mathematics on the one hand, and the humanities and social sciences on the other. It's a first approximation, but one that is real. In the former, the factors of integrity tend to dominate more over the factors of ideology. It's not that scientists are more honest people. It's just that nature is a harsh taskmaster. You can lie or distort the story of the French Revolution as long as you like, and nothing will happen. Propose a false theory in chemistry, and it'll be refuted tomorrow.

Interview by Yifat Susskind, August 2001 http://www.madre.org/articles/chomsky-0801.html.
Quotes 2000s, 2001
Kontekst: Take the Kyoto Protocol. Destruction of the environment is not only rational; it's exactly what you're taught to do in college. If you take an economics or a political science course, you're taught that humans are supposed to be rational wealth accumulators, each acting as an individual to maximize his own wealth in the market. The market is regarded as democratic because everybody has a vote. Of course, some have more votes than others because your votes depend on the number of dollars you have, but everybody participates and therefore it's called democratic. Well, suppose that we believe what we are taught. It follows that if there are dollars to be made, you destroy the environment. The reason is elementary. The people who are going to be harmed by this are your grandchildren, and they don't have any votes in the market. Their interests are worth zero. Anybody that pays attention to their grandchildren's interests is being irrational, because what you're supposed to do is maximize your own interests, measured by wealth, right now. Nothing else matters. So destroying the environment and militarizing outer space are rational policies, but within a framework of institutional lunacy. If you accept the institutional lunacy, then the policies are rational.

Źródło: Hopes and Prospects

Noam Chomsky in interview by John Pilger on BBC's The Late Show, November 25, 1992 http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/14177.htm.
Quotes 1990s, 1990-1994

Quotes 1990s, 1995-1999, Class Warfare, 1995
Kontekst: Mass education was designed to turn independent farmers into docile, passive tools of production. That was its primary purpose. And don't think people didn't know it. They knew it and they fought against it. There was a lot of resistance to mass education for exactly that reason. It was also understood by the elites. Emerson once said something about how we're educating them to keep them from our throats. If you don't educate them, what we call "education," they're going to take control -- "they" being what Alexander Hamilton called the "great beast," namely the people. The anti-democratic thrust of opinion in what are called democratic societies is really ferocious. And for good reason. Because the freer the society gets, the more dangerous the great beast becomes and the more you have to be careful to cage it somehow.

Chomsky on Miseducation, 1999 http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~rgibson/rouge_forum/newspaper/fall2001/Chomsky.htm.
Quotes 1990s, 1995-1999
Kontekst: Because they don't teach the truth about the world, schools have to rely on beating students over the head with propaganda about democracy. If schools were, in reality, democratic, there would be no need to bombard students with platitudes about democracy. They would simply act and behave democratically, and we know this does not happen. The more there is a need to talk about the ideals of democracy, the less democratic the system usually is.

Z Magazine, August 31, 1991 http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/articles/z9110-aftermath.html.
Quotes 1990s, 1990-1994
Kontekst: The crisis began with the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait a year ago. There was some fighting, leaving hundreds killed according to Human Rights groups. That hardly qualifies as war. Rather, in terms of crimes against peace and against humanity, it falls roughly into the category of the Turkish invasion of northern Cyprus, Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 1978, and the U. S. invasion of Panama. In these terms it falls well short of Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon, and cannot remotely be compared with the near-genocidal Indonesian invasion and annexation of East Timor, to mention only two cases of aggression that are still in progress, with continuing atrocities and with the crucial support of those who most passionately professed their outrage over Iraq's aggression. During the subsequent months, Iraq was responsible for terrible crimes in Kuwait, with several thousand killed and many tortured. But that is not war; rather, state terrorism, of the kind familiar among U. S. clients. The second phase of the conflict began with the U. S.-U. K. attack of January 15 (with marginal participation of others). This was slaughter http://www.hrw.org/reports/1991/gulfwar/index.htm, not war.

Quotes 1990s, 1990-1994, Interview by Adam Jones, 1990
Kontekst: In the United States, the political system is a very marginal affair. There are two parties, so-called, but they're really factions of the same party, the Business Party. Both represent some range of business interests. In fact, they can change their positions 180 degrees, and nobody even notices. In the 1984 election, for example, there was actually an issue, which often there isn't. The issue was Keynesian growth versus fiscal conservatism. The Republicans were the party of Keynesian growth: big spending, deficits, and so on. The Democrats were the party of fiscal conservatism: watch the money supply, worry about the deficits, et cetera. Now, I didn't see a single comment pointing out that the two parties had completely reversed their traditional positions. Traditionally, the Democrats are the party of Keynesian growth, and the Republicans the party of fiscal conservatism. So doesn't it strike you that something must have happened? Well, actually, it makes sense. Both parties are essentially the same party. The only question is how coalitions of investors have shifted around on tactical issues now and then. As they do, the parties shift to opposite positions, within a narrow spectrum.

Chronicles of Dissent, December 13, 1989 http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/interviews/db-8912.html
Quotes 1960s-1980s, 1980s
Kontekst: Non-violent resistance activities cannot succeed against an enemy that is able freely to use violence. That's pretty obvious. You can't have non-violent resistance against the Nazis in a concentration camp, to take an extreme case...

Quotes 1990s, 1990-1994, Interview by Adam Jones, 1990
Kontekst: In the United States, the political system is a very marginal affair. There are two parties, so-called, but they're really factions of the same party, the Business Party. Both represent some range of business interests. In fact, they can change their positions 180 degrees, and nobody even notices. In the 1984 election, for example, there was actually an issue, which often there isn't. The issue was Keynesian growth versus fiscal conservatism. The Republicans were the party of Keynesian growth: big spending, deficits, and so on. The Democrats were the party of fiscal conservatism: watch the money supply, worry about the deficits, et cetera. Now, I didn't see a single comment pointing out that the two parties had completely reversed their traditional positions. Traditionally, the Democrats are the party of Keynesian growth, and the Republicans the party of fiscal conservatism. So doesn't it strike you that something must have happened? Well, actually, it makes sense. Both parties are essentially the same party. The only question is how coalitions of investors have shifted around on tactical issues now and then. As they do, the parties shift to opposite positions, within a narrow spectrum.

Źródło: Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media

interview on WBAI, January 1992 http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/199201--.htm.
Quotes 1990s, 1990-1994
Wariant: Propaganda is to democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state.
Źródło: Media Control: The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda
Kontekst: Harold Laswell … explained a couple of years after this in the early 1930s that we should not succumb to what he called democratic dogmatisms about men being the best judges of their own interests.… In what's nowadays called a totalitarian state, military state or something, it's easy. You just hold a bludgeon over their heads, but as societies become more free and democratic you lose that capacity and therefore you have to turn to the techniques of propaganda. The logic is clear—propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state….
Kontekst: Walter Lippmann … described what he called “the manufacture of consent” as “a revolution” in “the practice of democracy”... And he said this was useful and necessary because “the common interests” - the general concerns of all people - “elude” the public. The public just isn't up to dealing with them. And they have to be the domain of what he called a "specialized class" … [Reinhold Niebuhr]'s view was that rationality belongs to the cool observer. But because of the stupidity of the average man, he follows not reason, but faith. And this naive faith requires necessary illusion, and emotionally potent oversimplifications, which are provided by the myth-maker to keep the ordinary person on course. It's not the case, as the naive might think, that indoctrination is inconsistent with democracy. Rather, as this whole line of thinkers observes, it is the essence of democracy. The point is that in a military state or a feudal state or what we would now call a totalitarian state, it doesn't much matter because you've got a bludgeon over their heads and you can control what they do. But when the state loses the bludgeon, when you can't control people by force, and when the voice of the people can be heard, you have this problem—it may make people so curious and so arrogant that they don't have the humility to submit to a civil rule [Clement Walker, 1661], and therefore you have to control what people think. And the standard way to do this is to resort to what in more honest days used to be called propaganda, manufacture of consent, creation of necessary illusion. Various ways of either marginalizing the public or reducing them to apathy in some fashion.

Quotes 2000s, 2004, Interview by Wallace Shawn, 2004
Kontekst: You can find things in the traditional religions which are very benign and decent and wonderful and so on, but I mean, the Bible is probably the most genocidal book in the literary canon. The God of the Bible - not only did He order His chosen people http://www.bible.org/netbible/1sa15.htm to carry out literal genocide - I mean, wipe out every Amalekite to the last man, woman, child, and, you know, donkey and so on, because hundreds of years ago they got in your way when you were trying to cross the desert - not only did He do things like that, but, after all, the God of the Bible was ready to destroy every living creature on earth because some humans irritated Him. That's the story of Noah. I mean, that's beyond genocide - you don't know how to describe this creature. Somebody offended Him, and He was going to destroy every living being on earth? And then He was talked into allowing two of each species to stay alive - that's supposed to be gentle and wonderful.