[cheers and applause] [speaking spanish] [cheers and applause] im david, and welcome to one of the most anticipated events of this or any other year. Noam chomsky. [cheers and applause] and backstage i was joking with noam, i held up this flyer it said, sold out, which will be, uhuh think ammunition for his enemies ammunition, i think, for his enemies. Noam chomsky has never sold out. [applause] in pursuit of cultural Freedom Series which organized this event, thanks also tolannon for digitizing our noam chomsky audio archive which now numbers close to 250 recordings. You can go to alternativeradio. Org. Thanks lannon. [applause] i started alternative radio because of noam chomsky. I wrote him a letter he wrote back. We started corresponding. Then after a while i suggested we do an interview. He said yes, of course. That was 31 years ago. Its an honor for me to introduce no, maam chomsky, but how to noam chomsky but how to introduce who, as they say, needs no introduction . Well, do something different, i thought, like tell a story. Theres a partial from the sufi tradition called the elephant in the dark. Sufiism is the esoteric inner dimension of islam. Some have told this story, and ive added a bit to it. Its called the elephant in the dark. Some men and women perhaps, who have never seen an elephant are blind folded and are asked to touch different parts of the elephant and identify what they are touching. So one touches an ear and says, its a fan. Another touches the tail and says confidently, its got to be a rope. Another touches the tusk and says well for sure its a spear. Another a regular says with great confidence oh its a pillar. And on and on and on. And they start bickering among themselves, each adamantly insisting that he was right. Their voices were getting louder and louder, and then along comes a sage who tells them, guys chill out. [laughter] this is not in contemporary i could hardly imagine in the 13th century, the sage would say, guys, chill out. [laughter] kind of modernized it a little bit. Let me remove your blindfolds. See . Its an elephant. And they were all flabbergasted. For many of us all over the world, noam chomsky is that sage is sufi guide. The sufi guide. Never showboating or grandstanding, but simply laying out what he sees backed up with a torrent of facts and documentation. He doesnt tell you what to do but like the sufis, he teaches by example. The next step is up to you. You have to figure out your path of societal involvement and action. For decades hes been illuminating the dark crevasses of the a rapacious Economic System and an imperialist Foreign Policy and always in a calm, soft voice. And listen for the irony. By any measure, hed led a hes led a most extraordinary life. Hes a pioneer in the feel of lipping wissics. To linguist ticks. To call his writings prolific is a huge understatement. If records are kept for such categories as giving lectures and interviews writing books and articles, chomsky would be world champion. At 86 hes still a Rebel Without a pause. And as they say in yiddish, a mensch. [laughter] and, yes, here comes that fourletter word. Children, cover your ears love. He is deeply loved by many. Ive seen it on the faces of people, and its no wonder. Because hes been there for so many from east timor to nicaragua, from palestine to colombia. And this evening hes here for us. Brothers and sisters please welcome noam chomsky. [cheers and applause] [cheers and applause] its now 70 years since the end of the most horrific war in history. It ended with the use of an ultimate weapon which can bring Human History to an end a day which i happen to remember very well. Weve been living under that shadow ever since. Twenty years later two of the leading figures of the 20th century intellectual life, Bertrand Russell and Albert Einstein issued a an appeal to the people of the world calling on them to face a choice that is stark, dreadful and inescapable. Shall we put an end to the human race or shall mankind renounce war . They recognized, of course that war can very quickly turn into terminal nuke lahr war nuclear war. In 1947 the bulletin of atomic scientists established its famous Doomsday Clock, setting it seven minutes to midnight. Midnight is the end. Last january it was advanced to three minutes before midnight. Thats a threat level that had not been reached for 30 years at a grim moment to which ill return. The accompanying explanation invoked the two major threats to human survival; Nuclear Weapons and unchecked Climate Change. The call condemned World Leaders who are endangering every person on earth by failing to perform their most important duty insuring and preserving the health and vitality of human civilization. The Russell Einstein appeal differs from the current declaration in two crucial respects. One is that it did not include threat of environmental catastrophe which 50 years ago was not sufficiently understood. And secondly, it directly addresses the people of the world, not the Political Leadership. That difference is of some significance. Theres substantial evidence that on Climate ChangeNuclear Weapons planning, International Policies generally the population seems much more concerned than the Political Leadership who do not regard their most important duty to be insuring and preserving the health and vitality of human civilization as ample evidence reveals. Its hardly a secret that even in the most free and democratic societies governments respond only in limited ways to popular will. For the United States, its well established in academic scholarship that that a considerable majority of the population at the lower end of income wealth scale are effectively disend franchised. Their views disenfranchised. Their views are simply ignored by policymakers. Influence increases slowly as one moves up the scale, and at the very top which means a fraction of 1 policy is pretty much determined. That being the case the attitudes at the top of the ladder are of very great significance. These are revealed dramatically in a poll of ceos that was released last january at the davos conference in switzerland, the conference of masters of the universe as the Business Press describes them by rather ominous coincidence, this was just at the moment when the Doomsday Clock was advanced to three minutes to midnight. [laughter] the poll revealed that Climate Change did not merit inclusion among the top 19 risks that concern ceos. Worse still, at the top of their ranking of perceived risks was regulation. [laughter] that is the prime method for addressing environmental catastrophe. Their overriding concern was with Growth Prospects for their companies. Thats not surprising. Whatever their individual beliefs in their institutional role, the ceos are constrained to adopt policies that are designed to oppose extraordinary and undeniable threats to the continued existence of humanity in the words of Doomsday Clock declaration m and given their enormous role in determining state policy its less surprising that policy lags behind Public Opinion on the concerns that move the clock so close to midnight. The effects are before our eyes every day, so take last sundays wall street journal. Typical example. Theres a week in review section. It features an article entitled fossil fuels will save the world, really. [laughter] the lead story in the news section is headlined, u. S. Producers ready new oil wave. The article glories in the thought of what they call an ocean of oil from u. S. Shale as American Energy companies are poised to unleash a further flood, and while they lead us exuberantly to the precipice. Scientists are well aware that most of the oil must be left in the ground if theres to be some hope for a decent life more for our grandchildren, but who cares as long as there are spectacular profits for tomorrow . Is on International Affairs as well a popular opinion diverges significantly from that of the Decision Making classes. Among many other examples, a considerable majority in the United States have held that the United Nations not the u. S. Should take the lead in international crises. Such views are so remote from elite opinion that theyre barely even articulated publicly. A good part of the reason is the nature of elite opinion. And as often is the case its the critical end of the spectrum thats the most inform ty. So informative. So heres an example from a featured article by the former director of the Carnegie Endowment for international peace. Current issue of the new york review of books, the leading intellectual journal rather leftliberal in orientation. Heres what she writes. American contributions to interNational Security, Global Economic growth, freedom and human well being have been so selfevidently unique and have been so clearly directed to others benefit that americans have long believed that the u. S. Amounts to a different kind of country where others push their national interests, the tries to advance universal principles. [laughter] well comment should be superfluous. [laughter] but whats important is that this is what many in socalled enlightened circles actually believe. Its quite an astonishing fact in a prix society where information in a free society where information is readily available and the impact on policy is not obscured. Nuclear weapons policy reveals very dramatically how governments and also the concentrated, domestic concentrations of power that largely dominate governments regard the principle the health and vitality of human civilization. When we inquire, we discover that regrettably governments have consistently not even considered security of their own populations as a particularly high priority. Rather enlightening to review the record. Ill be in with some high points or maybe low points. There was, however a potential threat. Icbms with nuclear warheads. Theres a standard scholarly review of nuclear policies. George bundy, he was a National Security adviser for president s kennedy and johnson, he had access to the highest level documents. He quoting him now, he says the Timely Development of Ballistic Missiles during the Eisenhower Administration is one of best achievements of those eight years. Yet it is well to begin with a recognition that both the United States and the soviet union might be in much less Nuclear Danger today if these missiles had never been developed. In short, there was apparently no thought of trying to prevent the sole serious net to the United States threat to the United States, the threat of utter destruction. Rather the institutional imperatives of state power prevailed. Much as in the case of the ceos for whom the fate of the species is of such little concern that it does not even enter into the ranking of risks. Further more, these Shocking Facts seem to arouse little interest or comment. In fact, ive never seen a reference to them. There might have been opportunities. One suggested indication is a proposal by stalin in 1952 offering to allow germany to be unified with free elections on condition that it not join a hostile military alliance which was hardly an extreme condition in the light of the history of the preceding half century. Stalins proposal was taken seriously by the respected political commentator James Warburg with. But apart from him,ignore it was ignored or ridiculed. Actually, recent scholarship has just begun to take a different view. The bitterly anticommunist soviet scholar from harvard takes the is status of stalins proposal to be an unresolved mystery. Washington, he said, wasted little effort in flatly rejecting moscows initiative on grounds that were embarrassingly unconvincing leaving open the basic question was stalin genuinely ready to sacrifice the newlycreated german democratic republic, east germany, on the altar of real democracy with consequences for world peace and for American Security . That could have been enormous. Melvin leffler one of the most respected cold war scholars, recently published a review of research and released soviet archives. He observes that many scholars were surprised to discover quoting him mow that the sinister brutal head of the secret Police Proposed that the kremlin offer the west a deal on the unification and neutralization of germany, agreeing to sacrifice the easts german communist regime to reduce east west tensions and improve internal political and Economic Conditions in russia, opportunities that were squandered in favor of securing german participation in nato. Its actually a shocking decision that is being relived right now. Under the circumstances of the early 50s, its not impossible that agreements might have been reached that would have protected the security of the u. S. Population from the gravest threat on the horizon. But the option apparently was not even considered, and possible opportunities were dismissed with ridicule, another indication of how slight a role authentic security plays in state policy. And to heighten the extraordinary significance of this failure, it was just at that time that the Doomsday Clock was moved to two minutes to midnight, the closest it has ever been. Now, these events from the early days of the cold war have considerable resonance right now right at the borders of russia and ukraine, a very serious crisis that traces right back to end of the cold war. A crucial issue at that time around 1990, had to do with fate of nato. Now that the alleged threat of russian invasion had disappeared. One might have believed that nato would have dissolved. Quite the contrary. It expanded radically. Mikhail gorbachev agreed to allow a unified germany to join nato, rather significant concession, but there was a quid pro quo. Namely, that nato would not expand one inch to the east. That was the phrase that was used in highlevel internal discussions referring to east germany. Nato at once expanded to east germany. Gorbachev, naturally are, objected. But he was informed by washington that these were only verbal commitments and nothing in writing. The kind of unspoken implication is that be youre naive if youre naive enough to accept a verbal gentlemans agreement with the United States its your problem. [laughter] clinton came along and expanded nato to the borders of russia, and as another leading International Relations scholar recently pointed out in the major establishment Journal Foreign Affairs he pointed out that the indications that ukraine might be assimilated into the western system, possibly even into nato, could not fail to be threatening to any russian leader. We need only imagine how the United States would have reacted at the height of soviet power if the warsaw pact had taken over most of this hemisphere and now mexico were paragraphing to join the russianrun military alliance. Last december the westernbacked Ukrainian Parliament voted 3038 to rescind the policy of nonalignment that had been adapted adopted by the ousted president , and they committed ukraine in their words to deepen cooperation with nato in order to achievement and the criteria to achieve the criteria required for membership in this organization. The growing crisis concerning ukraine is no slight threat, and it is an avoidable one by diplomatic steps to guarantee ukrainian neutrality, steps which regrettably are not being taken. Well returning to the 1950s other developments reveal the low priority assigned to authentic security. When Nikita Khrushchev took over after stalins death, he recognized that russia could not compete militarily with the United States and that if russia hoped to escape its economic backwardness and the devastating effect of the war, the arms race would have to be reversed. Accordingly, he he proposed sharp mutual reductions in offensive weapons. The incoming Kennedy Administration considered his offer and rejected it, instead turning to Rapid Military expansion. The policies are summarized be by distinguished International Relations scholar the late kenneth waltz, who pointed out the Kennedy Administration undertook large strategic and conventional peacetime military buildup the world has yet seen, even as khrushchev was trying at once to carry through a major reduction in conventional forces and to follow a strategy of minimum detenderness. Deterrence. And we did so even though the balance of strategic weapons greatly favored the United States. Well once again the decision, the u. S. De