across the wall, need you speak in one voice, the keys? this, this, this is cindy, shouldn't probably zer, lot for now from the art international. huge room, but don't go too far as our programs are just beginning. see what's ahead, where you are today next. mm. ah, i'm action or dancey and welcome back to going under ground ra, gusting, or on the world from dubai. in the united arab emirates, this week, the u. n. revealed up to 50 percent more journalist immediate workers were killed in 2022 compared to previous years. that's a dead journalist every 4 days with accusations of miss reporting, fake news and war propaganda by the modern day, so called mainstream media. is it any wonder that last year was the deadliest?

no one in the anglophone world has at such a profound effect with our understanding of the nato nations propaganda model of journalism than one of the most cited living scholars in the world. no. m. chomsky in the past 24 hours, he has called for you cane us authorities to release wiki leaks, founder julian assange tortured according to the un by the british in london. the father of bobbin linguistics and co author of manufacturing consent joins me now from tucson, arizona. thank you so much, professor chomsky for coming back on going underground rafter a guy there quite a long time. they won't even allow julia sanders been on this show. people can watch our interviews with him on rumble to the funeral of his friend vivian westward, the famous fashion designer. why given reports of his deteriorating health? ah, are they so intense the british and the americans on keeping him incarcerated? the julian assange emitted agrees crime. he exposed

crimes of state which state power wants to be suppressed, that cannot be tolerated. it's an attack on the power and dignity of the state authorities chose had been treated very brutally for years. he was socially locked into a told an embassy, but actually a small apartment not allowed to go out surrounded by police. then he was put in a prison that designated for serious offenders. terrorist treat again extremely harsh treatment. the u. n. or a porter and terror, plausibly in my view, describes it as a torture, rubber, tor and torture. and it's an accurate designation. so he's

being charged in the united states. lizzy espionage act, sonata goes back to 1917 quarter of the harshest repression in american history. wilson administration bitter attacks on any one who questioned the nobility of a participation in the 1st world war. a major attacks on labor, on decisions on intellectual opinion. it is part of the repression as an enormous impact on american society, listed until the prison legacy. israel been used for essentially that purpose for over and over the most extreme was actually barack obama.

the current case is a sage, is being charged under the espionage at the act should not be on the books in any democratic society. but to the main crime, this is exposure of materials that the state once suppressed. you've been attacked her most of your life via circle made stream media, but do you think it's getting worse now? you might have to remind some people about what you and at home and said in manufacturing consent to differentiate propaganda from se style in a soviet times. because i actually, there's a viral video of a, b, b, c reporter, andrew marr. i think his name is and he says to you, what are you talking about? no one tells me what to say. and you why you might remember what you say to him back. you have to change the propaganda model with julian assange in jail with the

banning of art literature, music, sports press in the, in the nato nation landscape. whereas before it was done in a slightly more well as you describe it more structured and more complex way, i think actually in many who is better now than it was before. one reason is that many journalists have simply lived through the liberating effect of the activism of the 19 sixty's, which shattered many barriers and its aftermath, which continues. this is part of their formation, tends to make them more free and open. you look back to the say, 1960 is the idea of questioning authority. barely a rose

a take the vietnam war, the worst crimes since the 2nd world war took the years to try to organize any opposition to it. i happened to live in boston, which is the most liberal city in the country. we couldn't have public demonstrations against the war because they would be wildly broken up. i tried to have meetings and churches, churches were attacked. it was years before you could finally get some kind of protest against this renders atrocity, which by the time protest, right, really developed, almost destroyed 3 countries. but that there's been a change. surely the war currently raging in europe are, you know, you look at bernie sanders, advisor, matt dust, diplomatic summit settlement would mean ukraine surrender every single person in

the biden. in the d. n. c, the democrats voted to supply weapons to ukraine. the senate approved the resolution to support finland and sweden in nato. i only ran to paul and john harvey 2 who g o. p senators voted against you have the entire, when all 6 of the so called score the democrats all intent and there are no demonstrations to stop or the profits of raphael in general dynamics. boeing, lockheed martin, and northrop grumman. another difference between the 1st we should discuss the suppose isn't there justification, but what different today from the 19 say 50 years ago is that there is debate and discussion it so overwhelmingly

on the side of state power and official doctrine. but it exists. you go back to the 19th sixty's, it barely even existed. there was no up in the case of the vietnam war, for example. there was essentially no opposition to it for a long time. finally, broker. and we should be, we should recognize that the civilizing effect of the activism, mostly young people in those years. and since has had an impact, there is no a range of debate discussion. oh, people like me of course, can't get into the mainstream media, but we never could. that was impossible. and now at least there's alternative wish for voices well, actually, or, well, actually you, your name has been mentioned in mainstream media and it's been defamed. and i don't

know whether you want to take legal action. you're a trenchant critic of vladimir putin. and yet, if i look on the internet, that big publications calling you a put an apologist when you've spent every week since february the 24th. and we have moved to as the russian c at protect the people have done best you've spent criticising for that. and we uprooted, why do they call you a put in apologise? because a, if you deviate from official doctrine, you're condemned as an apologist for the enemy of the state. you taught in the 1960 isabel trying to bring loser in this war in vietnam to an end. you're called an apologist for g man. ok, that's just standard technique, vilification. you know, order answer arguments,

you throw most people that's normal and expected. but to day, if you look at mainstream establishment journals, foreign affairs, major journal, you actually find arranges critical commentary actually not all that different from things i say, well, gilbert years you didn't have that just marching in a parade furshly no descent. but of course, in say, britain, they've banned c g t and the chinese channel from broadcasting r t. famously. why is it that you think russia thinks it's fine? i think so gay lover of this week giving a press conference allowing western reporters accreditation. whereas in the united states,

they obviously don't ban media in the u. s. because of the 1st amendment sunny in europe. obviously there's mass banning of journalists and journalism. what's behind it? vat and that surely does depart some what from manufacturing consent where they didn't want to ban anything. they just knew that the lower selling outlets would fail to engage the populace in, in dissident opinion. well, i see, 1st of all, it's quite know if you look through the says in take a more recent event, the iraq or not that far back. anyone who dares to see that iraq, or was the major crime of the century, which it certainly was, is bitterly denounced and condemned. if you look at discussion in the mainstream,

you'll be hard put to find anyone who disagrees, who can reach the mainstream, who will say the elementary truth and indisputable truth, that the iraq war was an example of. will the nuremberg tribunal called the supreme international crime aggression which differs from other war crimes only in that it includes all the evil that follows. so find somebody who says, president bush, donald rumsfeld, dick cheney, we're guilty of the crimes for which people ranked at nuremberg. instead, what you have is celebration of george bush, the great criminal who invaded iraq and afghanistan, and destroyed them. celebration of him as a lovely person scolded,

goofy graham placement, his grandchildren, painted pictures just a delightful person. well, that's the record. it's for quite striking that anyone who dares to compare the iraq war with the russian and zation of ukraine is viciously denounced. a harvard university even had a, a debate in which the debate was whether the iraq or can be considered a humanitarian intervention. a debate? suppose that moscow university had a debate on whether the russian invasion can be called a humanitarian intervention. can you imagine the reaction in the west? what's the reaction in the westwood up and at, or a close look at the openness of the american society. they're even willing to

question whether this military intervention was a humanitarian intervention. oh, well, the manufacturer can shed, let me give in explicit example. recently, there were couple articles in the mainstream press chain. there is no some skepticism arising about whither russia was really responsible for the sabotage of the nord stream pride plate, lunch. professor trump's gal, stop you that more from one of the wells greatest and most cited public intellectuals after this break. ah ah, ah, a,

it will not be forced to work on. it will not be on any kind of free legal power ever seen before that you not, you have to take that by force. a big for case of ah ah ah oh

oh, well, come back to going on the ground. i'm still here with professor no m chomsky, american dissident and co author of the pioneering book manufacturing consent, the political economy of the mass media. maybe they call you a putin apologise because you expressed doubt about a terror attack. that was one of the worst, as if climate destroying terror attacks, given the amount of fossil fuels released, let alone. this is what the sabotage means for energy resources for germany. you think that the mainstream media that said this must be the russians, could have got it wrong. i mean, the least likely it is the state responsible for the sabotage is russia. it's the pipeline that was sabotage.

destroyed is largely on as prom, russian company. what possible purpose would russia his head in destroying it's and sabotaging its own major capital investment, which it counts on for supplying europe? if russia wanted the supplier to stop the supply of grass gas, all it could do is turn off the valve, didn't have to destroy it. mean it's main investments. so the least likely state that can be charged is russian. so of course, the western media immediately rushed on race to say, will russians responsible? now they're raising some skepticism. that's called manufacturers consent said to framework and debate within it. but it's the framework that is insane. who's the

likely culprit in the north stream? sabotaged who had the motive and the capability? well, just one state, united states obviously had the motive, in fact, was quite frank and open about saying that those are put not only opposing the pipelines but saying that they'll be destroyed. the motive was not secret was perfectly public. obviously had the capability to adjust that large naval maneuvers in the region right before the 7 major ship some equipment so that the capability in the mode is clearly nobody else anything like that. the russians are the least likely cope. so manufacturing consent says, let's have a lively debate to show open and free we are. but within the framework that

excludes by assumption, by the possibility the united states might have been involved will only discuss debate whether the least likely cobra is involved. well, that's effective propaganda. you don't just loi that's refutable would you do is set up the framework of discussion which excludes totally excludes the obvious and most likely answer then debate are there things there in the case of iraq, you have a debate that harvard over whither the iraq invasion was. a humanitarian invasion. you don't have a debate over whether it was the a crime to kind of crime for which nazi war criminals were hang. nuremberg, you know, open question for discussion to discuss something ridiculous. was it a humanitarian intervention?

when you carry out a shock and or attack against iraq, smash up the country, kill hundreds of thousands of people, have all kinds of torture and other atrocities. in fact, one of the worst crimes in the iraq war was the battle of felicia, specially the 2nd battle solution. devastating destructive murders attack by the moraine began was taking over the general hospital to war crime in itself then destroying much of the city killing. nobody knows many people are investigators on crimes. jose remembered the united states. well, tell you the u. s. navy is no commissioning a new vessel in honor of the marines who fought include your school the for lou, georgia. that's the way we deal with. one of the worst crimes doesn't get recorded

. of course, i should say the bible administration officially denies involvement in the terror attack on the north stream. as does the british administration allegations the royal navy was involved in it. i mentioned that you're a critic of vladimir putin given that angle. michael says that the minsk process was actually a delaying tactic to arm ukraine. what would you have done differently? knowing that politically within russia, vladimir putin was under pressure, given the thousands of people of the don bass being killed with nato weapons in east and ukraine. and given that the men's process was, went on for a number of years, it was adopted by the security council. what do you suppose to do after being told repeatedly that the americans weren't going to go into your grain?

you again, wasn't going to join a jo and actually it was and obviously we have the details of the qu, you would, if you would want further negotiations, you would have called for intermediaries with the french. that's not quite the story on the la merck kill now, says that it was a delay effort. there isn't a particle evidence in the river to support a claim. no, nothing. at the time, germany and french took it very seriously, were pressing for a mama crawl. actually up until couple of days before the invasion had a long interchange with couldn't, you can read the transcript published in the french press o for in various ways to reinstitute something like the minsk agreement

and prevent the invasion of putin rejected it. at the end, the last conversation 4 days before the invasion, he simply rejected the discussions with contempt. i'm sorry i have to go ice skating or something like that. well, there were opportunities. there was plenty of provocation. you're quite right, lots of provocation, but provocation doesn't justify aggression. aggression is a major crime. if you're, if you provoke me to attack you and, and i attack you, i'm guilty. even if i was approved. and for the people that defend that prudence decision as a mark of a new world order to avenge iraq. just one of the wars in reason is that your government has been involved in as the global south come together. new

currency is being talked about, new ways of talking about energy, perhaps even helping the climate better than any cop summit under the aegis of the united states. you don't buy that, you can't believe in a global south with that china or india, lula, your friend. and, and brazil in russia altogether and the debt death of europe in effect. well, i think the major shifts in world are in the invasion of ukraine, and the reaction to accelerate it is one effect of the invasion of ukraine was to give the united states extraordinary gift, couldn't gave the united states and gifted it greatly relishes. it drove europe into the pocket of the united states. there's been

a debate all through the cold war back to the 1940s as to whether europe should move in an independent direction be what we're sometimes called a 3rd 3rd force in international affairs was pressed. most vigorously, but chose the goal, deliberate us politic gestures of palm and others. united states instead and demanded what's called the latest version based on nato, which the united states runs, of course, in which europe would be subordinate to the united states. this became a major issue with the collapse of the soviet union. mikhail gorbachev proposed a common european home from lisbon to lot of us that

no military alliances, no victors, no defeated, common efforts to move forward towards a more or less social democratic eurasia. united states was strongly opposed, insisted on the atlanta system, or put in as in say, oh for the united states. it's highest wish preferred europe at least temporarily. it was in his abandoned search for independence. shanisha joining us subordinating itself to the states to which she seemed to which some would say they were already bases at ramstein in britain aircraft carrier for the united states for so so long we're running a little bit shorter time professor chomsky i want to get to something really disturbing in what you've been writing recently. i thought you said and coming from the pioneer of generative grammar, i'm saying that psych loosely connected,

you said that humanity can have a dedication to self destruction. what i mean, given that megan markel, of all people now claim, says she, she reads your work, and i know you send a message to her through the airways, as it were saying that you were pleased that prince harry's wife. read your work. what do you mean by a pathological, perhaps dedication to self destruction given? we are talking obviously about some things that involve armageddon. and i know the bulletin of atomic scientists will be resetting the clock next tuesday about how close, how long we have to live. well, the bulletin said, the doomsday clerk. in 1947, shortly after the bombing, the hands are set certain distance from midnight. midnight means termination of

human species. for the 1st setting was 7 minutes to midnight. it's oscillated over the years. during the trumpet, ministration. they abandoned minute move to seconds. now sadder chickens to midnight. january 24th, it will be said again, i presume. the 2nd it will be said closer to midnight. certainly should be a man concerns or increasing threat of nuclear war. the very severe and growing threat of destruction of the climate which is rapidly increasing, states are not doing what they know they must do to solve discourages. the 3rd is the deterioration of an arena of rational, serious debate and deliberation with the collapse of democratic

forces around the world. sounds at 1st as if that doesn't belong with the 1st 2. but it does because that's the only hope for dealing with the 1st 2 or 3 has gotten considerably worse during the past year. unless there's a short reversal will simply be heading for a precipice falling over irreversible and not in a long distant future present. i'm chomsky thank you and that's it for the show. we'll be back next week with another brand new episode, but until then you can still keep in touch by all our social media if it's not sensitive in your country. but you can always add to our channel going on the grantee on rumbled or come to watch, new and old up. so it's going on the ground. so you very to, ah ah,

[000:00:00;00] with that awful amazon don't staggers said den by day to day love in