Noam Chomsky - Is Trump right on North Korea?: The Origins Podcast

In this episode of The Origins Podcast, Lawrence Krauss sits down with Noam Chomsky to discuss how President Trump is doing on North Korea, specifically his handling of the inter-Korean summit between Kim Jong-un and Moon Jae-in.
See the exclusive, full HD video of this episode at www.patreon.com/originspodcast
Twitter: / theoriginspod
Instagram: / theoriginspod
Facebook: / theoriginspod
iTunes: podcasts.apple...
Website: theoriginspodc...
The Origins Podcast features in-depth conversations with some of the most interesting people in the world about the issues that impact all of us in the 21st century. Host, a theoretical physicist, lecturer, and author, Lawrence M. Krauss, will be joined by guests from a wide range of fields, including science, the arts, and journalism. The topics discussed on The Origins Podcast reflect the full range of the human experience - exploring science and culture in a way that seeks to entertain, educate, and inspire.
Thank you for your support!

[@sdprz7893]

Noam Chomsky saying something good about Trump is a shocker but its nice to know that hes thinking critically and not emotionally

[@macanoodough]

He also agreed with Sarah Palin that Obama's rhetoric was just that, rhetoric. If more voters took a page out of his book we'd have better leaders and neither party would have a foothold because they'd be forced to work together, for us.

[@sdprz7893]

@@macanoodough Agreed

[@sdprz7893]

Anderson Cooper I did not say that, most fake intellectuals and activists think that way but true intellectuals like Noam here think critically

[@sdprz7893]

Anderson Cooper Fair enough

[@iridescentsquids]

@@macanoodough We might have Sarah Palin. No thank you.

[@jayhan1968]

Wow. This brings so much respect from me toward Noam Chomsky since as a Korean I've been always under impression that the ideas of US media and leading minds on North Korea issues were prejudiced by their opposing position to President Trump. President Trump is a horrible person but what he did with North Korea was the right thing to do, no matter what the motives behind it were, I think.

[@VeN0m88]

At this Podcast Norm Chomsky was 90 years old. What a memory and fascinating mind. Turned 91, Dec 7th 2019.

[@kristapskarnitis9613]

THIS IS AWESOME! Welcome back Dr. Krauss!

[@writersblock26]

Kristaps Karnītis Meh, Kristaps, I could have done without that sexual predator, Dr. Lawrence Krauss. 😒

[@AFROJOE2323]

Welcome back Krauss!

[@tojo4]

Mr. Spock approves of this interview

[@gortt7611]

Love that bust

[@trinitytwo14992]

I LOVE that Mr. Chomsky has a SPOCK bust behind him. LIVE LONG AND PROSPER NOAM

[@zavierorlos1948]

0:16 just me or anyone else noticed the Alien picture on bottom left ?

[@karolkozak64]

yeah but there's also Spock watching from behind so that does not surprise me at all :D

[@Gabriel_Moline]

What’s the question? Is Dump what? When Dump is the question, the answer is almost always “fuck no.”

[@turdferguson3803]

DRUMPF OWNED

[@HotTakeHQ]

This is helpful. It’s too bad we have leaders whose only successes are inadvertent and unconscious. We’re all just theorizing over the listing of another titanic.

[@ratedAD]

Can someone please explain what Chomsky meant by "good article about it in Foreign Affairs of all places"? Is he being sarcastic? Or is saying it's shocking to find something in F A that would show Trump's foreign policy in a good light? I'm really confused.

[@thevivariumforhalfmeasures7698]

I believe Chomsky is talking about the article on FA titled "A Real Path to Peace on the Korean Peninsula" dt. Apr 30 2018. But I can't be sure. Re: "...of all places" I think he is surprised FA would carry such an article at all with FA being neoliberal and whatnot. In that context, it wasn't about Trump's foreign policy as much as it was about the the Korean document itself. The declaration is called "Panmunjom Declaration" and there's a Wikipedia article if you want to start somewhere.

[@ratedAD]

@@thevivariumforhalfmeasures7698 Thank you.

[@andrewdeen1]

I understand what chomsky is saying here, but every time i see trump with kim I just can't help but imagine otto warmbier's parents and what they're thinking.

[@x92811]

North Korea was a ticking time bomb though and was becoming increasingly erratic with their missile tests. Peace over war is always the answer. What happened to Otto was tragic no doubt, but we need to pursue peace with that country so that everyone can breathe easy

[@naradaian9196]

Andrew Deen ottos parents must be wondering why their son was such a dufus, as if otto the dufus was worth warmongering with a nuclear power over. Jeez

[@mehbubulalam7889]

Wait hold up, Lawrence Krauss does podcasts now??

[@juniorloaf12]

Astro naut what do you mean? Did this just start a few weeks ago? Either way I'm really glad and excited to see him back communicating science.

[@luisabarca7363]

The real hero of the North Korean problem is the president of South Korea, Moon Jae-in, who assumed the presidency of his country, May 2017, just in time to neutralize a dangerous situacion. Moon Jae-in, a former human rights lawyer, saw clearly the catastrophic situation created between the North nuclear tests and Donald Trump raw brutality, and quickly negociated a peace plan that is slowly progressing.

[@WasBlind_NowISee]

I feel like Chomsky is going to die any minute now and it’s going to be sad that we are going to lose another great here soon. It’s a super power that I have

[@Tonyrg1988]

even a dead clock is right twice a day

[@gorangidlof4114]

The blind hen will find a corn sometime...

[@suddencringe8757]

In this case, I must say I disagree with Noam Chomsky. He is correct when he says that the two Koreas have declared to bring peace to the peninsula, but the said declaration is not a complete declaration of "leave us alone to decide this on our own accord", and Trump is actively is taking part on the denuclearization of the peninsula, and I believe this for these reasons: 1. The declaration does state what Chomsky has mentioned but it also mentions that they have "agreed to actively pursue trilateral meetings involving the two Koreas and the United States, or quadrilateral meetings involving the two Koreas, the United States, and China with a view to declaring an end to the War". 2. After the declaration, the leaders of the two Koreas have met twice, once to decide what to do when Trump had canceled the Singapore summit, and after that, they met again (after Singapore) and it resulted in more cooperations, and some disarmament on the borders, but no results on the denuclearization. 3. The South Korean president has named himself as a mediator between the US and NK to resolve the nuclear issue, and as far as we can see SK never took an active role in the two denuclearization talks between the US and NK, to the point that the term "Korea Passing" has been used in the Korean media to describe the almost none existent role of SK in these talks. And as far as we can see no solutions were offered from the SK part, in Hanoi Trump offered what people call Yongbyon + alpha, and the NK asked for some sanction lifting for Yongbyon (Only a part of the program. In exchange for what? depends on who you ask. I do not trust the US nor NK in this case. ) I'm yet to see what is the SK solution to the nuclear issue. 4. During Trump's 'visit' to North Korea, despite the SK president being present there was no SK effort committed on the issue. The only thing that resulted from the last summit was the resumption of UK-NK working-level talks. Again, no SK involved. For all these reasons I do not believe "I will let you do it between you two" decision of Trump, as Chomsky suggests, ever happened, because he is already taking a very active role in these denuclearization talks, enough to eclipse the SK part if they ever had one. And the two Korean leaders seem to be ok with this because they are not demanding or suggesting SK participation in any of these talks. And I believe the Panmunjom declaration is not as important as he thinks in Korean self-determination. It certainly started the whole process, but it's just a declaration, in the end, it already didn't uphold in some of the agreed parts of the declaration, and in terms of the denuclearization US-NK seem to be the principal conductors, not SK-NK.

[@matth6900]

Wow even men of science now are starting to put the blinders on when it comes to emotions. Notice how Krauss felt uncomfortable hearing this? He even did the "ye, but no because Trump" at the end.

[@Denidrakes69]

I get that though. I mean, don't you get the feeling, by everything Trump says and does, his ignoring of all advisors and experts, his lies, his contempt for Congress and opposition, that he's attempting to learn from dictators rather than make peace with them?

[@matth6900]

@@Denidrakes69 It's not a negative to learn from a dictator - you might mean emulate?- but regardless no I don't think that.

[@iridescentsquids]

It's not just emotions. It's that "yes...but". The knowledge that one thing he does right includes other dimensions simultaneously that are dubious or wrong.

[@kuribojim3916]

It’s reasonable to credit Trump where credit is due. But as usual, Chomsky demonstrates a fairly obvious bias - he talks about US crimes against NK (real and perceived), without mentioning anything about the enormous dangers posed by NK, especially against its own people. This doesn’t entirely invalidate his overarching point, but it’s another conspicuous case of selective history that colours the discussion.

[@akompsupport]

Noam chomsky is a national treasure.

[@theonetruelenny9883]

More like global treasure

[@ShuasiBjorlen]

I’m not sure he’s completely accurate when saying trump is attacked from all sides on this issue. Plenty of his supporters tout what a huge “victory” it is every time he does something with Kim Jong Un.

[@scottsmith3478]

All sides in this case prob meaning both DEM and REP related establishment players, not normal every day people.

[@vladimirremmirez7671]

Noam Chomsky is the type of guy who would read about Trump on the Newspaper.

[@quinnishappy5309]

"bit of racism there" the best youtube moment so far

[@Tesla_Death_Ray]

Im confused, did he mean he himself was saying a racist thing?

[@rxtr664]

@@Tesla_Death_Ray Probably the report he was citing

[@DJ_Force]

Gained some respect for Chomsky. I still think he is a West/rich/white hating socialist nutjob. But he is at least consistent here with his philosophy, instead of just a rabid cheerleader for a political party.

[@mck1972]

Yes-Whatever else Chomsky is, he is consistent with his philosophy...

[@globaldigitaldirectsubsidi4493]

NOAM!! Global subsidiarity direct democracy is the solution!

[@Hirnlego999]

Exactly five years ago on Friday, Hawaii residents and visitors woke up to a terrifying emergency alert on their cell phones that sent a wave of panic across the state. The message warned of a ballistic missile heading for Hawaii. It read, “BALLISTIC MISSILE THREAT INBOUND TO HAWAII. Trump also praising the dictator is no good.

[@atomaalatonal]

nothing shocking here. when i saw trump in north corea i made a joke "only trump could go to north korea" :D. but i am sure it doesnt end good for the people there. he just opened a market, even if its without the usual capitalistic land grabbing by war

[@Shraven420]

if trump did something right its by accident

[@taoforte8988]

I don't like Orange baby but I like partisan rhetoric less. Why? Because that is why we have Orange baby to begin with.

[@unkatom]

Coddling dictators seems very unwise. Sure, Noam rightly dreads nuclear conflict... but dictators are fearful and unpredictable.

[@unkatom]

@JediNxf7 But what about when its two dictators? One de-facto and the other, a "wannabe"... the mind reels at the extended consequences of a mishap. But we can't do much about it until a very distant November in 2020. Maybe i can die before that? C'mon, Grim Reaper... i'm ready and willing!

[@jyashin]

Depends on the dictator. Is it easier for dictators to be corrupt and evil? Yes. Is it guaranteed? No. Lee Kuan Yew and Josep Tito are absolute dictators, but widely respected and praised.

[@jyashin]

@@ThreeFontStreet How people view a leader after his death is far more important than how he is viewed in life. Dictators have the ability to make decisions that are unpopular. However, sometimes the unpopular decision may be the correct decision. Had Tito not been brutal in life, could he have ever started the non-aligned movement?

[@ensteffo]

+UnkaTom The US loves dictators and regularly stages coups in other countries to install US puppet dictators. If media is demonizing another countries leader as a hostile dictator you can rest assure that it generally just means the country is independent and not a US vassal meaning its citizens are free from dictation from Washington. If there would be a corrupt dictator in a country which US media often claim against US imperialist targets, then the US would just bribe them etc.

[@d.hastings1779]

"literally wiped out".... but it's still there. so. no. not literally noam.

[@blaked5]

I take these comments not to be so much lauding the good work Trump has done, but rather Chomsky is reiterating the shameful history of American behaviour with respect to North Korea. Trump's love for dictatorship just put him in the conversation.

[@TraderTimmy]

Fine. Let’s make Trump special envoy to all the dictators, instead of president.

[@ferasalhati8713]

Im a huge fan of Chomsky, but i think he’s slightly wrong about North Korea. I’m not advocating for war with North Korea, but the way Trump is going at is bad. Trump is giving Kim Jun Un one diplomatic gift after the other without getting anything in return. Sure, have a sit down and negotiate for peace but don’t be naive about it.

[@shmul953]

I really really don't get it (Not specifically in this view rather in the Full Audio). What's going on here? Chomsky and Krauss think that's World domination is a game where everyone must play fair. That's ridicules. This isn't the Olympics where everyone suppose to play fair. Absolutely nonsense. . Fair isn't an acceptable concept between countries. Not only the US has to do everything in its power to remain the strongest, it should do its utmost to minimize China's and Russia’s power. Take a look at the examples Chomsky gives (in the full audio, not here) with regard to Patents. Chomsky said that England had become a world power because they stole technologies from India and the US by stealing from England. Fine. I guess that's true. But from here to suggest that it's OK for China to do so, is so Weird. Why? If we continue with that line of thought, that would mean that China will be the World Leader due to Tech Theft and low wages they pay their slaves and nobody wants that this Hive-Mind-Fascist of a country, which Chomsky himself called a Dungeon (not on this video) to be the World Leader. So I am at awe for how terrible Chomsky’s argument is. Do Chomsky and Krauss, which are both heroes of mine, wants China to win? Why? Do they want to see China at the same level of power and influence as the USA? Do they think that if the US will be fair and nice, China and Russia won't pounce immediately to Grad whatever they can get? The world isn’t unite and there is no world democracy so the only rule is survival of the Strongest. China and Russia are both Dictatorships which treat its citizens much worse that the USA. They have a much different set of Moral Values we do not share at all but for some reason, If you listen to them, all you’ll hear is how terrible the USA is. I guess China is the reason women have more rights today. I guess Russia is where the Gay Community take pride in how wonderful they are being treated. Really guys, what’s going on? Why Krauss isn’t pushing back, is beyond me. It’s as if he’s a child looking with admiration on his father, unable or afraid to speak his mind

[@AvatarOfBhaal]

"Chomsky said that England had become a world power because they stole technologies from India and the US by stealing from England. Fine. I guess that's true. But from here to suggest that it's OK for China to do so, is so Weird. Why?" Because otherwise America continue to have disproportionate power over China? "that would mean that China will be the World Leader due to Tech Theft and low wages they pay their slaves" Economic growth would lead to better wages for workers. "nobody wants that this Hive-Mind-Fascist of a country, which Chomsky himself called a Dungeon (not on this video) to be the World Leader" So we should back American fascism instead? It's not about leading. It's about equality. If you want a dungeon to progress beyond being a dungeon the status quo needs to change. "Do they want to see China at the same level of power and influence as the USA?" You're aware China has five times the population of the US. Why should a nation built on stolen wealth be in the position it is? "China and Russia are both Dictatorships which treat its citizens much worse that the USA" Yet incarceration rates are higher in America? "I guess China is the reason women have more rights today" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_women%27s_suffrage A time line highlighting that the US isn't the origin of womens rights. "I guess Russia is where the Gay Community take pride in how wonderful they are being treated" Homosexual persecution was still a thing in most of America up until the 90's? I'm happy to criticise China and other nations. Criticising our own is just as important though. (FYI I've been critical of both China and Russia as well as the UK (where I live) and the US). Nobody is saying it's wrong to criticise the problems of other nations. You seem content to ignore valid criticism of one based on the perception of another being worse, all the while admitting there are differences in perceptions.