The Chomsky Reader

by Noam Chomsky

The political and linguistic writings of America's leading dissident intellectual. He relates his political ideals to his theories about language.

Genres: Nonfiction, Politics, Philosophy, History, Essays, Linguistics, Sociology

514 pages, Kindle Edition

First published September 12, 1987

About the author

Avram Noam Chomsky is an American professor and public intellectual known for his work in linguistics, political activism, and social criticism. Sometimes called "the father of modern linguistics", Chomsky is also a major figure in analytic philosophy and one of the founders of the field of cognitive science. He is a laureate professor of linguistics at the University of Arizona and an institute professor emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Among the most cited living authors, Chomsky has written more than 150 books on topics such as linguistics, war, and politics. In addition to his work in linguistics, since the 1960s Chomsky has been an influential voice on the American left as a consistent critic of U.S. foreign policy, contemporary capitalism, and corporate influence on political institutions and the media.
Born to Ashkenazi Jewish immigrants (his father was William Chomsky) in Philadelphia, Chomsky developed an early interest in anarchism from alternative bookstores in New York City. He studied at the University of Pennsylvania. During his postgraduate work in the Harvard Society of Fellows, Chomsky developed the theory of transformational grammar for which he earned his doctorate in 1955. That year he began teaching at MIT, and in 1957 emerged as a significant figure in linguistics with his landmark work Syntactic Structures, which played a major role in remodeling the study of language. From 1958 to 1959 Chomsky was a National Science Foundation fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study. He created or co-created the universal grammar theory, the generative grammar theory, the Chomsky hierarchy, and the minimalist program. Chomsky also played a pivotal role in the decline of linguistic behaviorism, and was particularly critical of the work of B.F. Skinner.
An outspoken opponent of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War, which he saw as an act of American imperialism, in 1967 Chomsky rose to national attention for his anti-war essay "The Responsibility of Intellectuals". Becoming associated with the New Left, he was arrested multiple times for his activism and placed on President Richard M. Nixon's list of political opponents. While expanding his work in linguistics over subsequent decades, he also became involved in the linguistics wars. In collaboration with Edward S. Herman, Chomsky later articulated the propaganda model of media criticism in Manufacturing Consent, and worked to expose the Indonesian occupation of East Timor. His defense of unconditional freedom of speech, including that of Holocaust denial, generated significant controversy in the Faurisson affair of the 1980s. Chomsky's commentary on the Cambodian genocide and the Bosnian genocide also generated controversy. Since retiring from active teaching at MIT, he has continued his vocal political activism, including opposing the 2003 invasion of Iraq and supporting the Occupy movement. An anti-Zionist, Chomsky considers Israel's treatment of Palestinians to be worse than South African–style apartheid, and criticizes U.S. support for Israel.
Chomsky is widely recognized as having helped to spark the cognitive revolution in the human sciences, contributing to the development of a new cognitivistic framework for the study of language and the mind. Chomsky remains a leading critic of U.S. foreign policy, contemporary capitalism, U.S. involvement and Israel's role in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, and mass media. Chomsky and his ideas are highly influential in the anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist movements. Since 2017, he has been Agnese Helms Haury Chair in the Agnese Nelms Haury Program in Environment and Social Justice at the University of Arizona.

Reviews

[Fergus, Weaver of Autistic Webs · Rating 3 out of 5]

When there’s only one lifeboat left, it’s best not to shoot the bottom fulla holes. Nuff said?

You know, in June 1981 I did just that - I shot the daylights outa my life raft. As if I had a death wish?

Admittedly, I had. As a coddled senior citizen I now prefer easy listening fare on Spotify, though when I shift to modern jazz, my monstrous inner self-hatred rears its head and tells me point blank that my imminent death renders my comfort useless.

In June of 1981 my mom was dying. Type four lung cancer. No exit.

Tell me, do Any of us really have a one hundred percent proven strategy for staring death in the face? No. We’ll all face that mountain when we have to! Doesn’t that about say it all?

I was reading Chomsky back then, though - he was my death wish personified. So under the pressure of losing my mom - combined with this reading - I started to see my psychological superstructure crack!

As it would that month.

***

My mind still had some health in it, though, a few days before that crack appeared. My career seemed blocked because a junior programmer had caught the fancy of my section head. My coffee buddies routinely bad-mouthed the pair, so I was tarred with their brush by implication.

I would be filing my property records till judgment day, it seemed!

It was a mere jobine.

I was in an anarchistic mood. So I picked up this book. But by expanding my frustration, the only release it gave me was in megalomania, the up side of my bipolarity.

Seeing and sympathizing with my blocked rage, Bob, my supervisor, suggested a day off. I took him up on it, and so next day, I visited Parliament Hill to relax. It was a gorgeous day, after all, and the Tulip Festival was on…

But it was to be a disaster for me.

Arriving at the Hill, I realized parliament was in session. Why not line up for the visitors gallery? So I did.

But, once there, I made an utter ass of myself!

Immersed in the Chomsky Reader, I was taking notes quietly in the gallery when two Americans parked immediately behind me. Funny, they seemed to be talking about me.

Obviously I needed meds. But my shrink had said I didn't need them.

Famous last words...

In a huff, I noisily exited the gallery. I walked back to Elgin Street and went for a snack at the Party Palace.

There, a foreign gentleman came on to me. All the day's events became interlaced by my paranoia. It was circus time.

***

On Canada Day, July 1st, I was admitted to hospital for a short rest. I needed it now, of course.

Once released, I returned to work, my moods properly nullified.

There on my desk was a letter from Personnel. I was being promoted. My free ticket out of property records!

And even though my toxic coffee buddies now laughed at me, a loony -

I no longer really cared!

(To tell the truth, I only smiled, for I was free of them.)

Ready to be a Supply Manager -

An honest job with Honest Work.

[John · Rating 4 out of 5]

Reading this book was an affirmation of an established principle of mine. If you vehemently disagree with someone, read their book and make an effort to understand their thinking. Then make up your mind.
Chomsky is generally dismissed as an iconoclastic far-left gadfly, an academic who veered far off course from his primary area of expertise, linguistics. You will not find a kind word about him in National Review or possibly even in mainstream media.
Notwithstanding, and coming from this traditional conservative/libertarian, Chomsky is extremely intelligent and knows how to frame an argument. Many of the essays in this book were written more than 40 years ago. His comments were quite prescient. The problems he identified still remain. He is one of those intellectuals that you may disagree with but whom you would never, ever want to debate. He is simply too well-read and informed.
This book probably deserves a 4.5 but admittedly, my own biases prohibited me from bestowing this. Neverthess, a most worthy read.

[Andrew · Rating 4 out of 5]

Update 12/30/2025:

So I'm at the point where my feelings about Chomsky have changed enough that I feel the need to add this proviso to all my reviews of his books (and no it's not just the revelation that he was friends with Geoffrey Epstein).

I stand by the position that Chomsky has served a vital role in global political discourse, especially as it relates to media/propaganda analysis and U.S. imperialism (and probably linguistics... I don't know much about that topic). However, that role is more limited than I believed when I was first reading him 10-15 years ago. In fact, his role was confined to what it served in my case, which was to be an accessible entryway into radical leftist politics.

Having since moved far beyond that entryway, I can recognize Chomsky's consistent anti-communism/socialism and consistent support for modern imperialism (e.g. Libya, Syria) as essentially liberalism. Chomsky is a radical, but he is still a liberal, that's where the term "radlib" becomes extremely handy. So his analysis, while helpful to novice leftists, will always be extremely limited (e.g. against Marxism) or hypocritical (e.g. supporting imperial aggression in Libya). Whether or not he's been a State Dept. plant or not for all these decades is kinda beside the point imo. The point is how he can most effectively be used by the masses.

To that end, I would still recommend Chomsky to progressive liberals or self-described "leftists" who have not yet taken the plunge of committing to a specific subgenre of leftism. In my recommendation, however, I would strongly encourage folks to move beyond him as quickly as possible, preferably with Marxist texts like The Wretched of the Earth, Blood in My Eye, Open Veins of Latin America, Resistance and Decolonization, The Black Jacobins, Liberalism: A Counter-History, or The State and Revolution



Original Review (February 2016):

In all the reviews I've read of Chomsky's work I have yet to see a valid rebuttal of any of his points, which corroborates all of the fury, outrage and shame I always feel upon reading him. There's simply no refuting the facts he lays bare through his tireless research and exhaustive articles/books.

"Vital" is the word that most comes to mind to describe the man and his work. It is absolutely vital to us as U.S. citizens firstly, and secondarily to the rest of the world's inhabitants. The man is a national global treasure and I'm already ruing the day he is no longer with us. Those will be some Grand Canyon-sized shoes to fill.

I've only ever read Necessary Illusions (see my review) and this covers more ground, perhaps more superficially, and probably recycles some of that material -- but can you read this stuff too many times? Really you need to re-read and re-read once again, until it becomes ingrained, until you can recite this stuff, until you wake up with it every morning and go to sleep with it every night, because none of it should ever be forgotten. We need to always keep in mind just what kind of world we're living in. Whose world, I should say.

My favorite parts were the "Responsibility of Intellectuals" and the "Central America" sections. If you can only read one essay from the whole book you should make it "Intervention in Vietnam and Central America: Parallels and Differences," which encapsulates nearly everything important he has to say about the two continents in addition to the Cold War, U.S. foreign policy, and propaganda.

Sure his writing is dry -- the only real criticism anyone can make of him -- but getting hung up on his writing is batshit insane if you stop for even half a second to think about the content he's presenting. Seriously people, what is important here: the continual, systematic slaughter of millions of innocents by the world's greatest superpower, or the fact that the only guy writing about it doesn't make it flashy enough?

In recommending Chomsky, I don't really care if you read this one or not. Sure, why not? It's as good a place to start as any. Some people have said his interviews/speeches are more accessible, so maybe start there. Just read something of his, for god's sake, because this stuff needs to be common knowledge already.

Not Bad Reviews.

@pointblaek

[Markus · Rating 3 out of 5]

Everything about Chomsky is so cool and interesting except actually reading him. I mean its ok but I have a hard time getting into the mid 80's political lanscape of Nicaragua right now. So I tried his linguistics stuff, oh brother...
Whatever, he's still a fucking genius.

[William Schram · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Chomsky Reader is my first foray into Chomsky's thought. The book is made up of essays concerning Political Philosophy and Current Events. I didn't know a lot of what Chomsky talks about, so this book is infuriating. My take on foreign policy is that we should look at our issues first. I believe that being a "World Police" is ridiculous. We can barely solve our problems.

This book is excellent. My only issue is that the subject matter made me angry.

[Karen Mead · Rating 4 out of 5]

I've seen Chomsky's name come up in all kinds of discussions, so I figured it was time to actually find out why everyone loves to namedrop him. After reading this book, I understand why.

This book is basically The Emperor's New Clothes for adults, blowing away your illusions about American Foreign Policy, academia, the press, and so on. It does get a bit repetitive at times (since Chomsky applies the same basic logic to most of the situations presented in the book), but still; once you've read it, you probably won't view the world the same way-- and that's true even if you disagree with some of Chomsky's conclusions, as I do.

What's really interesting to me is the fact that the kind of views Chomsky espouses-- anti-capitalist, anti-American myth-making, lamenting a closed circle of powerful businesspeople that make the press and government into little more than puppets, etc.-- are usually the kinds of things I hear from enraged protesters . You know the kind-- standing on top of a truck, holding a megaphone, protesting nothing in particular because they're too busy telling you that EVERYTHING is horrible and we need to wake up and stick it to "the man," or whatever. Chomsky takes this rather extreme position and strips it of its hysteria, calmly and cogently advocating for the public to work towards putting checks on the power of big business, and the institutions that the business elite control.

Personally, I found the chapter on the Middle East to be the most disappointing of the lot-- it seems like Chomsky started performing the kind of mental gymnastics here that he (rightly) accuses other writers of throughout the rest of the book, and it rang a little false to me, but he still has a legitimate point to make.

Note: while there is a section on linguistics here, the book is really a compilation of Chomsky's works/talks on other subjects. If you're interested in Chomsky primarily as a linguist, pick up another of his books.

[Zac · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting fellow. Some topics I'll have to study more (I have a page of titles lifted from the notes section, and a bookmark in the notes section that just says "everything on this chapter.")

Very interesting examination of twentieth century events, particularly involving U.S. wars and indigenous economic improvement. Also a couple chapters on mind and language.

If you're not firmly welded to the idea that your own country has to be seen as the great Goodguy by all, it's quite illuminating. Raises some interesting Cold War points (essentially, each superpower pointed to the threat of the other superpower as an excuse to justify its own local grabs at power.) A major theme is that ideology is shaped to the benefit of those in power (which does not mean those in elected positions.) Ideologic blinders are so pervasive as to be invisible to those whose decisions are molded by them.

Perhaps my favorite point in the book is in the first part, the interview. Chomsky asserts that regular people really are smart enough to understand and judge world political situations, that it requires merely the degree of sense shown in any detailed discussion of sports, but they do not do so because the system is not set up for them to have much decision-making power, so those interested in using their minds are inclined to limit that to fun things such as sports. This reflects my own belief that intelligence is mostly a matter of interest.

Well worth reading and thinking about.

[Stephen Politzer-Ahles · Rating 4 out of 5]

Chomsky can be super annoying to read, because -- in spite of his reputation for clear and convincing logic and argumentation -- he often just asserts things without arguing them or providing evidence, saying stuff along the lines of "this is so obvious I need not dwell on it here" or "I have provided ample evidence for this elsewhere". This is understandable; he's been saying many of the same things for so long (and being ignored or misunderstood so often) that it's probably frustrating to be constantly asked to repeat himself; and perhaps many of these things were obvious and self-evident to informed audiences in the 60s and 70s in a way they were not today (just as today you could demolish a whole argument just by saying, e.g., "but Mitch McConnell said that", whereas a reader 50 years from now might not even remember who that is). Nevertheless, this all makes the stuff hard to read and follow sometimes.

Still, though, in the short time since I started reading this, I can't even count how many times the stuff here has come up in my own life. I've already had many times where I was thinking about something or talking about some issue with someone and found myself thinking or saying, "Chomsky has been making this point since the 60s". If you can decipher what they are, the observations he makes, connections he draws, and overall way of thinking about and explaining the world remain super relevant and useful today.

[Adam · Rating 3 out of 5]

You know, I hate to say it, but Chomsky's a bore of a read. Sure, it's hard to argue with his tirelessly researched positions, but he doesn't command engagement from the reader, either. I feel like Chomsky's theses are rehashed in response to each new current event, compiled in each new book. I might like to read a book by another author discussing his positions, just to read his ideas from a different voice, you know what I mean?

[Spicer · Rating 4 out of 5]

I'm finding it very difficult to read any contemporary, non-fiction works. Despite the potential subject matter being so ripe, most of what I've read can only be described as variations on howling, regardless of socio-political persuasion. Am I sounding cynical?

Therefore, I've re-embarked on the wonderful (though disturbing) journey of "The Chomsky Reader." I cannot adequately expresss how refreshing (though disturbing) it is to read works that are so well thought out and articulate. For the time being, I am divorcing the Krugmans, Suskinds, and other contemporaries and opting for the truly meaningful.

As always, when in need of some fiction--I'll simply log on to the NYT or the WaPo. Fortunately, I seldom enjoy fiction.

[T.krishna]

Making a comment about Noam Chomsky is trying to gauge the fathom of the ocean and he is a contemporary intellectual with no one will stand before him and he is known as modern father of Linguistics and he made studies on questions of war and peace and analysed the most intricate questions of human intelligence. His most influencial book on 'Manufacturing Consent' is most impact making one. It reveals the underlying radical coherency of his view of the world - from his enormously influential attacks on America's role in Vietnam to his perspective on Nicaragua and Central America Today. Chomsky's challenge to accepted wisdom about Israel and the Palestinians has caused a furore in America.No one has dissected more graphically the character of the cold war consensus and the way it benefits the two superpowers, and argued more thoughtfully for a shared elitist ethos in liberalism and communism. No one has exposed more logically America's acclaimed freedoms as masking irresponsible power and unjustified privilege, or argued quite so insistently that the "free press" is part of a stultifying conformity that pervades all aspects of American intellectual life and i am very impressed with his very incisive analysis on issues that are important in the World.

[Susannah]

"If men were angels there would be no need of laws." Americans never claimed to be angels and he is just another person disappointed in the reality separating ideology from its makers and exposing them as just more erring human beings.
I think Chomsky knows how to think, speak, and analyze brillliantly and incisively - though if he doesn't I'm not finishing this thing - but if all he does is publicly nag on the US and people, standing apart and judging, then of course he is able to remain "relentlessly pursuing' what he sees, "never backing down." The people awake to social injustice who get burnt out are those who invest themselves, in action, in trying and hoping for change.
My working theory is that Chomsky didn't invest his hopes, so they didn't get dashed. Naggers are safe.
But it might be great reading material on which to speed up my skimming ability: dense, interesting, full of arguments.

[Devon Start · Rating 2 out of 5]

seriously not a fan of this guy. i think i like his politics, but i am not sure. but he is also like mike moore and abit sensational and to get that he plays fast and loose with the facts.
he qoutes the bayonet as the number one killer in ww1. the bayonets effect is largely phsycological, you run before you stand around to get speared in the gut with it. anyway his facts are verifiably wrong on this, and if these facts are off, well everyting else is now suspect.

[Jane]

So far about 60% through this book which is very good at explaining the political thinking behind eg the Vietnam War. It is really changing my perception! In some ways it would be more comfortable not to think about these issues, but he really helps explain the complex modern world of aggressive capitalism.

[Joachim · Rating 5 out of 5]

An incredibly lucid and well-documented analysis of state systems and their complete blindness to their own bias, propaganda and hypocrisy.

People often label Chomsky as a lefty, but his books are a must for anyone interested in critical thinking, skepticism and honesty.

[Kent · Rating 5 out of 5]

This has an awesome essay about the Spanish revolution and liberals who don't really believe in democracy.

[Petra X · Rating 3 out of 5]

Something I dip into when I'm feeling contrary.

[Tim]

This is one of those that I keep returning to time and time again. "The Responsibility of the Intellectuals" is just as important now as when it was originally written.

[Reshid Bey · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was my first introduction into political philosophy and while I admittedly had some difficulty immediately understanding the historical or philosophical context of some of the arguments, I am glad that I stuck with it and took things slowly.

Chomsky's analysis is highly insightful and encapsulating but also incredibly dense, meticulously weaving in sources on almost every second line. While it can be said that this makes his arguments less approachable; admittedly, if he didn't do this many would simply dismiss him as an annoying and misdirected voice in the background of their conveniently intellectually subservient lives. This is particularly poignant in the context of it's audience, targeting the US intelligentsia, who are usually the most devout followers of state religion as they are it's implementers, subconsciously understanding that if they veer too far away from state doctrine they will not have a leg to stand on. The evidence has to be vast.

I particularly enjoyed the short essay called The Manufacture of Consent that presents that the “free press” merely echos pervasive and deeply seeded state doctrine and the various essays on the US invasions in Indochina, which all follow a highly rationalised approach of destroying developing countries into submission, implementing or supporting dictatorships and internal violence, refusing aid, calling any violent retaliation or suffering resulting from war as the result of communism and denying all responsibility for what is unquestionably mass genocide (around 4-5 million in Indochina). When you follow the line to its source it is clear that human rights are irrelevant when maintaining economic relationships that protect US dominance is paramount. So it follows that a push for self determination in even the most tiny of countries (such as Grenada) cannot be tolerated as it would inspire others to follow in its footsteps so they are crushed.

Keep in mind that these qualities of dominance don't only apply to the US, although it is the dominant superpower and in turn has a tight (although presently weakening) grasp of many strings. Chomsky's point is that we must be actively aware of the actions and motivations of our own countries as well as those who have close ties to come to any point of internal, but more specifically international cooperation around human rights.

[Isaac Scott · Rating 3 out of 5]

I was gifted this by a professor and mentor, and put it off for a few months (I fell off of reading after graduating). It was hard to jump into such a dense book after being out of practice, and it took me a long time to really get into the groove of reading it. But once it clicked, I really enjoyed the read. Although because of the book's structure and the selections by James Peck I found it got repetitive, especially in the third part of the book discussing US Foreign Policy.

I think there's value in pretty much every piece of writing here. That said, unless you're particularly interested in Chomsky or the subject matter, you can do with being a bit selective in what sections you read at any particular time. For me there were a few sections that stood out on this first read. These were: the interview, 'objectivity and liberal scholarship,' 'Language and Freedom,' 'At War with Asia,' and 'Rejectionism and Accommodation' (that last one in part due to the ongoing terror in Gaza).

Chomsky is a thinker that I hold dear, not just because of his insight, but because stumbling upon his talks and ideas as a teenager (apart from an incomplete reading of "Failed States" I had only seen videos of his talks) was foundational to my early political development. This book was of course very interesting to me, the interview especially, because it gave me a chance to learn more about Chomsky himself. Much of what I had seen of him was from later on as well (this book was published in 1987), so it was cool to see earlier work too.

[Rebecca · Rating 5 out of 5]

This heavily footnoted book contains excerpts from Chomsky's writings on various issues, especially American foreign affairs. He focuses on Southeast Asia, Central America and the Middle East, particularly Israel and the adjacent Arab nations. His arguments, which were very persuasive, is that American foreign policy is founded almost exclusively on its insistence that underdeveloped countries be open to American economic exploitation of their people, markets and resources. The primary source of its anti-communism is that these nations would be closed to American corporate exploitation if another economic path is pursued. No people can be allowed to see another country become prosperous, all or most of its citizens thriving in cooperation, dignity and respect, if it occurs outside of an American sphere of influence. Chomsky's explanations feel right and explain so many otherwise bewildering facts: the war in Vietnam and southeast Asia, the savage opposition to left-wing movements in Central and South America, and the propping up of brutal right-wing dictators. I feel woke! There is also a pretty strong element of racism that Chomsky did not account for in these essays, although he may address it in other works. I would recommend skipping the essay on B.F. Skinner's work unless you are a linguist, though.

[Mark · Rating 5 out of 5]

The ultimate Chomsky. This collection of essays falls under three main rubrics that are also the three major preoccupations of his work as a public intellectual: the role of intellectuals, specifically how they serve power; (rare) speculation on what humans are and in what kind of society we best flourish; the crimes of the world’s most powerful state during our lifetimes, his state. Some of the highlights: his view on the Spanish civil war in which the tacit liberal-Communist-fascists alliance destroyed the anarchist revolution before they turned on each other; the brutal takedown that ended Skinner's behaviorism; an overlooked, but brilliant essay on equality etc. Chomsky is
one of the greatest minds of our times: his abiding themes stem from some obvious, intuitive, elementary moral judgments all humans can make, even if few possess his intellectual abilities.

I first came across a quote from David Hume about Isaac Newton being "a greatest and rarest genius that ever arose for the ornament and instruction of the species" in a Chomsky essay. To me, that quote is also apt for Noam Chomsky.

[Cold · Rating 5 out of 5]

A friend wrote in the first page of their diary "Stay critical. Stay radical." I would replace the second with "Stay balanced". Chomsky manages to do all three. Would love to see a good critique/response to his foreign policy arguments.

[Angela · Rating 4 out of 5]

almost a necessity for any of us who work in and study Mass Communications.

[Paschalis]

elibrary

[laurel]

just read parts 3/4

[Omikun · Rating 5 out of 5]

Every essay is as informative and intellectually stimulating as a full season of blowback.

[Stephen Coates · Rating 2 out of 5]

I don’t recall which author recommended the essay "The Responsibility of Intellectuals" which comprises Part II of this book but while it was an author I respect, I was disappointed. The essay is itself broken down into three sections of which the first is also titled "The Responsibility of Intellectuals". This essay was an extensive discussion of the Vietnam War, citing many and persistent lies made by spokesmen for the US government about the underlying causes of and especially conduct of the war. However, Chomsky was himself dishonest claiming that the war was an American invasion of Vietnam whereas South Vietnam, which Chomsky doesn’t even acknowledge to have existed as a state, had been invaded by North Vietnam to assist the ongoing guerrilla warfare of the Viet Cong. But most significant was that the essay didn’t in any way state what he saw to be the responsibility of intellectuals.

The second essay, titled "Objectivity and Liberal Scholarship", looked at the Spanish Civil War and in particular the book on this war by Gabriel Jackson which had been given the most outstanding award for European history by the American Historical Association in 1966. While calling it an excellent example of liberal scholarship, Chomsky concluded that the liberal bias of the author caused him to misrepresent major events and overlook major historical currents, but without citing these major events and historical currents. He then cited the left wing critique of the social role of intellectuals in social transformations, without explaining that this critique is and went on to critique the power exercised by Robert NcNamara when he was Defence Secretary during the 1960s. In short, this essay did not present any discussion of liberal scholarship or objectivity.

The third essay, titled "The Manufacture of Consent", after posing the question of whether or not the native Americans consented to settlement, discussed American involvement in Central America, Vietnam and elsewhere, and the media not taking a hard line in opposition to government policy. Chomsky did mention the absence, with one notable exception, of Soviet domestic media criticism of the USSR’s invasion of Afghanistan, but the overall tone of this essay and indeed the three I did read was that "everyone knows" the USSR lacks a critical media and interferes internationally, but the USA is just as bad as if not worse. That being said, this essay was essentially a presentation of some examples of questionable American foreign policy forays, questionable in hindsight that is, and the lack of media criticism thereof, but it lacked a backbone narrative that matched its title.

Given my disappointment with the less than excellent quality of, given the reputation of the author, the three essays I read, I was disinclined to finish the book. Perhaps not coincidently, I just began to read “Christopher Hitchens and His Critics: Terror, Iraq and the Left”, edited by Simon Cottee and Thomas Cushman, the first half of which is a reprinting of several of Hitchens’s essays and the second half is comprised of critiques of Hitchens and his writing followed by a response by Christopher, all of which had appeared in print. Amongst the authors who refused to allow their criticisms to be reprinted in that book and which were thus summarised by the editors was Noam Chomsky, reducing my estimation of his integrity a bit more.

[D.B. · Rating 2 out of 5]

It's Chomsky, so you roughly know what to expect. This book -- or rather, this collection of essays -- is chewy and hasn't aged well. Chomsky is mostly arguing against mainstream positions at the time of writing, without really explaining what these mainstream views are. So this book consists mostly of rebuttals, but there is no clear explanation of what exactly the views are that need rebutting. You're apparently supposed to know that, and I don't.

Chomsky also refers to many minor political figures from the 60s and 70s, some of which I'm familiar with but many of them are complete unknowns to me. So this, too, makes the text unnecessarily inaccessible. Some of the essays have aged particularly poorly, such as Chomsky's early essays covering the Khmer Rouge atrocities. Information that came to light after these essays were written undermine Chomsky's thesis, but the casual reader wouldn't know this.

Finally, the writing style is dense and dry. If the subject matter itself is captivating I don't mind, but that isn't the case here.

I wanted to like this book, but unfortunately it's not a worthwhile read.

[CJ · Rating 4 out of 5]

Chomsky is an understandably upset man. Universal grammar is lame, but worse yet the Western academics, American Press, and the American government practice significant amounts of disinformation among themselves and the American people. This book is a collection of essays that does a pretty good job of hitting highlights of U.S. support for human rights abusing regimes and pointing out some likely points of hypocrisy on the part of the U.S. and mainstream academics. The cynicism clouds believability when it comes to actually explaining the dynamics behind some of the decision making in government. Or I am naive.