What do you think?
Rate this book
What We Say Goes: Conversations on U.S. Power in a Changing World
An indispensable set of interviews on foreign and domestic issues with the bestselling author of Hegemony or Survival , "America's most useful citizen." ( The Boston Globe )
In this new collection of conversations, conducted in 2006 and 2007, Noam Chomsky explores the most immediate and urgent Iran's challenge to the United States, the deterioration of the Israel-Palestine conflict, the ongoing occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, the rise of China, and the growing power of the left in Latin America, as well as the Democratic victory in the 2006 U.S. midterm elections and the upcoming presidential race. As always, Chomsky presents his ideas vividly and accessibly, with uncompromising principle and clarifying insight.
The latest volume from a long-established, trusted partnership, What We Say Goes shows once again that no interlocutor engages with Chomsky more effectively than David Barsamian. These interviews will inspire a new generation of readers, as well as longtime Chomsky fans eager for his latest thinking on the many crises we now confront, both at home and abroad. They confirm that Chomsky is an unparalleled resource for anyone seeking to understand our world today.
In this new collection of conversations, conducted in 2006 and 2007, Noam Chomsky explores the most immediate and urgent Iran's challenge to the United States, the deterioration of the Israel-Palestine conflict, the ongoing occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, the rise of China, and the growing power of the left in Latin America, as well as the Democratic victory in the 2006 U.S. midterm elections and the upcoming presidential race. As always, Chomsky presents his ideas vividly and accessibly, with uncompromising principle and clarifying insight.
The latest volume from a long-established, trusted partnership, What We Say Goes shows once again that no interlocutor engages with Chomsky more effectively than David Barsamian. These interviews will inspire a new generation of readers, as well as longtime Chomsky fans eager for his latest thinking on the many crises we now confront, both at home and abroad. They confirm that Chomsky is an unparalleled resource for anyone seeking to understand our world today.
240 pages, Paperback
First published October 2, 2007
61 people are currently reading
2042 people want to read
About the author
Noam Chomsky
976 books17.4k followersAvram 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.
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.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 103 reviews
October 31, 2023
Chomsky's book "What We Say Goes" is formatted as a collection of interviews. It presents a critical analysis of U.S. foreign policy, exploring topics such as American imperialism, power structures, media influence, and the impact of global intervention. Chomsky delves into the role of the United States in international affairs, addressing issues from a critical perspective and often scrutinizing the impact of U.S. decisions on the rest of the world.
The title "What We Say Goes" is inspired by The statement that was made “by George Bush I in February 1991. It was toward the end of the first Gulf War, when he said proudly that there is a “new world order” that we’re establishing and the main principle of this new world order is what we say goes.”
Chomsky's main idea revolves around the idea that the U.S., as a major superpower, has the authority to dictate or heavily influence international decisions, policy, and actions due to its economic, political, and military dominance. It cannot be questioned; and if there’s no justification for its actions, then it will create one, and it will go just because “they” say so. as This title encapsulates the supremacy and control exerted by the U.S., asserting that what the country states or decides tends to hold significant sway in global affairs, highlighting the asymmetric power dynamics prevalent in the world.
“So what we say goes as long as there is no threat, no danger. As long as it’s costless to us, what we say goes. By the early 1990s, when Bush made the statement, it looked as if there wasn’t going to be much cost to anything.”
One example of this arbitrariness is shown in the following incident:
“When China sent in workers to rebuild the bombed railroad, that was condemned as interference in Vietnam. For us to bomb is legitimate. For them to repair their railroad that we’re bombing shows that they are aggressors, and therefore we have to think about bombing China, and so on.”
“the United States is a leading outlaw state, totally unconstrained by international law, and it openly says so. What we say goes.”
Chomsky's writing and speeches resonate with me due to their accessibility and critical perspective. His ability to convey complex ideas in a way that's easy to grasp is incredibly valuable, making his insights on global issues more relatable and understandable. I appreciate his courage in challenging established norms, encouraging a critical examination of societal structures and global affairs. His work aligns with my belief in questioning authority and advocating for change, inspiring a more profound understanding of the world's complexities and fostering a sense of empowerment to challenge and resist unjust systems.
“One of the most effective devices is to encourage debate, but within a system of unspoken presuppositions that incorporate the basic principles of the doctrinal systems. These principles are therefore removed from inspection; they become the framework for thinkable thought, not objects of rational consideration.”
The title "What We Say Goes" is inspired by The statement that was made “by George Bush I in February 1991. It was toward the end of the first Gulf War, when he said proudly that there is a “new world order” that we’re establishing and the main principle of this new world order is what we say goes.”
Chomsky's main idea revolves around the idea that the U.S., as a major superpower, has the authority to dictate or heavily influence international decisions, policy, and actions due to its economic, political, and military dominance. It cannot be questioned; and if there’s no justification for its actions, then it will create one, and it will go just because “they” say so. as This title encapsulates the supremacy and control exerted by the U.S., asserting that what the country states or decides tends to hold significant sway in global affairs, highlighting the asymmetric power dynamics prevalent in the world.
“So what we say goes as long as there is no threat, no danger. As long as it’s costless to us, what we say goes. By the early 1990s, when Bush made the statement, it looked as if there wasn’t going to be much cost to anything.”
One example of this arbitrariness is shown in the following incident:
“When China sent in workers to rebuild the bombed railroad, that was condemned as interference in Vietnam. For us to bomb is legitimate. For them to repair their railroad that we’re bombing shows that they are aggressors, and therefore we have to think about bombing China, and so on.”
“the United States is a leading outlaw state, totally unconstrained by international law, and it openly says so. What we say goes.”
Chomsky's writing and speeches resonate with me due to their accessibility and critical perspective. His ability to convey complex ideas in a way that's easy to grasp is incredibly valuable, making his insights on global issues more relatable and understandable. I appreciate his courage in challenging established norms, encouraging a critical examination of societal structures and global affairs. His work aligns with my belief in questioning authority and advocating for change, inspiring a more profound understanding of the world's complexities and fostering a sense of empowerment to challenge and resist unjust systems.
“One of the most effective devices is to encourage debate, but within a system of unspoken presuppositions that incorporate the basic principles of the doctrinal systems. These principles are therefore removed from inspection; they become the framework for thinkable thought, not objects of rational consideration.”
August 5, 2025
Some notable points for me:
Speaks about the Boston Marathon bombers being radicalized with an entire generation of civilians in places like Yemen where the US bombed civilians indiscriminately. Says these attacks could do in one moment what generations of Jihadists failed to do to radicalize the civilians, because they saw the lengths that the US would go to harm their innocent communities.
The CIA infiltrated a polio vaccination clinic to find Osama Bin Laden, leading to a full generation of people not getting vaccinated for Polio out of fear of being murdered by the American government at these clinics. Much like Tuskagee!
"The best way to prevent future attacks is to not incite them"
Find it interesting that chomsky portrays the american international relationship divide as between american isolationism vs exceptionalism rather than isolationism vs interventionalism. especially in the quotes he picked, I find this to be erroneous. the belief that america is exceptional is necessary to believe we deserve the right to intervene, but not sufficient to suggest intervention. isolationism routed in america first is also an option, and a popular one at that.
LOL @ "america is a one-party state, the business party, with two factions: democrats and republicans"
it's so sad to read a passage from a decade ago inquiring if the US would finally threaten to withhold support to Israel if they start bombing Iran or threaten nuclear war...as an observer from the future l'm sorry to say we failed.
"insurgent math: for every innocent person you kill, you create 10 new enemies"
"today the word guilty means targeted for assasination by Obama and the word innocent means not yet accorded that status"
talks about how the war on terror is actually a war on tribal Islam where every act must be avenged and honor is very important.
Speaks about the Boston Marathon bombers being radicalized with an entire generation of civilians in places like Yemen where the US bombed civilians indiscriminately. Says these attacks could do in one moment what generations of Jihadists failed to do to radicalize the civilians, because they saw the lengths that the US would go to harm their innocent communities.
The CIA infiltrated a polio vaccination clinic to find Osama Bin Laden, leading to a full generation of people not getting vaccinated for Polio out of fear of being murdered by the American government at these clinics. Much like Tuskagee!
"The best way to prevent future attacks is to not incite them"
Find it interesting that chomsky portrays the american international relationship divide as between american isolationism vs exceptionalism rather than isolationism vs interventionalism. especially in the quotes he picked, I find this to be erroneous. the belief that america is exceptional is necessary to believe we deserve the right to intervene, but not sufficient to suggest intervention. isolationism routed in america first is also an option, and a popular one at that.
LOL @ "america is a one-party state, the business party, with two factions: democrats and republicans"
it's so sad to read a passage from a decade ago inquiring if the US would finally threaten to withhold support to Israel if they start bombing Iran or threaten nuclear war...as an observer from the future l'm sorry to say we failed.
"insurgent math: for every innocent person you kill, you create 10 new enemies"
"today the word guilty means targeted for assasination by Obama and the word innocent means not yet accorded that status"
talks about how the war on terror is actually a war on tribal Islam where every act must be avenged and honor is very important.
June 24, 2009
Chomsky opened me to the idea of a "framework for thinkable thoughts". That there can be an imagined spectrum that is really only a very narrow interpretation of events. In this book he really blew me away with his take on our Foreign Policy
March 1, 2016
The best thing about reading a Noam Chomsky book is that it recalibrates me. His work is never partisan, it simply is reality. And while you might find objection to just about every thought he says, after reading his words, you’ll realize that you are indeed wrong about the subject. This book is different than his previous work, as it has no central argument.
Rather, it’s a collection of far ranging thoughts penned during interviews with David Barsamian. I really enjoyed how this work was done, though I equally enjoyed the more focused works of Chomsky in the past. Of course, Chomsky stuck to his views of how power brokers manipulate the system constantly towards their own favor. What distressed me most was the fact that this class warfare, previously used on people in other lands, is now failing.
The result is that these elites are now retreating to the only places where they can maintain their powerbases. This translates to class warfare upon people like you and me. Considering the ignorance and misunderstanding of history both within and external to the U.S., this warfare has been a simple undertaking. We are, of course, in a position to defend ourselves from that, and Chomsky does offer some hope. I’m not sure that I agree with that sentiment though. Reading this book is a perhaps the easiest way to enter the mind of Chomsky, and you’ll be amazed and humbled by the words he has chosen.
Rather, it’s a collection of far ranging thoughts penned during interviews with David Barsamian. I really enjoyed how this work was done, though I equally enjoyed the more focused works of Chomsky in the past. Of course, Chomsky stuck to his views of how power brokers manipulate the system constantly towards their own favor. What distressed me most was the fact that this class warfare, previously used on people in other lands, is now failing.
The result is that these elites are now retreating to the only places where they can maintain their powerbases. This translates to class warfare upon people like you and me. Considering the ignorance and misunderstanding of history both within and external to the U.S., this warfare has been a simple undertaking. We are, of course, in a position to defend ourselves from that, and Chomsky does offer some hope. I’m not sure that I agree with that sentiment though. Reading this book is a perhaps the easiest way to enter the mind of Chomsky, and you’ll be amazed and humbled by the words he has chosen.
March 8, 2008
Noam apparently sees everything very clear but all in black or white. Especially in the Israel/Palestine issue there is some paradoxes I never understand. How come people like Chomsky who are left-winged pro-free speech and democracy, anti-death penalty, always root for hardcore palestinians like Hamas who are anti-democratic and wish to wipe out Israel? How come right-winged fundamental Christians always cheer for jews who they use to persecute, in a historical sense practically invented anti-semitism "because they killed Jesus"? How come that people like president Ahmadinejad who hates jews the most, dont believe in holocaust? Isnt that the same to say to a jew: "I dont believe what happend to your grandfather but I sure as hell wish it will happen to you"??
If you justify one side - any side - you are part of the problem not the solution. Nobody deserves to die. If you cannot accept that, there will never be peace.
If you justify one side - any side - you are part of the problem not the solution. Nobody deserves to die. If you cannot accept that, there will never be peace.
February 29, 2008
"America doesn't have friends, America only has interests"
- Henry Kissinger
It's bleakly disturbing how accurate Kissinger's quote was, is, and, most-likely, will continue to be after reading Chomsky. Chomsky explores, details, and elaborates [on] America's troubling foreign policies and offers complex insights into our current western societies, our somewhat amazing ability to ignore history, the changing role of media and its powerful ability to present/suppress information, as well as the Might=Right ideology that America has adopted. it is an alarming piece of work.
- Henry Kissinger
It's bleakly disturbing how accurate Kissinger's quote was, is, and, most-likely, will continue to be after reading Chomsky. Chomsky explores, details, and elaborates [on] America's troubling foreign policies and offers complex insights into our current western societies, our somewhat amazing ability to ignore history, the changing role of media and its powerful ability to present/suppress information, as well as the Might=Right ideology that America has adopted. it is an alarming piece of work.
November 21, 2015
Here's a person who takes a stand, caustic though it may seem, but justifiably so. It was through this book that many of my doubts and misunderstandings about the role of US in the Middle East and Latin America were debunked. An eye opener on many accounts, this book makes for an amazing read!
August 28, 2019
This book is essentially an edited transcript of a conversation between Chomsky and David Barsamian. If you've ever listened to or watched a Chomsky interview before, it's pretty much exactly like that. His way of speaking is extremely different from his writing. It's far more accessible and easy to follow. The interviewer really hops around with different topics just like in a live interview. One page they're talking about Israel and the next it's Cuba, and the next it's the horn of Africa. They never really stay on one topic too long so nothing goes into depth. That's not necessarily a bad thing but it's quite different from any other Chomsky book I've read. That said, everything does seem to tie in nicely to the overall thesis of the book which the title hints at with "what we say goes." As with many of Chomsky's work, he's focused on US hegemony and its effect worldwide.
This book was published in 2007 and is dated in a number of ways. It was interesting to compare how Chomsky talks about certain issues today in comparison to 2007. For example, when Barsamian asks him about climate change, Chomsky says it's a threat but very quickly pivots to talking about the larger threat of nuclear war and completely glosses over climate change. He has certainly changed his views on this now and speaks much more dramatically about the consequences of not acting on climate change now. That's just one example. There are many other places in the book where there has been a significant amount of change since 2007 and yet a great deal has also stayed the same.
Simply because of its easy accessibility, I think this is a great book for those who are unfamiliar with Chomsky's foreign policy commentary and analysis and want to get a general idea of what he thinks on an array of topics.
This book was published in 2007 and is dated in a number of ways. It was interesting to compare how Chomsky talks about certain issues today in comparison to 2007. For example, when Barsamian asks him about climate change, Chomsky says it's a threat but very quickly pivots to talking about the larger threat of nuclear war and completely glosses over climate change. He has certainly changed his views on this now and speaks much more dramatically about the consequences of not acting on climate change now. That's just one example. There are many other places in the book where there has been a significant amount of change since 2007 and yet a great deal has also stayed the same.
Simply because of its easy accessibility, I think this is a great book for those who are unfamiliar with Chomsky's foreign policy commentary and analysis and want to get a general idea of what he thinks on an array of topics.
January 19, 2012
My first "on hiatus" review of 2012, which means it ain't a real review by my usual standards; more of a placeholder. Noam Chomsky's geopolitical books (as opposed to the purely linguistic-related ones) tend to be of two types: those he writes himself, which tend to be verbose and dry and crammed with stats, and those which more or less "sound bite" him in collaboration with interviewer David Barsamian. I have to be fess up and admit I still haven't read any "pure" Chomsky, so far only encountering him from the film version of Manufacturing Consent, from various print and web interviews and from several of the easy to digest interview books like this one. This one starts off weakly with a rather diffuse and contextually lacking discussion of the situation in the Middle East but gets better when Chomsky discusses the situation in Latin America, where his historical analysis seems spot on. For such a heavy topic as the consequences of U.S. imperialism, the book might strike some as lightweight, but it's a good overview of what's been going on, only marred by occasionally unhelpful observations, such as Chomsky's grasping-at-straws and gilding-the-lily attempt to add more discredit to George W. Bush by alleging that his Texas accent might be fake...as if his record wasn't enough.
August 11, 2024
Incredible to believe our friend Noam is somehow still alive after enduring nine decades of increasingly grave disappointment!
June 9, 2013
Brilliant! He so clearly elucidates the nexus between industry and government, agendas of various governments, of course more in the context of US world dominance.
Excerpt from the book:
On India: "You turn govt. funding into support for software engineering and take it away from rural development - support for farmers, irrigation, rural credit. So, you drive farmers to export production...
And the prices fluctuate radically. So one year you may make a lot of money and the next year you may make nothing...
If you're a poor farmer and you can't sell your crops one year, you can't tell your children, "Don't worry, we don't have to eat this year. Maybe we'll eat next year." Since the govt. does not provide rural credit. thanks to the policies (Thomas) Friedman lauds, you borrow from an usurer at 40% interest...
That's why the rate of peasant suicides is sharply rising within eyesight of the marvels that Friedman describes"
Excerpt from the book:
On India: "You turn govt. funding into support for software engineering and take it away from rural development - support for farmers, irrigation, rural credit. So, you drive farmers to export production...
And the prices fluctuate radically. So one year you may make a lot of money and the next year you may make nothing...
If you're a poor farmer and you can't sell your crops one year, you can't tell your children, "Don't worry, we don't have to eat this year. Maybe we'll eat next year." Since the govt. does not provide rural credit. thanks to the policies (Thomas) Friedman lauds, you borrow from an usurer at 40% interest...
That's why the rate of peasant suicides is sharply rising within eyesight of the marvels that Friedman describes"
August 2, 2020
"All countries are equal but there's one that is more equal", I would describe the book by rephrasing a quote from still unread Animal Farm.
It's a detailed explanation of what was going on in the world before the middle of the first decade of 2000s, though it feels slightly outdated due to new circumstances, however it is still worth a read if one wants to get a rather objective perspective on the US hegemony in the world, cause one will be told alternative scenarios of what would happen without their intervention in foreign affairs for their pursuit of own benefit.
I was also surprised to find a short foreseeing passage about pandemic almost 15 years ago though Noam Chomsky was describing a risk and danger of a bird flu spread, he mentioned one government's unpreparedness, idleness and need to get ready to such occurences in the future which is... now.
It's a detailed explanation of what was going on in the world before the middle of the first decade of 2000s, though it feels slightly outdated due to new circumstances, however it is still worth a read if one wants to get a rather objective perspective on the US hegemony in the world, cause one will be told alternative scenarios of what would happen without their intervention in foreign affairs for their pursuit of own benefit.
I was also surprised to find a short foreseeing passage about pandemic almost 15 years ago though Noam Chomsky was describing a risk and danger of a bird flu spread, he mentioned one government's unpreparedness, idleness and need to get ready to such occurences in the future which is... now.
July 24, 2011
He's brilliant as always--I listened to this as an audiobook and he speaks in such a wonderfully rational tone. It's also good to hear how things have improved since the 1960's in terms of public discourse. I can never get enough Noam.
August 18, 2015
Felt dumber with each page - how can one person retain so much information and still function in such an inherently corrupt system?
August 15, 2020
It's interesting reading this nearly 15 years after it's release. Chomsky is pretty much only ever proven right when predicting where the world is going, which is quite scary.
October 10, 2025
While always exposing cruel truths of the unknown to more than 90% of Americans, Chomsky with tag-teamer, David Barsamian
Still, when asked about “FISSURES” and times being as bad as four (now nearly 6) decades ago, Chomsky surprisingly sounds optimistic: “… that it’s far easier today to dissent against many of the issues that were” taboo or got you Blacklisted back in the 60s. Fissures occurring nationally that are fair game for debate; social issues, immigration, LGBTQ+ (…) -which didn’t exist back then in 2010, women’s and racial issues and rights, healthcare disparities, Anti-Corporations, The Military Industrial Complex, OR Globally; Green EVERYTHING or the absence there of, or The Double Standards (vehemently attacking countries using Fossil Fuels when every leading nation today used them with abandon for more than 70 years) and the half-dozen other Big Ticket debates, are all open to discussion throughout every states, cities, and in DC!
2025
I wonder how he feels today?
Again and again, Chomsky would chant this Mantra— Shit’s bad; Manipulative regimes, suppressing truths, propaganda in all aspects used to vilify and manipulate, atrocities and NON-votes being under-reported or completely ignored ~ still the U.S. citizens have more power and influence than in the 1960s or ‘70s.
4:46.11
Reduce the options of existence for Palestinians, reducing them to point of extinction to a minimum; building permits, their land slowly being taken away from them, their economic viability is being destroyed. The connections to their hinterland and their surrounding land are being cut off.
But Step-by-step, you accept more State Propaganda , you internalize it, it becomes the basis for the next discussion. Now, if anyone points out the truth, that you’re going against US policy in Israel, then your suddenly a Holocaust Denier.
That’s the way you get to the point where you can talk about the Golan Heights Disputed Territories.*
The SEMANTICS of “Narrative”
4:44.29
Interviewer, David Barsamian mentions how the U.S. and tangentially ‘Mer’KKKans have always followed the “Israeli narrative” and Chomsky gave Barsamian a face of some sort [Libby Audiobook] and he says “I do not like the word ‘narrative’, why don’t we just say the historical truth.”
When the US is supporting suppression, occupation and repression, which prohibits the Palestinian side from being seen, heard, validated or acknowledged this, Chomsky claims, is the same with any oppositional voices to the Almighty Bully Big Brother ‘MerKKKa!
Another brilliant George Carlin example of semantics. When Media use this wonderful word “narrative” it becomes a short story. It becomes less than the truth. The silly ass mouthpieces have begun telling people that if they are the survivor of rape, genocide, or a hostile business takeover or failed one costing citizens BILLIONS, it becomes that person‘s “narrative“. It’s a way of demeaning and negating whatever they’re saying as “story“ and not recording correctly their experiences, which are their truths. When reporters are outside a courtroom and talking about a case, they say things like “allegedly“, they quote things the prosecutor “…presented her case with these WITNESSES, Forensic Evidence and other theories…” and some of those items could be seen as “facts”, sometimes they can just be seen as “exhibits A., B. and C,” etc. Still none of these words say “make-believe“, “short story“, or “narrative“.
This was piggybacked with Barsamian asking why Liberals and Chomsky included don’t use words like “Colonies”, “Colonization” among others.
“It’s not Colonization it’s Annexation, which is a Conquest so that’s why I don’t use those words.”
NPR
81%
4:47.28
Never cited WHAT Iraqis WANT
4:54:57 (from 4:54:00)
83%
Bleak but still many advances from 1960s Stamping Out any opposition— Vilification
4:55:22
83%
“The great only appear great as long as the rest of us are in our knees.”
5:02:02
85%
“Every serious Revolutionary is a Reformist.” You don’t want complete and utter radical change overnight (not only is it next to impossible, it’s volatile on dozens of scales) you want gradual progressive changes over three years over 5-15 years.
5:05:12
86%
“[‘MerKKKan] Exceptionalism is all but ~ quite common.”
Slavery arises from Imperialism Complex
“Apes are smarting than humans because they chosen not to speak. If they had, they knew they would’ve been enslaved by the others.” [sic]
5:13:03
88%
People STILL claiming Iraq had WsMD??
Harris Poles are good but they don’t do [DEEP DIVES].
BETTER in-depth data from DC’s PIPA
Program of International Policies and Attitudes at UMD. Go Terrapins!!
Chicago Counsel on Foreign Relations (NEW NAME)
These two organizations’ Individual and Joint Poles are far more comprehensive.
Stephen Cole ~ Director or
Former Chairman of the Institute of Diplomacy and Business and a Global Ambassador for the Commonwealth Club was instrumental in compiling data illustrating how many may have felt this way through propaganda.
Politics of Fear
Arthur Vanderberg’s “You better scare the hell out of the American people.”
James Peck’s “Washington’s China”
Evidence derived from Internal dialogues.
Sounds schizophrenic to me?? Definitely NOT Peer Reviewed nor Think Tanked!
Fearmongering SOP
“They thought desperately to create some back story that would scare the FUCK outta ‘MerKKKans.”
Additionally, since referenced in this book, I watched a brilliant 30th Anniversary Documentary / Interview segment on Al Jazeera’s “The Listening Post“— RICHARD GIZBERT discussing with Noam Chomsky about his and Edward S. Herman’s 1988 book “Manufacturing Consent”.
Book printed in several languages
"A propaganda model... traces the routes by which money and power are able to filter out the news fit to print, marginalize dissent, and allow the government and dominant private interests to get their messages across to the public.”
"Journalists are not normally kept under control through top-down intervention, but by journalists' internalization of priorities and definitions of news-worthiness that conform to the institution's policy."
Rolling Stone writer Matt Taibbi says that he’s a product of the machine where he claims that his Working Class father started up as a newspaper delivery boy, then he worked as lower level in the print house and then he became a reporter. In contrast, Taibbi and his generation have grown up in the city, privileged, and far removed from the ills of the world; even just 20 blocks or a bridge away IN ANY DIRECTION from where he lives. Being separated from the masses, and being out of touch, make him a very dangerous “reporter“, “journalist“, and therefore part of the Media Industrial Complex — “I’m one of the elite.”
He doesn’t deny that he remains apart from the information though I’m sure he has access to the same information that an eight-year-old can get on YouTube, Google, or a fucking library.
Yet, with the elite privileged, it’s like what the Haaretz correspondent for the Occupied Territories, Amira Hass, said in the YT Blurb; “It’s a sad realization when we can filter OUT only the news [of all the millions of sources out there feeding us ONLY the specific five topics of shit] that interests us.” An extremely small slice of all the information that’s out there about all the atrocities, genocide, beheadings, false imprisonments, racial and sexually-illegal maneuvers and offenses — how we can just have the fat cats falling off the couches videos on ENDLESS loops, OR we can have just the news from one or two sources that’ll tell us pretty much what we want to hear, [ALGOs] and they’ll filter out all the stuff that may upset us or get us thinking, “Why is it like that?”
Any questions?
Nah, I good!!
Maybe that’s why Taibbi was NOT included in the YT write-up, as the other two seem to be pro and kind of the arguing against that Chomsky’s assertion about “believing what you know.”
20:35
Collective Self-Defense
21:00
SOUND BITES as PROPAGANDA
Another form of propaganda in the news is the soundbite. Chomsky gave an example of if you ask if Iraq is Totalitarian you can do that in two sentences before the commercial and two sentences after the commercial. However, if you ask the same question is the US Totalitarian, you’d have to have at least a 15 minute response to break down the historical ramifications and how things are different in order for the audience to easily understand how you came to your justification (in accordance with the agreed upon definition of ‘Totalitarianism’)”
Therefore, anything negative against the home team is shortened into two sentences of a “Yyes” [Dems is Fighin’ Words!] or “No,” [Thank you for being a Team Player!] — short blurbs and then people can rail into you because they don’t understand why you came up with that answer. Primarily because they don’t know the agreed upon definition of ‘Totalitarianism’ or the need to feel Superior or More Than or simply “Othering”. This is one reason why Chomsky never appeared on ABC’s Nightline with Ted Koppel 1980 — 2005 (when Koppel retired).
Created by Roone Arledge, Nightline used to be one of two shows I liked within ‘Mer’KKKan News outlets. PBS’ News Programs used to be another reliable Go-To because Sponsors or advertisers gained greater influence. The main problem, missing Nightline, as it often got bumped five minutes, 25 minutes because of a lengthy sports event, or some other bullshit that ALWAY$ seemed to be much more important than 22 minutes of real news.
Yep, this is why I loved John Stewart’s “The Daily Show” and subsequently Steve Colbert’s “The Colbert Report” show as they would have Authors on and they would speak for 12 or more minutes, basically half the airtime was dedicated to a sitdown discussion with the authors. Of course, this wasn’t your regular nationalized Gub’Mint sanctioned new station. It was a cable comedy show. Which is why I told my Scholars back in 2009 through 2011, “I get most of my real news from Comedy Central.”
You gotta laugh when you open yourself up to REALITY. Otherwise you’re bound to get desperate and do something stupid, crazy or both!
While John Oliver’s “Last Week Tonight”show is brilliant as well, it’s too one-sided though they are 16-minute Deep Dives into well researched main topic. What I love about his show, he bringing awareness of things that most Americans have no fucking clues happening around them. A slight list of things that I’ve become aware of:
the antiquated sewer systems in the United States of America.
Age of the nuclear weapons site that could possibly fire off at any given moment because of deterioration and lack of maintenance.
Nuances in healthcare, nursing, air traffic control, the Dollar Stores Scandals, and so many other episodes. Every fucking episode I’ve seen, even when I thought I’m well-versed on a particular issue, I’ve learned something new, usually a few NEW ramifications or laws or twists about that topic than I’d known before.
Bill Maher is getting a little bit more assholerly with shutting people down like he attempted to do with his Bubby-Buddy cigar and whiskey session with Bill Burr. However, Boston Buddy Burr called Bill out on every single BULLSHIT move; shoveling RIGHT BACK into Maher’s face, making him SMELL IT before making him eat it all up! In Maher’s futile attempts to be condescending, using $0.25 words, and trying to appear superior in his opinions through diction, Bill Burr picked up every fucking drop of his shit and jammed it right down his fucking throat again, calling him on every last one of his little highfalutinisms.
Still, Maher’s Real Time is probably the best example of open debate or dialogue with his attempt to get kids from both sides of the tracks, wall, Gerrymandered, Redlined Hoods, in a round table discussing topics. Proponents may be adamantly against the person sitting to their left, their right or across the table from them, they still come on and civilly discuss the topics of the day. And as much laughter ensues, it’s not all aimed at pundits more their believes or FACTS of who’s been killed, raped, abused or otherwise marginalized in the daily papers or other “trusted” Media. There’s no denying what is consensually accepted as NEWS.
Or
Is
There?
“Manufacturing Consent” and most of Chomsky’s, Stewart’s and Colbert’s rants continue to question in search of The Truth.
Far removed from your Bullshit Catty women’s shows, “The View”, or some of these other shows that attempt to be impartial and unbiased. They just wouldn’t ever have a Chomsky on their shows, as if they’d ever ask nor he would ever accept.
Being HBO and having more freedom to actually expand a post off and to swear and to really get into shit, especially with “Overtime”, Podcasts and other growing “media” outlets these are the closest to real journalism which makes tomorrow that much brighter.
I love the ending of this Al Jazeera Documentary where the moderator almost admiringly of Chomsky, even though he’s been a huge critic against the New York Times, he goes to that newspaper, FIRST and FOREMOST as a source for information because he mentioned it’s still the most investigative, in depth and diverse of all Media. I really do love the way the commentator picked up on this and he said, “Even though he may despise in New York Times, he doesn’t shut himself off to the outlet and the source of potential information.” [sic] Since this was published eight years ago, Chomsky has aged considerably but he’s still a beacon of Truth, in all its worthwhile pursuits. We must continue to analyze the state of the world as far as consent, media outlets, and what is questioned and more importantly what is NOT questioned. I am an advocate of watching Fox “News”, reading the Breitbart “news” of the whatever Rush Limbaugh‘s and the Bill O’Reilly‘s and whomever is out there writing and saying whatever the fuck they’re saying to understand a little bit better their argument, their side and I’m really happy. I’ve tumbled across books that were from you know anti-feminist, anti-LGBTQ, full on the Right Wing Matt nutballs, not knowing it like Peterson and Charles Krakauer. And it wasn’t too far into their books or into one of their essays where you realize, “Ohhhhh, though he’s extremely eloquent, he’s a sexist bigot.” Or “This guy is not as friendly as I wouldn’t normally invite him to coffee. But I’m glad I stumbled across these guys because I’ve picked up on cultures, ideas and “movements” so pervasive and insidious we ALL must be better prepared for the next wave otherwise these books / shows will destroy Democracy more than they already have.
Count me a Chomsky-ite!
Still, when asked about “FISSURES” and times being as bad as four (now nearly 6) decades ago, Chomsky surprisingly sounds optimistic: “… that it’s far easier today to dissent against many of the issues that were” taboo or got you Blacklisted back in the 60s. Fissures occurring nationally that are fair game for debate; social issues, immigration, LGBTQ+ (…) -which didn’t exist back then in 2010, women’s and racial issues and rights, healthcare disparities, Anti-Corporations, The Military Industrial Complex, OR Globally; Green EVERYTHING or the absence there of, or The Double Standards (vehemently attacking countries using Fossil Fuels when every leading nation today used them with abandon for more than 70 years) and the half-dozen other Big Ticket debates, are all open to discussion throughout every states, cities, and in DC!
2025
I wonder how he feels today?
Again and again, Chomsky would chant this Mantra— Shit’s bad; Manipulative regimes, suppressing truths, propaganda in all aspects used to vilify and manipulate, atrocities and NON-votes being under-reported or completely ignored ~ still the U.S. citizens have more power and influence than in the 1960s or ‘70s.
4:46.11
Reduce the options of existence for Palestinians, reducing them to point of extinction to a minimum; building permits, their land slowly being taken away from them, their economic viability is being destroyed. The connections to their hinterland and their surrounding land are being cut off.
But Step-by-step, you accept more State Propaganda , you internalize it, it becomes the basis for the next discussion. Now, if anyone points out the truth, that you’re going against US policy in Israel, then your suddenly a Holocaust Denier.
That’s the way you get to the point where you can talk about the Golan Heights Disputed Territories.*
The SEMANTICS of “Narrative”
4:44.29
Interviewer, David Barsamian mentions how the U.S. and tangentially ‘Mer’KKKans have always followed the “Israeli narrative” and Chomsky gave Barsamian a face of some sort [Libby Audiobook] and he says “I do not like the word ‘narrative’, why don’t we just say the historical truth.”
When the US is supporting suppression, occupation and repression, which prohibits the Palestinian side from being seen, heard, validated or acknowledged this, Chomsky claims, is the same with any oppositional voices to the Almighty Bully Big Brother ‘MerKKKa!
Another brilliant George Carlin example of semantics. When Media use this wonderful word “narrative” it becomes a short story. It becomes less than the truth. The silly ass mouthpieces have begun telling people that if they are the survivor of rape, genocide, or a hostile business takeover or failed one costing citizens BILLIONS, it becomes that person‘s “narrative“. It’s a way of demeaning and negating whatever they’re saying as “story“ and not recording correctly their experiences, which are their truths. When reporters are outside a courtroom and talking about a case, they say things like “allegedly“, they quote things the prosecutor “…presented her case with these WITNESSES, Forensic Evidence and other theories…” and some of those items could be seen as “facts”, sometimes they can just be seen as “exhibits A., B. and C,” etc. Still none of these words say “make-believe“, “short story“, or “narrative“.
This was piggybacked with Barsamian asking why Liberals and Chomsky included don’t use words like “Colonies”, “Colonization” among others.
“It’s not Colonization it’s Annexation, which is a Conquest so that’s why I don’t use those words.”
NPR
81%
4:47.28
Never cited WHAT Iraqis WANT
4:54:57 (from 4:54:00)
83%
Bleak but still many advances from 1960s Stamping Out any opposition— Vilification
4:55:22
83%
“The great only appear great as long as the rest of us are in our knees.”
5:02:02
85%
“Every serious Revolutionary is a Reformist.” You don’t want complete and utter radical change overnight (not only is it next to impossible, it’s volatile on dozens of scales) you want gradual progressive changes over three years over 5-15 years.
5:05:12
86%
“[‘MerKKKan] Exceptionalism is all but ~ quite common.”
Slavery arises from Imperialism Complex
“Apes are smarting than humans because they chosen not to speak. If they had, they knew they would’ve been enslaved by the others.” [sic]
5:13:03
88%
People STILL claiming Iraq had WsMD??
Harris Poles are good but they don’t do [DEEP DIVES].
BETTER in-depth data from DC’s PIPA
Program of International Policies and Attitudes at UMD. Go Terrapins!!
Chicago Counsel on Foreign Relations (NEW NAME)
These two organizations’ Individual and Joint Poles are far more comprehensive.
Stephen Cole ~ Director or
Former Chairman of the Institute of Diplomacy and Business and a Global Ambassador for the Commonwealth Club was instrumental in compiling data illustrating how many may have felt this way through propaganda.
Politics of Fear
Arthur Vanderberg’s “You better scare the hell out of the American people.”
James Peck’s “Washington’s China”
Evidence derived from Internal dialogues.
Sounds schizophrenic to me?? Definitely NOT Peer Reviewed nor Think Tanked!
Fearmongering SOP
“They thought desperately to create some back story that would scare the FUCK outta ‘MerKKKans.”
Additionally, since referenced in this book, I watched a brilliant 30th Anniversary Documentary / Interview segment on Al Jazeera’s “The Listening Post“— RICHARD GIZBERT discussing with Noam Chomsky about his and Edward S. Herman’s 1988 book “Manufacturing Consent”.
Book printed in several languages
"A propaganda model... traces the routes by which money and power are able to filter out the news fit to print, marginalize dissent, and allow the government and dominant private interests to get their messages across to the public.”
"Journalists are not normally kept under control through top-down intervention, but by journalists' internalization of priorities and definitions of news-worthiness that conform to the institution's policy."
Rolling Stone writer Matt Taibbi says that he’s a product of the machine where he claims that his Working Class father started up as a newspaper delivery boy, then he worked as lower level in the print house and then he became a reporter. In contrast, Taibbi and his generation have grown up in the city, privileged, and far removed from the ills of the world; even just 20 blocks or a bridge away IN ANY DIRECTION from where he lives. Being separated from the masses, and being out of touch, make him a very dangerous “reporter“, “journalist“, and therefore part of the Media Industrial Complex — “I’m one of the elite.”
He doesn’t deny that he remains apart from the information though I’m sure he has access to the same information that an eight-year-old can get on YouTube, Google, or a fucking library.
Yet, with the elite privileged, it’s like what the Haaretz correspondent for the Occupied Territories, Amira Hass, said in the YT Blurb; “It’s a sad realization when we can filter OUT only the news [of all the millions of sources out there feeding us ONLY the specific five topics of shit] that interests us.” An extremely small slice of all the information that’s out there about all the atrocities, genocide, beheadings, false imprisonments, racial and sexually-illegal maneuvers and offenses — how we can just have the fat cats falling off the couches videos on ENDLESS loops, OR we can have just the news from one or two sources that’ll tell us pretty much what we want to hear, [ALGOs] and they’ll filter out all the stuff that may upset us or get us thinking, “Why is it like that?”
Any questions?
Nah, I good!!
Maybe that’s why Taibbi was NOT included in the YT write-up, as the other two seem to be pro and kind of the arguing against that Chomsky’s assertion about “believing what you know.”
20:35
Collective Self-Defense
21:00
SOUND BITES as PROPAGANDA
Another form of propaganda in the news is the soundbite. Chomsky gave an example of if you ask if Iraq is Totalitarian you can do that in two sentences before the commercial and two sentences after the commercial. However, if you ask the same question is the US Totalitarian, you’d have to have at least a 15 minute response to break down the historical ramifications and how things are different in order for the audience to easily understand how you came to your justification (in accordance with the agreed upon definition of ‘Totalitarianism’)”
Therefore, anything negative against the home team is shortened into two sentences of a “Yyes” [Dems is Fighin’ Words!] or “No,” [Thank you for being a Team Player!] — short blurbs and then people can rail into you because they don’t understand why you came up with that answer. Primarily because they don’t know the agreed upon definition of ‘Totalitarianism’ or the need to feel Superior or More Than or simply “Othering”. This is one reason why Chomsky never appeared on ABC’s Nightline with Ted Koppel 1980 — 2005 (when Koppel retired).
Created by Roone Arledge, Nightline used to be one of two shows I liked within ‘Mer’KKKan News outlets. PBS’ News Programs used to be another reliable Go-To because Sponsors or advertisers gained greater influence. The main problem, missing Nightline, as it often got bumped five minutes, 25 minutes because of a lengthy sports event, or some other bullshit that ALWAY$ seemed to be much more important than 22 minutes of real news.
Yep, this is why I loved John Stewart’s “The Daily Show” and subsequently Steve Colbert’s “The Colbert Report” show as they would have Authors on and they would speak for 12 or more minutes, basically half the airtime was dedicated to a sitdown discussion with the authors. Of course, this wasn’t your regular nationalized Gub’Mint sanctioned new station. It was a cable comedy show. Which is why I told my Scholars back in 2009 through 2011, “I get most of my real news from Comedy Central.”
You gotta laugh when you open yourself up to REALITY. Otherwise you’re bound to get desperate and do something stupid, crazy or both!
While John Oliver’s “Last Week Tonight”show is brilliant as well, it’s too one-sided though they are 16-minute Deep Dives into well researched main topic. What I love about his show, he bringing awareness of things that most Americans have no fucking clues happening around them. A slight list of things that I’ve become aware of:
the antiquated sewer systems in the United States of America.
Age of the nuclear weapons site that could possibly fire off at any given moment because of deterioration and lack of maintenance.
Nuances in healthcare, nursing, air traffic control, the Dollar Stores Scandals, and so many other episodes. Every fucking episode I’ve seen, even when I thought I’m well-versed on a particular issue, I’ve learned something new, usually a few NEW ramifications or laws or twists about that topic than I’d known before.
Bill Maher is getting a little bit more assholerly with shutting people down like he attempted to do with his Bubby-Buddy cigar and whiskey session with Bill Burr. However, Boston Buddy Burr called Bill out on every single BULLSHIT move; shoveling RIGHT BACK into Maher’s face, making him SMELL IT before making him eat it all up! In Maher’s futile attempts to be condescending, using $0.25 words, and trying to appear superior in his opinions through diction, Bill Burr picked up every fucking drop of his shit and jammed it right down his fucking throat again, calling him on every last one of his little highfalutinisms.
Still, Maher’s Real Time is probably the best example of open debate or dialogue with his attempt to get kids from both sides of the tracks, wall, Gerrymandered, Redlined Hoods, in a round table discussing topics. Proponents may be adamantly against the person sitting to their left, their right or across the table from them, they still come on and civilly discuss the topics of the day. And as much laughter ensues, it’s not all aimed at pundits more their believes or FACTS of who’s been killed, raped, abused or otherwise marginalized in the daily papers or other “trusted” Media. There’s no denying what is consensually accepted as NEWS.
Or
Is
There?
“Manufacturing Consent” and most of Chomsky’s, Stewart’s and Colbert’s rants continue to question in search of The Truth.
Far removed from your Bullshit Catty women’s shows, “The View”, or some of these other shows that attempt to be impartial and unbiased. They just wouldn’t ever have a Chomsky on their shows, as if they’d ever ask nor he would ever accept.
Being HBO and having more freedom to actually expand a post off and to swear and to really get into shit, especially with “Overtime”, Podcasts and other growing “media” outlets these are the closest to real journalism which makes tomorrow that much brighter.
I love the ending of this Al Jazeera Documentary where the moderator almost admiringly of Chomsky, even though he’s been a huge critic against the New York Times, he goes to that newspaper, FIRST and FOREMOST as a source for information because he mentioned it’s still the most investigative, in depth and diverse of all Media. I really do love the way the commentator picked up on this and he said, “Even though he may despise in New York Times, he doesn’t shut himself off to the outlet and the source of potential information.” [sic] Since this was published eight years ago, Chomsky has aged considerably but he’s still a beacon of Truth, in all its worthwhile pursuits. We must continue to analyze the state of the world as far as consent, media outlets, and what is questioned and more importantly what is NOT questioned. I am an advocate of watching Fox “News”, reading the Breitbart “news” of the whatever Rush Limbaugh‘s and the Bill O’Reilly‘s and whomever is out there writing and saying whatever the fuck they’re saying to understand a little bit better their argument, their side and I’m really happy. I’ve tumbled across books that were from you know anti-feminist, anti-LGBTQ, full on the Right Wing Matt nutballs, not knowing it like Peterson and Charles Krakauer. And it wasn’t too far into their books or into one of their essays where you realize, “Ohhhhh, though he’s extremely eloquent, he’s a sexist bigot.” Or “This guy is not as friendly as I wouldn’t normally invite him to coffee. But I’m glad I stumbled across these guys because I’ve picked up on cultures, ideas and “movements” so pervasive and insidious we ALL must be better prepared for the next wave otherwise these books / shows will destroy Democracy more than they already have.
Count me a Chomsky-ite!
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
May 10, 2013
Great facts inside include: In the Middle East, US and Israel have a long history of substantially helping to create islamic fundamentalist terrorism by destroying secular nationalism. Propaganda has to have an element of credibility in order that when attacked the the attacker is merely accused of denying what is true. You must protect to right to lie to support power.The slow steady erosion of repeated lies is "your duty of service to power". Look at the majority of declassified documents and you will see that most are classified to keep them not from being leaked to other countries, but to keep them from the American population. Ask yourself why? :) Unlike our "leaders", The American people clearly want a return to diplomacy. The reason we keep Guantanamo? It keeps Cuba from using it as Cuba's number one port to strangle Cuba for defiance of US policies since the Monroe doctrine. Isn't that sweet? Ah, the threats of good examples, a recurring motif. There's so much more brilliant stuff inside and they just reissued the paperback with a cool new cover so buy it and read it. you will not be disappointed...
This came out in 2007 and is another terrific Noam Chomsky book to read...
This came out in 2007 and is another terrific Noam Chomsky book to read...
February 14, 2015
chomsky bergandingan dgn jurnalis david barsamian as usual. buku kali ini banyak menyentuh tentang US invasion of Iraq bermula tahun 2003 dan masih berlangsung sehingga saat buku ini diterbitkan (2007).
chomsky menyentuh tentang kepenting geo-politik Israel dalam menjaga kepentingan US di timur tengah. david barsamian bijak melontarkan persoalan. hasilnya, kebanyakan tanda tanya sekitar dinamika hubungan US-Israel dalam konteks pergolakan di Timur tengah terjawab.
juga chomsky menyentuh tentang cara indoktrinasi berlaku dlm masyarakat mode. era abad 21 sesuatu propaganda bukan lagi berjalan seperti zaman perang dunia. sebaliknya ia menyusup masuk dalam wacana2 awam melalui preassumptions2 yg dianggap benar. chomsky di dalam mengulas perbincangan intelektual2 amerika di ruang awam US sewaktu perang iraq mengatakan, perbincangan mereka tidak ubah seperti perbincangan tentang american football team di sebuah majalah sekolah. mereka membincangkan bagaimana team sekolah mahu menang, siapa lawan mereka yg akan datang, siapa pemain yg tercedera etc2. tapi persoalan seperti apa hak kita untuk bertanding atau menang langsung tidak dipersoalkan.
5 bintang utk chomsky
chomsky menyentuh tentang kepenting geo-politik Israel dalam menjaga kepentingan US di timur tengah. david barsamian bijak melontarkan persoalan. hasilnya, kebanyakan tanda tanya sekitar dinamika hubungan US-Israel dalam konteks pergolakan di Timur tengah terjawab.
juga chomsky menyentuh tentang cara indoktrinasi berlaku dlm masyarakat mode. era abad 21 sesuatu propaganda bukan lagi berjalan seperti zaman perang dunia. sebaliknya ia menyusup masuk dalam wacana2 awam melalui preassumptions2 yg dianggap benar. chomsky di dalam mengulas perbincangan intelektual2 amerika di ruang awam US sewaktu perang iraq mengatakan, perbincangan mereka tidak ubah seperti perbincangan tentang american football team di sebuah majalah sekolah. mereka membincangkan bagaimana team sekolah mahu menang, siapa lawan mereka yg akan datang, siapa pemain yg tercedera etc2. tapi persoalan seperti apa hak kita untuk bertanding atau menang langsung tidak dipersoalkan.
5 bintang utk chomsky
Read
September 12, 2011I was surprised to see Chomsky's name on this book as I was searching for a book at 1/2 Price bookstore to introduce me to foreign policy (US). The last time I heard of Chomsky was in reference to his ideas about linguistics...
This book makes me know i don't know about our foreign policy, past and present. It's an old book, but I don't know anything so it's giving me some perspective. Chomsky has decided opinions, seems very critical to government decisions/choices, but he backs his statements with citings that reveal more knowledge than I have, so how can I argue? It's good to know several sides of an argument, and this book clearly states a more liberal perspective. He also talks about so many events that if you don't know anything, this book gives you lots of topics to look up (ie., closer look at Vietnam war, why it doesn't compare to Iraq war, how our policies are shaped as regards South America and any other country, why we are an empire - not evangelists of the democratic way...etc.)
This book makes me know i don't know about our foreign policy, past and present. It's an old book, but I don't know anything so it's giving me some perspective. Chomsky has decided opinions, seems very critical to government decisions/choices, but he backs his statements with citings that reveal more knowledge than I have, so how can I argue? It's good to know several sides of an argument, and this book clearly states a more liberal perspective. He also talks about so many events that if you don't know anything, this book gives you lots of topics to look up (ie., closer look at Vietnam war, why it doesn't compare to Iraq war, how our policies are shaped as regards South America and any other country, why we are an empire - not evangelists of the democratic way...etc.)
October 10, 2011
Reading this book is a must. It exposes the corruption in the, so called, new world order imposed by force by the US and Israel. It also gives you a pretty good idea of what it is happening the world; Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, Palestine, Israel, North America and so forth. It also highlights some (fascinating) issues about the validity and effectiveness of world organizations, like the IMF and world bank. Most importantly, it tells you that the world is divided into 2 categories; US and Israel in one hand, and the rest of the world in the other. It gives you a detailed image about the legality, morality, and legitimacy of the actions taken by US and Israel; always against international laws, and nobody says anything about it. The title of the book is a famous quote by George Bush I, what we say goes. Why is that? Because it's us.
May 13, 2011
I always feel that going back to Chomsky every so often is important to refocus my perspective on US foreign and domestic policy and the role of our media in shaping public opinion. It's easy to get wrapped up in the minutia of our comfortable lives and forget about the struggles that people face all over globe, many of which are directly or indirectly created by our own government's policies. Our ongoing complicity is inexcusable, yet almost feels inevitable to a certain extent (Noam would not be pleased to hear me say that). If you haven't read Chomsky before I strongly recommend giving him a try-he offers perspectives outside the neatly framed liberal vs, conservative that our government heartily approves.
April 2, 2016
Книга 29. Геополитика простым языком. Борец с американским империализмом Ноам Хомский в серии эссе-интервью рассказывает о причинах конфликтов на Ближнем Востоке и в Латинской Америке, роли США в мировом кризисе, демократии и роли прессы. Это первая работа Хомского о политике - раньше я сталкивался с его идеями только в университетские годы, во время работы над дипломом по сравнительной лингвистике. И только месяц назад, когда писал исследование о государственной поддержке спорта, наткнулся на его теории о роли командных и зрелищных видов спорта как способа подготовки к войне, разделении населения на "свой-чужой" и отвлечении от других, более насущных социальных проблем. Тут Хомский открылся мне с другой стороны. Поставил в список чтения еще несколько его книг о государстве и власти.
January 12, 2020
As the subtitle states this book is a collection of conversations between Noam Chomsky and David Barsamian. This is not the first book I have read by Noam Chomsky and will not be the last, love his criticism toward the American Empire. Throughout these conversations Chomsky provides ample evidence that United States is the leading outlaw state, unconstrained by the Constitution and international law. Upon reading this book the reader will discover that not only is America an imperialist state but it’s an international dictator, telling others what to do but not leading by the same example. I recommend this book to all Americans but this should be mandatory for all students of international relations.
September 8, 2021
"The gospels are radical pacifist material. When the emperor Constantine adopted Christianity he shifted it. He shifted Christianity from a radical pacifist religion to the religion of the Roman empire. So the cross, which was symbol of the suffering of the poor was put on the shield of roman soldiers. Since that time the church has been pretty much the church of the rich and the powerful."
"When you conquer somebody and suppress them, you have to have a reason for it. You can't just say 'I'm a son of a bitch' and I wanted to rob them. So you have to say it's for their good or they deserve it or they actually benefit from it and we're helping them and so on."
Noam Chomsky
"When you conquer somebody and suppress them, you have to have a reason for it. You can't just say 'I'm a son of a bitch' and I wanted to rob them. So you have to say it's for their good or they deserve it or they actually benefit from it and we're helping them and so on."
Noam Chomsky
July 27, 2019
What We Say Goes is a vitally important book to read to understand the nature of United States imperialism, especially if you are, like me, a young American who doesn’t have a good grasp on the international politics of the last century or so. It is mind-blowing to read about what the U.S. gets away with, and so enlightening to read Chomsky’s conclusions.
July 27, 2008
Noam hit the nail on the head with this one, everything is referenced and backed up, it all makes sense and you know it's true. Read and take it for what it is, I think you'll like it if you can get through how sad of a situation we are in.
July 19, 2010
Absolutely essential reading to understand our 20th and early 21st century American empire. Why it can't last and how the rest of the world is gearing up to resist and also deal with our decline. Noam Chomsky has never been clearer, in my opinion, as in this book.
January 19, 2020
Think this Chomsky guy might be on to something
September 9, 2018
For starters, this book is collection of interviews of Mr Chomsky and has been presented in a Q/A format. The title is pretty interesting. Surprisingly enough, it has been picked up from an official statement of Mr George Bush the senior in 1991 which was in context of Gulf war. he said that we are bringing in a "new world order" from now on in which "what we say, goes"
This statement is indicative of the hubris that the Americans not only feel but also enjoy in other countries' viewpoint as well. There are many examples to prove this but the most suggestive ones includes Israel in all of them. The popular belief that goes includes that Hezbollah is a Shia-Iran backed terrorist which exists in the region solely to disturb Israeli sovereign borders. HAMAS, instead of being treated as a political party voicing the concerns of almost extinct Palestinians, has been declared as a terrorist organization. Any act of military aggression by Israel is defended in the name of protecting their territory, which hasn't been declared by the country officially yet, and stupid concepts like 'right to exist'. What generally goes unmentioned was that before HAMAS, PLO was the political party which acted as a Palestinian representative and they had acquiesced to the two-state policy as well but this very act of accepting led to its annihilation. Apparently, its not in US interests that nationalist secularism takes root in the Arab world. It is imperative for US that radicalism, fundamentalism multiplies and stays in the Arab world because in that way people will not be able to think clearly and will not be able to use their own natural resources to their own advantage
Very cynical you feel? The protagonist of this interview has revealed many theories with evidences which are very gruesome. 9/11, the famous event which supposedly changed the world. A just war was declared on the pretext that Taliban is harboring Osama Bin Laden and Afghanistan is harboring Taliban. After 8 months of bombing, Robert Mueller, the then FBI director, gave an interview to the Washington Post that they feel that "maybe: the attack could've been conceived in Afghanistan but it could very well have been the Gulf Emirates or Germany for that matter. Even if we accept this suspicion as a concrete evidence which it isn't, the normal course should've had have been US asking for extradition of Osama Bin Laden to the Afghan government along-with their evidence to prove the involvement of Osama in the event and his presence in Afghanistan. But as expected, it wasn't honored. Osama was later killed in Pakistan
It is said that whenever a more powerful group conquers another smaller or a docile group, they come up with funny and very popular reasons as to why have they conquered them. The popular ones include:
1) We are doing this for your own good
2) We will bring civility in your society
2) God has entrusted us to make sure that mankind survives and for that we need you to obey us. You wouldn't want to disobey god now would you?
4) We are just enabling you to achieve what you were always meant to achieve
The last one is particularly interesting. That's the underlying reasoning for the invention of slavery or racism if you will. European scientific journals were full of these nonsense when they declared stuff like, "Blacks have a hunched back so they are naturally suited for working in cotton plantation", "Blacks are less cranially evolved so they would better serve the society by being slaves". Why was this done? Because the ruler always needs a pretext to keep the people quiet otherwise there would always be rebellion. Jokes aside, this is a very grim reality in which we breathe day in and day out. A famous man once said:
"Only if people realized that today's thoughts will be their tomorrow's action, they would've been more responsible about their beliefs and what enters their head for that matter"
This statement is indicative of the hubris that the Americans not only feel but also enjoy in other countries' viewpoint as well. There are many examples to prove this but the most suggestive ones includes Israel in all of them. The popular belief that goes includes that Hezbollah is a Shia-Iran backed terrorist which exists in the region solely to disturb Israeli sovereign borders. HAMAS, instead of being treated as a political party voicing the concerns of almost extinct Palestinians, has been declared as a terrorist organization. Any act of military aggression by Israel is defended in the name of protecting their territory, which hasn't been declared by the country officially yet, and stupid concepts like 'right to exist'. What generally goes unmentioned was that before HAMAS, PLO was the political party which acted as a Palestinian representative and they had acquiesced to the two-state policy as well but this very act of accepting led to its annihilation. Apparently, its not in US interests that nationalist secularism takes root in the Arab world. It is imperative for US that radicalism, fundamentalism multiplies and stays in the Arab world because in that way people will not be able to think clearly and will not be able to use their own natural resources to their own advantage
Very cynical you feel? The protagonist of this interview has revealed many theories with evidences which are very gruesome. 9/11, the famous event which supposedly changed the world. A just war was declared on the pretext that Taliban is harboring Osama Bin Laden and Afghanistan is harboring Taliban. After 8 months of bombing, Robert Mueller, the then FBI director, gave an interview to the Washington Post that they feel that "maybe: the attack could've been conceived in Afghanistan but it could very well have been the Gulf Emirates or Germany for that matter. Even if we accept this suspicion as a concrete evidence which it isn't, the normal course should've had have been US asking for extradition of Osama Bin Laden to the Afghan government along-with their evidence to prove the involvement of Osama in the event and his presence in Afghanistan. But as expected, it wasn't honored. Osama was later killed in Pakistan
It is said that whenever a more powerful group conquers another smaller or a docile group, they come up with funny and very popular reasons as to why have they conquered them. The popular ones include:
1) We are doing this for your own good
2) We will bring civility in your society
2) God has entrusted us to make sure that mankind survives and for that we need you to obey us. You wouldn't want to disobey god now would you?
4) We are just enabling you to achieve what you were always meant to achieve
The last one is particularly interesting. That's the underlying reasoning for the invention of slavery or racism if you will. European scientific journals were full of these nonsense when they declared stuff like, "Blacks have a hunched back so they are naturally suited for working in cotton plantation", "Blacks are less cranially evolved so they would better serve the society by being slaves". Why was this done? Because the ruler always needs a pretext to keep the people quiet otherwise there would always be rebellion. Jokes aside, this is a very grim reality in which we breathe day in and day out. A famous man once said:
"Only if people realized that today's thoughts will be their tomorrow's action, they would've been more responsible about their beliefs and what enters their head for that matter"
January 27, 2020
6/10
“The major enemy of most states is its own population”.
We have historical amnesia as a country insists Chomsky, and in this book, he attempts to rectify this issue by tracing issues from their proximate, to more root causes, which he often finds far in the past.
I appreciate Chomsky’s willing to speak the truth as he sees it. Specifically in reminding us something America chooses to forget, we supported Sadam Hussien, and propped up other dictators that happen to align with America at the time. His prescience on the dangers of the continued use of oil are interesting, especially as he’s one of the earliest political theorists to reference climate change as a serious issue—at least that I know of. Similarly, he mentions a hallmark of Dan Carlin, in the cost per capita of the healthcare in America, which is roughly double that of other industrialized countries, though this is hardly unique either.
On conspiracy theories “If this administration did blow up the World Trade Center, that’s a relatively minor issue if you consider their other crimes, I mean they invaded Iraq.”
“The crime of liberation theology is that it took the gospel seriously” says Chomsky, referencing Vatican repression, and Reagans wars of terror.
Micro Credit loans given to women in poor countries are an incredibly effective investment
“The country is not divided along party lines, its divided between the public and the government.”
"Judge acts based on reasonably considered consequences, not results."
“The major enemy of most states is its own population”.
We have historical amnesia as a country insists Chomsky, and in this book, he attempts to rectify this issue by tracing issues from their proximate, to more root causes, which he often finds far in the past.
I appreciate Chomsky’s willing to speak the truth as he sees it. Specifically in reminding us something America chooses to forget, we supported Sadam Hussien, and propped up other dictators that happen to align with America at the time. His prescience on the dangers of the continued use of oil are interesting, especially as he’s one of the earliest political theorists to reference climate change as a serious issue—at least that I know of. Similarly, he mentions a hallmark of Dan Carlin, in the cost per capita of the healthcare in America, which is roughly double that of other industrialized countries, though this is hardly unique either.
On conspiracy theories “If this administration did blow up the World Trade Center, that’s a relatively minor issue if you consider their other crimes, I mean they invaded Iraq.”
“The crime of liberation theology is that it took the gospel seriously” says Chomsky, referencing Vatican repression, and Reagans wars of terror.
Micro Credit loans given to women in poor countries are an incredibly effective investment
“The country is not divided along party lines, its divided between the public and the government.”
"Judge acts based on reasonably considered consequences, not results."
Displaying 1 - 30 of 103 reviews