0 of 6 people found the following review helpful:
Pure Chomsky, The Voice of Dissent could be Better....., 2008-04-26
Unlike the unfortunate trend I see on the left to review and condemn books by the likes of Coulter etc with out reading them, I will begin by stating that I could not read this whole book. Bad facts,outright lies (someone please send him to southeast Asia to speak with some lucky peasants who survived what he denies) are great examples of why I had to put this down so often. Chomsky has for some years now preached to those who do not know any history (unless spoon fed by the left) and do not have the skills to research information to find the truth nearest the center. I like (liked?) Chomsky as a voice of dissent on some important issues but he joins the ranks of holocaust deniers with his comments on Pol-Pot. This book is long winded and rambling at times, I understand how pseudo-intellectuals love this kind of dissertation but it only obscures the truth on important matters adding confusion to complex topics.This book and from my tastes of his more current works seem to suffer more and more from this. His titles imply easy truths but you will find them hard or impossible to find amidst bad facts and long winded unfocused paragraphs. All this and I still consider Chomsky important and correct on some very critical points, he just ruins them by not staying in touch with reality or failing to see basic truths.
I see a fantastic phenomenon on the horizon, As Chomsky ages he will become senile,half his followers will be awe struck at the depth and original logic of his newfound reasoning while the other half tear at each other in a crazed attempt to find relevance(and explain it to the rest of us) in each new tome that comes out of his deteriorating mind.
1 of 90 people found the following review helpful:
Educated Ignorance, 2006-09-26
Such a terrible mis-directed perversion of Mind. Well educated Ignorance. A true weaver of Stalinist theory. What a malignant waste of thought.
9 of 14 people found the following review helpful:
Necessary Reading, 2006-05-20
This Chomsky book, while tough to get through at points (have a dictionary on hand), is an absolute must if you are interested in learning how to "read" the mainstream news.
Facts are given and cited. And Chomsky, as always, asks readers to draw their own conclusions. I drew mine. This was the first book of his I read, but it wasn't the last.
18 of 21 people found the following review helpful:
The Obligation of Silence, Containing The Enemy, & Awaiting The Hidden Hand, 2006-01-08
"They who have put out the people's eyes, reproach them of their blindness." ~ John Milton
This was released in 89', the end of the Reagan/Bush era, and offers an insightful outline of then-versus-now contrast. Many similar behind the scene names and fear-based strategies. The specifics have changed, yet the song unfortunately remains the same. Chomsky demonstrates our democracy's historical need of "containment of the enemy" [a populace in which free voices have the capacity to resound] through imposed and vested interests, and through a pervasive media propaganda model, which, as adjuncts of government, manipulate a collective turning of an onus blind eye from the crimes, atrocities, familar ideologies, preferences and prefabricated belief structures of the favored state.
As usual, the unyielding Chomsky wields an elementary punch of fact-packed, deep-impressioned, miles-back swing. It's quite astonishing to read such blatantly anti-democratic {compared to the widely adhered to definitions and perceptions of democracy} quotations from prominent historical political figures who formulate policies designed to advance and serve oligarchic interests through deceiving the people, and diminishing their capacity for involvement and of having a direct hand in the shaping of public policy.
"Necessary Illusions" is an essential read in the canon of what Chomsky refers to as necessary "intellectual self-defense courses" to counter Power's perilous necessary illusions which menace our representative form of government, human rights here and abroad, and, realistically, the fate of our species and the planet.
50 of 59 people found the following review helpful:
I love it. If Only I Could Read It!, 2002-12-03
I am influenced by Chomsky more than any other political philosopher (although he seems to encompass much more than a mere career categorization). I've studied him on and off for the past five years, and I find it harder and harder to rely on mass media (TV, radio, movies, increasingly more of the internet) for any information. It's like lost innocence. One can never look at these things the same after reading Chomsky.In this book, he tackles these themes, but concentrates a great deal on U.S. international relations. The equation is basically this: corporations control the government and own the media. U.S. international relations are directly affected and influenced by the whims of multinationals; namely the desire for [inexpensive] production and [inexpensive] resources, exploiting civilians and foreign lands to achieve these means. The government is in the pocket of the corporations.
The ordinary American has little say. We may vote; but we vote for one party; solely representing the interests of the rich, and the huge corporations.
That's a bit of Chomsky in a nutshell. This book supports these arguments with EXHAUSTIVE research. I admit, I found it exhausting to read, but not from lack of interest. He is detailed; which makes his arguments valid. He uses countless examples, all supported by the contradictory historical actions and propaganda of U.S. foreign relations; where the government lies to the public via the media. There are so many quotes and supportive examples that the bibliography could be 40 pages long!
So, I love Chomsky. However I really don't like reading him; but I try. I find the easiest way to get the big picture of Chomsky's views is by watching the documentary, Manufacturing Consent, reading Z Magazine, and also "The Real Story" series of transcribed interviews with Chomsky.
Perhaps I'm just a lazy reader. However I think this book legitimizes many of Chomsky's views, in a dense, detailed, way. But without these supporting examples and quotes, his views couldn't be seen as valid.