On the Shaping of Information

It is truly enlightening to explore what gets omitted in propaganda campaigns. Consider the Gulf War (1990/1991). When asked why the U.S. and Britain were bombing Iraq so frequently, the most common answer was that Saddam Hussein was a monster who committed heinous atrocities against his own people. This response was given almost unanimously and seemed impossible to refute.

Chomsky cautions that any answer that is given equivocally and unanimously should raise a red flag.

For instance, a quick Google search reveals that, indeed, Saddam did gas his own people. This "ultimate horror" took place in March 1988 and again in August 1988. The next logical question is: how did the U.S. and Britain react?

The answer is that they continued, and in fact, accelerated their support for Saddam. Therefore, the simplistic answer as to why the U.S. and Britain were bombing Iraq couldn't possibly be true. Every news story and press conference that pointed out that "Saddam was a monster who committed atrocities against his own people" omitted three crucial words: "with our support." Yes, he was a monster and yes, he committed atrocities, but he was a monster with our support. He committed atrocities with our support.

"If we choose, we can live in a world of comforting illusion."

Joseph Goebbels is often credited, rightly or wrongly, with stating that people will believe that a square is a circle if misinformation is repeated often and with conviction. "They are mere words, and words can be molded until they clothe and disguise ideas."

At the end of almost every lecture, Chomsky holds an open mic Q&A. Quite often, someone in the audience will say that they can't believe anything he says because it conflicts with everything they were told by the media, their parents, or their peers, and they don't have time to look at all the footnotes. Chomsky's response is simple and clear. The internet is a powerful tool. Make the time to look at the footnotes. Check your sources. Think for yourself.

"These are not laws of nature. They can be changed; they can be changed right here. Unless they're changed in the United States, it's not going to matter much what changes elsewhere." ~Noam Chomsky

This book is essentially an interview with the well-known Noam Chomsky. In it, he offers insights into US policy and how it is perceived by the public and through the media.

It is fascinating to read about the hypocrisy of the US. Governors would support the most authoritarian and horrific regimes when it serves their interests, and then intervene, causing harm to civilians along the way, only when it starts to become a slight inconvenience to them, claiming it is for "humanitarian" purposes while completely absolving themselves of any responsibility.

My main issues with this book are not really its fault. Firstly, it is a bit outdated. Although it was interesting to read about Chomsky's cautious approach towards the web, which was surprisingly justified at a time when it was a relatively new phenomenon, it would definitely benefit from an updated perspective that takes into account social media and more recent political events, such as 9/11, the war in Syria, or the US-Iran conflicts.

Another problem for me is that, considering its heavy and nuanced theme, the book did not feel very "scientific". It was mainly Chomsky stating his own opinion and occasionally backing it up with sources here and there.

Moreover, the conversation was sometimes diluted with questions from the interviewer about his personal life or unrelated topics. But again, this is not the book's fault; it is simply a consequence of it being an interview rather than an in-depth research or something similar.

Overall, it was a moderately interesting book but not extremely exciting by any means.

For Reasons of State (February 2, 1999)

p.79 – D.B.: In your writing, you seldom refer to literature. There is, however, one significant exception. In Necessary Illusion, you cite “The Grand Inquisitor” chapter in The Brothers Karamazov. What was Dostoyevsky writing about that captured your attention?

N.C.: That is a particularly remarkable passage. He is discussing the manufacture of consent. It is a highly dramatic and accurate portrayal of how mystery, ceremony, fear, and even joy are manipulated to make people feel that they must be subservient to others. It is a condemnation of Christ because Christ was attempting to offer people freedom from these constraints. Christ failed to understand that this is what people desired. They require subordination to mystery, magic, and control.

D.B.: And that the Church must, so to speak, correct the evil work of Christ. You understood that to be the state.

N.C.: For Dostoyevsky, it simply meant power. Remember, he was writing in Russia. So it is a combination of the church and the czar, which are very closely related.

p.80 – N.C.: The Grand Inquisitor is expressing the view that freedom is perilous and people need, and indeed at some level desire, subordination, mystery, authority, and so forth. That is a sophisticated version of the manufacture of consent.

This discussion between D.B. and N.C. about Dostoyevsky's work reveals an interesting perspective on the concept of freedom and the manipulation of people's beliefs. Dostoyevsky's portrayal of the Grand Inquisitor's ideas challenges our traditional understanding of freedom and raises important questions about the role of power and authority in society. By analyzing this passage, we can gain a deeper understanding of the complex relationship between individuals and the institutions that govern them.

In a series of interviews conducted by David Barsasian, Chomsky offers his perspectives on a wide range of contemporary political issues. These include East Timor, the first Gulf War, and the bombing of Sudan, among others.

I find his assertion that Nixon was the last liberal president to be less contentious compared to his claim that Marx was merely a theorist and not a revolutionary, and that he made only a few sporadic statements about socialism. Having read both Das Kapital and The Communist Manifesto, I must firmly state that this is utter nonsense. Nixon a liberal? Well, by today's standards, he might as well be a communist.

For more reviews, visit The Greater Encyclopedia of Universal Knowledge at https://miscmss.blogspot.com/2022/08/...

It is important to note that Chomsky's views, while often thought-provoking, are not without controversy. His take on Marx, in particular, seems to overlook the significant impact that Marx's ideas had on social and political movements around the world.

Additionally, his description of Nixon as a liberal is a rather bold statement that challenges the traditional understanding of Nixon's political ideology.

Overall, these interviews provide a fascinating glimpse into Chomsky's thoughts on some of the most pressing political issues of our time.

Fascinating as always, but with some repeated information. This makes it a bit of a mixed bag. However, I still found the overall content quite engaging. I took note of all the books mentioned. It's really interesting to see the variety of titles that were brought up.

Adding them to my queue was an easy decision. I'm looking forward to delving into these books and exploring the ideas and stories they have to offer.

I wonder if others will have the same reaction to this list of books. Maybe some will be excited to discover new reads, while others might be less interested.

Nonetheless, it's always great to have a collection of books to choose from. It gives us the opportunity to expand our knowledge and broaden our perspectives.

Overall, despite the repeated information, this article has piqued my interest and added some new titles to my reading list.

Noam Chomsky is a renowned figure who has made a significant impact in the intellectual realm.

He constantly presents novel ideas to his readers, challenging their perspectives and expanding their mental horizons.

His works are not only thought-provoking but also serve as a weapon against the pseudo-intellectuals and their powerful propaganda machines.

Chomsky's ability to dissect complex issues and present them in a clear and understandable manner is truly remarkable.

By reading his works, readers are equipped with the necessary tools to see through the false narratives and propaganda that are often spread by those with ulterior motives.

He empowers his readers to think critically and independently, enabling them to make informed decisions and take a stand against the forces that seek to manipulate and deceive.

In a world where misinformation and propaganda are rampant, Chomsky's contributions are more relevant than ever.

His ideas continue to inspire and influence generations of readers, making him a true intellectual giant.

Plainly put: Chomsky is a genius.

Many people consider him to be extremely left-wing. However, in my opinion, he is the most moderate among all living intellectuals.

His criticism of US and Western foreign policies is so profound and well-founded that it is very difficult to refute.

Chomsky's works and ideas have had a significant impact on various fields such as linguistics, philosophy, and politics.

He has always been committed to exposing the unjust and immoral aspects of power and authority, and advocating for social justice and human rights.

Although his views may be controversial, they are also worthy of our serious consideration and reflection.

In conclusion, Chomsky is a remarkable figure whose contributions to knowledge and society cannot be ignored.

Citizens of the US should consider it something of a compliment that so much effort is expended to persuade them that the US is benevolent. They are not immune to the expenditure, poor things. In fact, the extensive efforts dedicated to convincing the American people of the US's benevolence speak volumes about the importance placed on their perception. It shows that those behind such endeavors understand the significance of public opinion and the need to shape it in a favorable light. The citizens, being the recipients of this persuasion, are in a unique position. While they may be the target of these efforts, they also have the power to question and evaluate the authenticity of the claims being made. It is up to them to decide whether to accept the portrayal of the US as benevolent or to look beyond the surface and seek a more objective understanding.

A series of interviews were conducted in 1998. These interviews covered various topics such as politics, history, and philosophy. They also delved into America's role in all of these aspects, especially as it pertains to public indoctrination.

It is truly fascinating to explore how these different fields intersect and how America's influence has shaped public perception and understanding.

The interviews likely provided valuable insights into the complex relationship between politics, history, and philosophy, and how they impact the way we think and view the world.

By examining America's role in public indoctrination, we can gain a better understanding of how ideas and values are transmitted and internalized within society.

This knowledge can help us to be more critical thinkers and to question the information that is presented to us.

Overall, the interviews conducted in 1998 offer a rich source of information and food for thought on a wide range of important topics.

This is an extremely business-run society.

In fact, approximately one out of every six dollars within the entire economy is allocated to marketing.

This represents an astonishingly inefficient utilization of funds.

Marketing, in essence, fails to generate any public goods.

It is, rather, a form of manipulation and deceit.

It endeavors to fabricate artificial wants and control the very way people think.

By constantly bombarding consumers with messages and advertisements, marketing aims to create a sense of need where perhaps none truly exists.

It shapes our perceptions and influences our purchasing decisions, often without us even realizing it.

This not only leads to a waste of resources but also has a profound impact on our society and values.

We need to be more aware of the true nature of marketing and question its excessive influence in our lives.

Noam Chomsky is a must-read for anyone who claims to work with ideology, whether or not you agree with him.

The way he presents the seemingly banal elements of the propaganda of Western states is often overwhelming. However, it must be noted that he does not become an apologist for Russian politics, totalitarian states, or war criminals. Instead, he shows how the information we receive "from the center" should be regarded.

"Propaganda and the Public Mind" is a series of very well-written interviews. Although I had higher expectations, I am not at all disappointed with the work. Its major drawback is that the discussion takes place in 1999-2000, in the pre-September 11 period.

This means that some of the issues and perspectives may be somewhat outdated in the context of the post-9/11 world. Nevertheless, the book still offers valuable insights into the nature of propaganda and its impact on the public mind.

Chomsky's analysis is incisive and thought-provoking, challenging readers to question the information they are presented with and to think critically about the role of the media and the state in shaping public opinion.

Overall, "Propaganda and the Public Mind" is a worthwhile read for anyone interested in understanding the complex relationship between propaganda, ideology, and the public.

This was the first Chomsky work that I've had the opportunity to read. However, I have to admit that it didn't quite provide me with a profound understanding of his distinct perspective as an intellectual.

The interviews presented in this book are all from the years 1999/2000 and are highly concentrated on 20th century U.S. foreign policy. It delves into how dreadful that policy was, a stance that is commonly shared by many.

There are only a few brief mentions of his linguistic and other works. In essence, this book is predominantly about the current affairs of that particular era. It seems to be more of a snapshot of the political and social landscape at that time, rather than a comprehensive exploration of Chomsky's wide-ranging intellectual contributions.

Perhaps I need to explore more of his works to truly grasp the depth and breadth of his ideas and perspectives.