I listened to this audiobook while driving for work because Audible made it free.

As part of my project of hearing out more political arguments I oppose, I had mixed feelings when I found this book. Chomsky had maybe the biggest influence on my political reformation. However, the cover of this book is hideous, which indicates poor quality. Moreover, one of the editors is a lunatic who thinks Obama is a communist (his entries were the weakest). Shockingly, some of the contributions have some merit (I skipped the linguistics).

Chomsky does seem to have a loose relationship with citations and representation of primary sources. His unwillingness to apply the propaganda model to coverage of domestic issues is baffling. Regarding insights from the Cold War and from Israel, this collection has highlighted my urgent need to learn more about these topics. I couldn't tell who was lying, mistaken or extremely misleading between Chomsky and these critics.

In other cases, the lazy misreadings of Chomsky were blatant to anyone familiar with his work. But I tried not to let that distract me from the points and entries with some merit. I hope to gain a more comprehensive understanding of different political views through this audiobook and continue to explore and思考 in the political field.

The Anti-Chomsky Reader is an outstanding book that reveals Chomsky as a fraud. He is an anti-American reactionary who attempts to blame all the world's problems on the US. He labels all socialist states as State-Capitalisms to hide socialist failures and attacks Israel while ignoring similar issues in Palestine and most Arabic states. Chomsky is a fraudster and the world's most famous pseudo-intellectual, spouting nonsense that doesn't add up. His book, Who Rules the World?, makes absurd claims, such as insisting that the Cubans are innocent victims of US foreign policy.

This book shows us the glorified idiot that is Chomsky, who has engaged in Anti-American propaganda his whole life. Many people read him only to reinforce their preconceptions. He has this idiotic fantasy that the rich rule the world and get richer at the expense of the poor. I have recently relistened to this book and my disgust with Chomsky has been renewed. I dislike his sophistry, especially when he claims to speak truth to power while conforming to Marxist agendas elsewhere.

The book is not meant to be read alone. It should be read alongside Chomsky's works. My first experience with Chomsky was reading Who Rules the World? for a book club. I remember how strange his arguments were. As a physicist, I like strange arguments, but he is not good at backing them up. For example, he claims that Cuba's installation of Russian nuclear weapons was for security reasons, but he doesn't apply the same logic to Israel. There are many such problems in his ideas.

The book is filled with counterarguments and concerns about Chomsky's ideas. Some chapters follow his citations only to find dead ends. The editors chose some authors who are just gadflies, like the one in the last chapter who bugs Chomsky with e-mails. However, I appreciate that Chomsky responded to the e-mails. The majority of the book is about Chomsky's political analysis, which is often superficial and silly. For example, he claims that the media defends big business, but this is not true. The media attacks big business, even though it ultimately serves them. The book also demolishes Chomsky's defense of terrorist regimes in Central Asia. I still enjoy reading this book and will probably read it again in the future.

Overview:

The main assertion of this book of edited chapters is that Noam Chomsky does not deserve his fame and reputation as a prominent American public intellectual. Most of the authors are on the political Right, but their main criticism of Chomsky is not that he is a Leftist, but rather that he is such a flagrant liar. His most famous lie is his denial that the Khmer Rouge committed genocide in Cambodia.

Linguistics:

Noam Chomsky started off in linguistics. He made two major contributions to linguistics: (a) Chomsky moved linguistics away from the nurture theory of language acquisition and from the behaviorism of B.F. Skinner, and towards a more genetic and cognitive approach, and (b) Chomsky defined a containment hierarchy of generative grammars for formal languages.

Noam Chomsky did work in the 1950s on formal languages and generative grammars. Grammars describe the rules for arranging words to form valid sentences. The rules depend upon the part of speech that each word is, but not on the meaning of the word. Chomsky's hierarchy: (Type 0): unrestricted grammars, (Type 1): context-sensitive grammars, (Type 2): context-free grammars, (Type 3): regular grammars.

It is generally, but not universally, believed by linguists, that natural languages belong to Type 1: context-sensitive grammars, in particular, mildly context-sensitive grammars. Chomsky was more concerned with syntax (structure) than with semantics (meaning). His work has had applicability to computer languages. Most programming languages fall into the level of context-free languages, that is, languages where the meaning of a phrase does not depend upon any of the words that surround it. Interestingly, the smallest group of formal languages are related to the regular expressions of the UNIX programming environment.

Noam Chomsky also contributed some other ideas to linguistics, but they are more controversial and most of them have not stood the test of time. In fact, Chomsky himself has made fundamental changes to his theories so that his later ideas contradict, rather than merely modify, the ideas that originally made him famous. Chomsky is also accused of (a) failing to reference those who have disproven his theories, and (b) failing to reference predecessors who had earlier published ideas that Chomsky claims to have originated himself. Noam Chomsky's idea that linguistic structures are genetic and built into the brain rest on his assertion of universal principles in linguistics, but these so-called universal principles have been shown to have numerous exceptions. Noam Chomsky has made his reputation in linguistics based upon writing books for the general public, and not on scholarly articles in refereed academic journals.

Polemicist:

A number of the essays criticize Chomsky for the fact that many of his references are not to well-known journalists, periodicals and scholars, but rather to small-circulation pamphlets written by obscure, fringe political activists. Many of his references are to his own earlier writings, which are themselves full of weak references. In other words, the quality of his scholarship is poor. One of the essays points out that Chomsky's political and linguistic writings are similar, in that in both he ignores facts that do not fit his theories. Chomsky is criticized for presenting selective evidence. If there is a conflict between two parties, he reports the atrocities committed by one side, but none of the atrocities committed by the other. He also fails to distinguish between the inevitable collateral damage to civilians that occurs when fighting in an urban setting, with terrorist acts who intention is to deliberately kill civilians.

The Cold War:

Chomsky attributed the entry of the United States into World War I to President Woodrow Wilson's anti-German propaganda, in particular, to the Creel Commission. The conventional view of most historians is that Americans were motivated to enter the war because (a) German U-boats sunk the passenger ship the Lusitania, and (b) the Zimmerman Memorandum revealed that Germany had asked Mexico to join with it to attack the United States. Chomsky blames the United States for the Cold War, since we supported the White Russians during the Russian Civil War. Chomsky blames the National Security Council Report 68 (NSC-68) for the post-World War II intensification of the Cold War. Chomsky believed that American hawks were exaggerating the magnitude of the Soviet threat. Chomsky was critical of Czech freedom-fighter Vaclav Havel for thanking the United States for fighting the Soviets in his 1990 address to the U.S. Congress. Noam Chomsky blames the United States embargo against Cuba for Cuban poverty. But this embargo prevented Cuba's trade with only one country, the United States. Cuba was free to trade with all the other nations of the world. Chomsky accuses the United States of terrorism, for supporting the contras in Nicaragua. But the contras, while receiving a great deal of military support from the United States, were not created by American agents, but rather by peasants resisting the collectivization of agriculture by the Sandinistas.

Zionism:

Chomsky's book about Palestine, Fateful Triangle, contains a dozen comparisons of the Zionists to Hitler, but it contains no mention of al-Hajj Amin al-Husaynia, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who was an actual friend of Hitler. In this book, Chomsky also devotes much space to the 1948 Deir Yassin military action, where the Israeli soldiers killed several hundred Palestinians during an attack on a military force in the center of the village of Deir Yassin. But Chomsky says little, if anything, about Arab atrocities during Israel's war of independence. Chomsky frequently criticizes Israel for being a Jewish state, but he rarely, if ever, criticizes Ireland for being a Roman Catholic state, Greece for being a Greek Orthodox state, or the United Kingdom for being a Protestant (Anglican) state.

Freedom of the Press for Holocaust Deniers:

Chomsky has supported the publications of holocaust deniers, in particular, Robert Faurisson. Chomsky claims that his motivation is only to protect their right to free speech and academic freedom, but he has rarely, if ever, supported the advocates of other fringe causes. Speaking of freedom of the press, the book points out that Noam Chomsky persuaded American publishers to delete from the American edition of Biographical Companion to Modern Thought an entry by British linguist Geoffrey Sampson that criticized Chomsky for his denial of the Cambodian genocide.

Conspiratorial Thinking:

Chomsky has a conspiratorial world view. He believes that American foreign policy is motivation solely by the desires of corporations to increase their profits, and never by legitimate, defensive, national security considerations, or a desire to promote freedom and democracy throughout the world. If there is little evidence in most prominent news publications to support his assertions that America or Israel is committing evil acts, he interprets this as a cover-up. Chomsky believes that the American media are slanted to the right, because they are owned by large corporations. But rich corporations do not necessarily represent the interest of rich individuals, because most of their stock is ultimately owned by middle-class individuals.

As someone who has delved deep into a vast amount of Chomsky's works and felt a constant sense of irritation throughout the process, this particular book came as an extremely refreshing change. It is quite fascinating to observe, throughout the essays, a recurring theme of Chomsky's engagement in what can only be described as dishonest language and, to be frank, Doublethink within his body of work. While reading his books, I was persistently troubled by his usage of specific words and phrases that seemed to stack the premises in his favor or, more subtly, sweep alternative viewpoints under the rug. This bothered me especially because he is an acknowledged expert in the field of language and most likely is fully aware of what he is doing.

On that very note, the final chapter dedicated to Chomsky's work in the realm of language was truly captivating, although certain parts of it eluded my understanding due to the highly technical nature of the study.

However, I do have a few criticisms of this book. Some of the commentary on US foreign relations appeared rather simplistic and reductive. The authors' treatment of the crimes committed by the Pinochet regime in Chile was disconcertingly cursory. In another instance, they failed to present the complete picture. Al-Qaeda and other Islamist groups have indeed attacked the governments of various Middle Eastern countries that are allied with the US. Saudi Arabia, for instance, has been a target of Al-Qaeda's ire.

All things considered, though, this is overall a very interesting and thought-provoking book that offers valuable insights into the complex world of Chomsky's ideas and their implications.

"Chomsky, Language, World War II and Me," the last essay in the book, written by John Williamson, is by far the best.

It is a truly remarkable piece that combines the personal, the funny, and the true in a seamless way. Williamson's writing style is engaging and captivating, drawing the reader in from the very beginning.

His personal anecdotes add a touch of authenticity and make the essay relatable on a deeper level. The humor sprinkled throughout the piece lightens the mood and makes it a joy to read.

What sets this essay apart is its truthfulness. Williamson presents his thoughts and ideas in a straightforward and honest manner, without any sugarcoating or pretense.

For this achievement, I award five stars to Williamson. However, I also want to give credit to the rest of the team for their effort in putting together this wonderful book.

Each and every contributor has played an important role in making this collection a success.

"Sticks and Stones may break my bones but words can never harm me."

So goes the children's playground rhyme. Sadly, nothing could be further from the truth. Words do harm very frequently and often they have deadly consequences. Vladimir Lenin knew it, Josef Goebbels knew it, and Noam Chomsky knows it. In this work, Peter Collier and David Horowitz outline the career and work of this thoroughly malignant high priest of Marxist academia.

Chomsky's works have had one thing in common: the justification of and support for mass murder and evil, and the condemnation of democracy. He has supported just about every tyranny and terrorist organization that has existed in the last 40 years. From Maoist Red China to Castro's Cuba, from Communist Vietnam and Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge in Cambodia to the Syrian occupation of Lebanon, Chomsky has been there. He justified the atrocities of the Syrians and their Palestinian allies in Lebanon, claiming that the massacres against the Christian and Druze Lebanese were highly exaggerated. But the over 100,000 dead in Lebanon at the hands of the Syrian/PLO killing machine tell a different story.

Chomsky aims his visceral hatred at the USA and its allies, particularly Israel. His war against the Land and People of Israel has been particularly venomous and uncompromising. Since his 1975 polemic "Peace in the Middle East?" in which he demanded that Israel should be dismantled and replaced with a Marxist "binational" "Palestine", he has continued to attack. He later followed with longer works such as "Fateful Triangle" and "Pirates and Emperors" in which he compared tiny democratic Israel to Nazi Germany and presented it as the sole obstacle to peace and harmony in the Middle East. He also goes on to justify and encourage PLO atrocities.

Brigitte Gabriel, in a recent speech at Duke University in the USA, said: "Once upon a time there was a special place in the lowest depths of hell for anyone who would intentionally murder a child. Now, the intentional murder of Israeli children is legitimized as Palestinian 'armed struggle'. This is the doing of left-fascist ideologues like Noam Chomsky."

Chomsky has a massive following throughout the world and has helped to forge the hard left of today into an Orwellian hate machine where all that is evil and murderous is admired and the democratic west is hated. In the sick world of Noam Chomsky, war is peace, peace is war, good is evil, and evil is good, and love is hate and hate is love. The words of the witches in Shakespeare's Macbeth are the words of Noam Chomsky: "Fair is foul and foul is fair". In encouraging totalitarian regimes and murderous terrorist organizations and rallying leftists around the world to their cause, who knows how much blood lies on the hands of this thoroughly evil man?

A must read for anyone who takes the rhetoric of the ultra Left seriously. Chomsky is indeed a force that cannot be ignored. However, this book vividly demonstrates just how biased he is. He is not only a poor historian but also a rather lackluster political analyst.

Chomsky truly resides off the political chart, firmly on the extreme left lunatic fringe. His views may seem radical and appealing to some, but upon closer examination, they are often based on flawed reasoning and incomplete analysis.

We highly recommend this book to anyone who is enamored with ultra left thinking. It will provide them with a wealth of food for thought, prompting them to seriously reconsider and deconstruct their own beliefs. By engaging with the ideas presented in this book, readers can gain a more nuanced understanding of the complex political landscape and avoid being misled by one-sided or extreme viewpoints.

My rating is not a reflection of the quality of this book. Instead, it is a measure of my profound disdain for Chomsky.

I have to admit that I had a particular fondness for the last chapter. It presented a rather interesting argument that Chomsky, when compared as a scholar of English syntax, doesn't even come close to the average waitress at Hooters.

This might seem like a bold and perhaps even controversial statement, but it makes one stop and think. After all, in the world of academia, there are often different perspectives and evaluations.

Chomsky has made significant contributions in his field, but this chapter challenges some of the commonly held beliefs about his superiority. It forces us to reexamine our assumptions and consider other possible interpretations.

Whether one agrees or disagrees with this观点, it cannot be denied that it adds an element of intrigue and discussion to the overall discourse.

Perhaps it is through such bold and unexpected comparisons that we can gain a new and deeper understanding of the complex world of English syntax and the scholars who study it.

Closer to a 2.5, this is a series of essays that launches attacks on numerous positions and claims put forward by Noam Chomsky.

On one hand, part of me found it enjoyable as it offered a taste of some of the counterarguments against him. It was interesting to see the different perspectives and reasoning.

On the other hand, I was shocked to discover how many people, whether consciously or unconsciously, adopt Chomsky's arguments in the discussions I've had over the years.

However, it must be said that the book has its flaws. I would have liked to see more consistent sourcing. This would have added more credibility and made it easier to verify the claims made.

I also would have preferred a more sober and less polemical treatment. The fact that it is published in part by WND books, which I was unaware of when I picked it up, and probably would have deterred me from reading it otherwise.

Moreover, being nearly 10 years old, it is in desperate need of an update. The field of study and the relevant issues may have evolved since its publication.

In conclusion, the book is worth reading if you specifically require this kind of response to Chomsky's ideas. Otherwise, it can be considered expendable.

Let me start by stating that I have never believed Chomsky to be worthy of the acclaim and credibility he has received. He loudly proclaims his views on all aspects of the world in a voice that ironically sounds like Kissinger's. It appears that he has truly strayed far from his original field of expertise, which is linguistics, and now offers opinions, well-known opinions on most areas. However, he is particularly revered for his political and international opinions. Most of these opinions are often inconsistent and contrary to the official narrative on American foreign policy.

Now, regardless of whether one can agree or disagree with Chomsky or simply view him as another self-absorbed academic with tenure who derides the US while comfortably ensconced in state-supported academic institutions, it doesn't really matter. This book, for the most part, makes shallow attacks. While some of the criticism is valid, for the most part, the book goes overboard with its 'Anti-Chomsky' barrages. It reads as if it was sometimes written by an obsessive ex-lover. Someone who once loved and shared with Chomsky but now, for whatever reason, has fallen out of favor and will forever resent him.

I suppose the ultimate compliment to Mr. Chomsky is that such a book exists and that some of his detractors would invest so much effort in a book to attack him in every area. For those who love all things Chomsky, like most college kids in the United States, reading this book would no doubt not even cross their minds. And for those who already dislike Chomsky, well, then this book will add nothing to their opinion. For those of us outside of the United States who are sick of American academics like Chomsky who celebrate their Anti-American exceptionalism with hypocritical arrogance, then this book is not really of any advantage either. I suggest that this third group read a Thomas Sowell or Howard Zinn instead of anything written by Noam Chomsky, except in matters of linguistics. As for this book, I did enjoy some aspects, but for the most part, it was tiresome and too focused on attacks in an unhealthy way. 40 %.

One need not necessarily concur with Chomsky to observe that this particular volume leans predominantly on strawpersons, red herrings, argumentum ad hominem, and other forms of irrational reasoning.

For example, not only is it scurrilous and patently incorrect to insinuate that Chomsky is anti-Semitic and a supporter of any dictator simply because the US dislikes them, but such a claim does not invalidate Chomsky's arguments.

These kinds of accusations betray an inability to read properly. A similar issue with reading comprehension surfaces in what might be the signature challenge to Chomsky, namely, regarding his writings on Cambodia. Chomsky's actual argument has a certain degree of subtlety, yet it is typically overlooked, and he is wrongly cast as an apologist for the policies of the Khmer Rouge, which is clearly untrue.

The final chapter, dealing with Chomsky's linguistics, is almost comical, suggesting an attempt to refute him at every level. It's a challenge that seems ontological, with Chomsky being crossed out. I suspect that the next edition will perhaps try to show that his birth certificate is a fake - a topic of debate that is fitting for the jingoistic-simian proto-teabaggery present in this work.

**A Critique of Chomsky's Linguistics**

The paper by Bob Levine and Paul Postal in April 2004 argues that N. Chomsky's linguistics has been filled with intellectual dishonesty since at least the publication of his 1957 volume "Syntactic Structures". This is supported by the analysis of four cases. Firstly, the treatment of passives in that work. Secondly, his advocacy of the so-called A-over-A Principle. Thirdly, his adoption of others' ideas without credit. And finally, his distortion and baseless denigration of the record of achievement in the physical sciences.

I also believe that Postal and Langendoen in their 1984 book "The Vastness of Natural Languages" deal with the implications of Gödel and Cantorial Set Theory to Natural Language Theories and how it likely undermines all the theories of Generative Grammar as a good model for Natural Languages. Chomsky, in my view, borrowed some logic from Computer Science for building Machine Languages and thought people just needed to collect endless data on languages and electronic brains would figure out the rules. But in the end, he ended up with a bizarre Theory of Mind and not much else. He refused to accept the vastness of human creativity and how syntax can't explain everything about semantics and the meaning of words.

Ian Robinson was correct in his book "The New Grammarian's Funeral" (Cambridge 1975). He argues that while Chomsky has a positive achievement in defining the domain of traditional syntax within the context of traditional grammar, this limited achievement doesn't support many of the claims made for linguistics. Chomsky's views of language as a whole are narrow and conceptually confused, his psychology is based on unnecessary entities, and the ambition to make linguistics a natural science is deeply misconceived. Chomsky is like the New Math in English Departments, a flawed copy of something else that isn't really useful for understanding Shakespeare or English grammar and style rules. He's a bit like Freud, blocked up with unnecessary crap and not all that helpful.