Calling someone Anti-American is not a legitimate counter argument. Merely repeating this claim throughout an entire book does not make it any more valid. It is a lazy and unsubstantiated way of trying to discredit an opposing view. Such a label fails to engage with the actual substance of the argument and instead resorts to name-calling. In a democratic society, we should encourage open and respectful dialogue, where ideas are evaluated based on their merits, not on unfounded accusations. By simply dismissing someone as Anti-American, we are closing off the possibility of a meaningful exchange of ideas and preventing the growth and progress that can come from considering different perspectives. We need to move beyond this simplistic and divisive approach and start having more in-depth and thoughtful discussions about the issues that matter.

Starting in 1967, MIT linguistics professor Noam Chomsky embarked on a prolific journey of publishing brief books and pamphlets about the United States, delving into its history and politics.

Writers Peter Collier and David Horowitz, who began as leftists like Chomsky but later shifted to the right, maintained their intense focus and writing prowess. In 2004, they assembled a collection of essays by various scholars and writers, including a couple by Horowitz himself, dissecting Chomsky's viewpoints and analysis.

The specific targets of their criticism included Chomsky's views on the heroes and villains in the US's involvement in Southeast Asia, his analysis of the Cold War, and the reasons behind the 9/11 attacks and subsequent conflicts.

According to the contributors to the Anti-Chomsky Reader, Chomsky believes that the US and Israel are the main causes of trouble in the world, with western European nations also playing a lesser role. Nearly every American action is seen as a means for the wealthy and powerful to maintain their grip on power.

While the essays in the Reader cover a wide range of Chomsky's work, they can start to feel repetitive. The linguistics section assumes a certain level of knowledge from the reader and may leave them confused. Overall, the Reader can be a useful reference when countering Chomsky's work, but it can also be a bit of a slog to get through.

Original available here.

There's a great deal here that I simply lack the knowledge to assess accurately and would necessitate further investigation.

Nonetheless, regarding what I do know, especially about South America and Palestine, I believe the authors' positions are rather off the mark.

I'm also extremely skeptical of Horowitz, given what I'm aware of concerning him.

I'm awarding it three stars because the authors provide an abundance of information that one could utilize to either verify or disprove their claims.

This makes the article somewhat of a double-edged sword. On one hand, the wealth of details can be beneficial for those who are willing to do the research and form their own opinions.

On the other hand, the authors' seemingly inaccurate positions on certain topics may lead some readers astray.

Overall, it's a complex piece that requires a discerning eye and a willingness to dig deeper.

**Title: The Fascinating World of Linguistics**

Linguistics is a captivating field that delves deep into the study of language.

It explores various aspects such as the structure, evolution, and use of language.

Linguists analyze the grammar, syntax, and phonetics of different languages to understand how they function.

They also investigate the cultural and social factors that influence language.

By studying linguistics, we can gain insights into how humans communicate and how language shapes our thoughts and perceptions.

Moreover, linguistics has practical applications in fields like education, translation, and speech therapy.

It helps us develop better language teaching methods, improve translation accuracy, and assist those with speech and language disorders.

In conclusion, linguistics is a rich and diverse field that offers a wealth of knowledge and opportunities for exploration.

Whether you are interested in the science of language or its practical applications, linguistics has something to offer.

This book was a well-written critique not of the person Noam Chomsky but of his methods - mainly that he lies. There was a bit of space in the middle and the part about linguistics. But overall, I paid attention.

Do you know that I used to wonder why Bernie Sanders, a person around 120 years old (plus or minus), decided to run for president again to lose for the second time, this time to a person who is also around 120 years old but also has blatant dementia - Joe Biden? It's strange, especially considering that "his ideas" were the leftovers of Elizabeth Warren. And Bernie ran after it was clear that Elizabeth had also run. This split their base.

I thought a lot.

Did he hope to win? Surely, to some extent. Did he believe so much in his ideas? Surely.

But then I realized that the most likely reason to run and enter a campaign is...

That it's fun!

It's been great for him. He travels around the country by plane, gives speeches, and they are broadcast on TV. He feels like a superhero.

He gets into the movie that he will become president. And who knows, maybe it will happen.

The incentives are extremely positive, and the negative incentives, like conscience and such, are not great. There are also almost no limitations, considering that Sanders had already become a popular figure and had finances.

It seems that Noam Chomsky does the same.

Why does he lie and say stupid things? Because it's fun. It's fun to be someone, to feel that you exist.

Here comes a lie, there comes a lie. How many does he have?

You have good intentions, you're a good person, these are good-natured lies.

If you're going to read something about intellectuals, READ INTELLECTUALS AND SOCIETY by Prof. Thomas Sowell.

Intellectuals (Chomsky is a PERFECT EXAMPLE) have EVERYTHING to win and NOTHING to lose.

The incentives and limitations in which such people are placed are just so arranged that the most successful in this profession will be precisely liars like Chomsky.

And honest and serious people seeking the truth like Sowell, who don't give easy answers, are left behind.

Chomsky is very interested in the propaganda on TV, and meanwhile, he himself is a propaganda writer of talking points.

If someone has read the book The Elephant in the Brain (highly recommended) and if they have observed people, including themselves, they will know that most likely Chomsky doesn't even know what he is doing.

The lies, as they cover up the situation for others, very quickly start to cover it up for themselves as well. So that one hand doesn't know what the other is doing, so as not to be accused of complicity. Just like the president deliberately doesn't want to know what someone under him is doing. So that he can play innocent and surprised - TRULY SURPRISED.

Chomsky is clearly just a smooth-talking liar.

What surprises me about more and more leftists is that they JUST LIE. LIE.

LIE.

And if they don't lie, then they just believe in lies that they haven't studied and think that they aren't lies. Probably because they are too lazy to study them in detail. And another bad incentive is that when a person thinks that he is very smart and intelligent, as leftists often are (including 2 years ago), he thinks that he can't be fooled - how could a person like him be fooled.

Other movies that are described in Scott Adams' book Lose Bigly - the most common is READING MINDS.

I would also add confusing knowledge with assumption.

Here I assume what might be happening around Chomsky. And I claim that I KNOW FOR SURE that human nature is quite sinful (this is shown by 100% of my experience with people) and there are no saints.

The sad thing is that there are so many lies in today's world that the average person thinks that those lies are some kind of truth.

And when some right-wing person is honest and starts to describe the world as honestly as he sees it - a world populated by flawed people, many of them bad, selfish, close to animals. When the right-wing person says that if this nature is not under the control of various cultural and other institutions that have evolved precisely to limit it and draw out the good in people, if this is not done, to quote Comedian Bill Maher - if there were no police, I would be beating you up tomorrow.

When the naive liar and inexperienced person in life (whether it's a 20-year-old greenhorn or a 60-year-old professor who has never stepped out of the sterility of the academy) hears what a right-wing person thinks, he probably decides that conservatives WANT the world to be like that. Or something.

Two years ago, I openly thought that conservatives were racists who would elect Hitler to kill the blacks, gypsies, and gays.

Gradually, I discovered that in fact, this is JUST NOT THE CASE.

TRULY right-wing people are those who treat people as individuals.

The leftists are those who group them into little groups.

Have you seen the matrix?

The leftists take the blue pill, the nice lie that people are good except for THOSE BAD ONES that we will defeat.

The rightists take the red pill of the unpleasant but useful truth - they know that people are bad. AND SOME OF THEM, by exception, can also be good.

They know it about others, they know it about themselves.

Here I got into another topic discussed in the book A Conflict of Visions.

Just like in the books The Righteous Mind and The Blank Slate.

The answer to the question of why people have different opinions, VISIONS about politics.

The most adequate answer (THAT I KNOW) is that simply different people have different visions of the default of human nature.

Some people (one extreme of the spectrum) (usually those who have suffered, have experience, are wise) think that people ARE BY DEFAULT... Bad... (flawed is the word... Let's say flawed). That a person is born an animal and for 20, 30, 100 years he learns how to be a person. How, besides being bad, to be (at least sometimes) A GOOD PERSON.

Other people - the other extreme - think that people are BY DEFAULT good, or BY DEFAULT blank slates.

Children, especially those raised in good families in good schools, good neighborhoods, in a good environment, believe in this because THAT'S WHAT THEY'VE SEEN.

And they are surprised when they see something bad. And they look for an explanation for the bad.

And they don't realize that THE GOOD IS THE EXCEPTION, which needs an explanation. The bad is the DEFAULT.

The MISERY IS THE DEFAULT. Progress, peace, understanding, goodness IS THE EXCEPTION.

Sadly, more and more of these sterile people are given a platform and, without wanting to, they propagandize and MISLEAD even more people.

And this actually makes the world even worse. Because if you think that people out there are good, you won't take measures.

And then you'll wonder why they were beaten up on some street.

Unlike Sam Harris, however, who is the same sterile person, he at least doesn't lie. He has a wrong (let's say distorted with a confused default) view of the world, but he doesn't lie.

But Noam Chomsky seems to lie. He selects the facts, twists them, or just makes them up to reinforce his vision.

And I could have done the same, but by a coincidence of circumstances 2 years ago, I simply gradually discovered that my vision of the world does not correspond to reality as I see it every day. And instead of putting on my rose-colored glasses, I changed my vision.

At the moment, between the blue and red pills, there is also another pill - the black pill.

The pill of depression.

The black pill is half the truth presented in such a way that it is useless and pessimistic.

I have spat out this pill several times.

The truth, however hard it may be to swallow, IS ALWAYS USEFUL!

Those with the blue pill think that the world is as they want it to be. They look at it with optimistic glasses.

Those with the black pill think that the world is as they don't want it to be. They look at the world with pessimistic glasses. Everything is lost. The ship is sinking.

Those with the red pill simply try to see the world AS IT IS.

Because only when you know how something works can you take steps to change it.

And to be depressed or to daydream in the clouds doesn't change the world. It makes it worse. Because according to the second law of thermodynamics, the default is chaos, increasing chaos.

And the only thing that, at least in a human aspect, counteracts chaos are human actions.

In a cosmic aspect, no.

I'm glad I read the book.

What doesn't kill you makes you stronger... That's what the critics are too. The critics, if they don't kill you, make your thesis a little stronger. That's how it is in science too. Something is a mainstream theory if no criticism has been found to kill it.

This book, in my eyes, killed Chomsky.

The fact that he allows himself to lie completely discredits him as a mind in my eyes.

He should have taken up writing fiction.

PP: Obviously, a big meaning of human existence is the desire for recognition, for the feeling that you exist. The bad thing is that school and culture wash us (unintentionally, the basic propaganda at the moment, I don't think anyone is directing it, it's on autopilot) that the main way for a SMART PERSON to prove himself and help the world is if he becomes a scientist and discovers something and wins a Nobel Prize.

Which is funny.

First of all, because most of the great discoveries in science usually come from the discovery of a new method of observation (for example, the microscope or the telescope), not from the thinking of a philosopher.

And these new methods come from basic pioneers.

Really, in BUSINESS, in advertising, in art, there are here and there more unique ideas for "discovery" and winning fame than in science.

I say discovery because I am of the opinion that ideas like the iPhone are much more of a discovery than a creation.

A person works in an office and an idea comes to him, he tries it and it works.

And in the free market, one idea can be discovered by one person and developed and improved by another.

While in hard science, one person discovers... And that's it.

I don't have the nerves to explain this better at the moment.

But if Chomsky had taken up this as he wants to become famous, to be a businessman and sell waffles. He could have put his ideas into this and discovered the new Coca-Cola of waffles. Instead of dealing with linguistics, where his original ideas, I'm not hearing for the first time, are original... Wrong... And unsubstantiated.

Just the material in business, the test with which you can make figures is much larger and there is enough for every child to play and test.

As the working ideas sell. The better ones sell more. The best ones sell a lot because everyone likes them.

And if we didn't indoctrinate children so much with that ideal of learning, but with the ideal of the entrepreneur, the smart children would at least have one idea that they can use their minds not to try to describe the indescribable reality, but to make that reality more interesting. Just like the iPhone has made our world more interesting... And I would say better.

Medicines and antibiotics are also a business. There is also trial and error there and it is much closer to advertising design than to science.

And after 200, 300 to 500 years, realistically, after the second communist revolution and the fall of RIMO-USA, maybe we will reach such a moment. I bet it will start from USA 2 on Mars.

They will discover a lot of people that the most useful people populating that planet are the entrepreneurs. From the girl who opened a clothing store to the genius who created a giant corporation from his garage.

And all the rest of us are just cells, a commentary, a parasite (such as Chomsky and Bernie Sanders along with the other politicians and most of the journalists are the second) in that big organism.

Chomsky is an ideal for some people.

For me, Chomsky and company are ANTIIDEALS.

...

PS2. Thomas Sowell, one of my favorite people, along with Will and Ariel Durant, are strange figures.

They are also intellectuals, but in their intellectual writings, they write against their own profession.

If I hadn't read Sowell, I would probably have become like Chomsky. A smart person who thinks his writings are a great thing.

Sowell, especially with his books Intellectuals, Knowledge and Decisions, and Basic Economics, showed me in fact how if a person wants to be useful to society, he must either DO PHYSICAL (ACT) USEFUL THINGS or, if he is going to speak and write, be like Ayn Rand - to help in any way he can the doers, to inspire them and/or to save them time, to entertain them, calm them, inspire them, etc.

Because without people who just write, like Sowell, we will have a lot of things, but without the DOERS, WE WON'T HAVE ANYTHING.

Really, everything that surrounds us is there because SOME ACTING PERSON HAS MADE IT.

And in this game, the worst thing you can do is stop the acting person. To demotivate him, depress him, confuse him, delay him, etc.

*It's important to add a disclaimer that we are talking about people acting in the form of a free market and deals by mutual agreement of adults who are relatively adequate and without coercion. In this sense, a politician is not an acting person because he disposes of stolen money, not of money from an investor who gave it to him voluntarily. If you bought something from the store, it was made by an acting person. And you voluntarily decided to buy it.

And that's enough, I've written and it's Friday.

:dd

The United States is widely regarded as a leading terrorist state, and its clients also share this dubious distinction.

This view has been put forward by renowned linguist and political activist Noam Chomsky.

However, there are those like David Horowitz who vehemently oppose Chomsky's stance. Horowitz has been highly critical of Chomsky, going so far as to claim that he has been spreading what he deems as "poisons" for approximately 40 years.

He further labels Chomsky as a "colossal, compulsive, certifiable liar" and even compares him to the Ayatollah Khomeini of the so-called "hate-America cult."

These strong and polarizing opinions can be found in an article available at https://www.newcriterion.com/issues/2.... The debate between Chomsky and Horowitz represents a significant divide in perspectives on the role and actions of the United States in the world.

Where on earth was this book when I was 19!?! It would have saved me a great deal of trouble.

The book is broken down into several sections. The authors do an excellent job of analyzing Chomsky's most influential works and revealing the techniques he used to mislead his readers. From his support of the Khmer Rouge to his connections and collaborations with neo-nazi groups, the authors present an overwhelming amount of evidence to disprove almost everything the man has advocated for throughout his career.

This comprehensive examination provides a valuable perspective on Chomsky's ideas and actions, challenging the commonly held beliefs about him. It forces us to reevaluate his influence and question the validity of his arguments.

Overall, this book is a must-read for anyone interested in understanding the true nature of Chomsky's work and its impact on society.

4.5 rounded up.

This work seemed to be extremely well-researched. Even though I listened to the audiobook and thus couldn't really check the references directly, when I did manage to look into them, they held up.

I believe the main shortcoming of this book is that the authors are so confounded by Chomsky's illogicality and hypocrisy that they simply assume he is just 'bad' or something similar. In my view, in terms of MBTI, Chomsky is an NiTe who gets lost in the flights of fancy of Ni and then, like an underdeveloped Fi user, lashes out at anyone who challenges him. His life's work is centered around political social justice (rather than linguistics), which is a classic theme of Fi.

In fact, I experience a bit of panic when I read or listen to Chomsky because he mishandles 'truth' and evades criticism that could potentially'solve' his errors. I don't think he is aware that he is doing this.

The book provides a plethora of examples of Chomsky behaving in this manner. Whenever he is confronted, his modus operandi is to sidestep, sidestep again, attack the person, and claim that he has already addressed everything. I think he is operating on a certain ethical level where he is being true to an Ethical paradigm but doesn't realize that he is being false to a Truth paradigm.

I came across another review that criticized this book for attacking Chomsky's linguistics. However, I actually thought it made perfect sense. It demonstrated how Chomsky's flaws are consistent and persistent across all aspects of his work. As a linguist, I was fortunate enough to have missed being taught Chomsky's linguistics. So, when I finally encountered it, it seemed strange to me and easily refutable. I couldn't fathom why it had been so highly revered and deeply entrenched.

Some genuinely good criticisms of Chomsky are unfortunately diluted by a significant amount of (early 2000s) conservative nonsense.

At its best, the book presents clear evidence of a pattern where Chomsky misrepresents facts and selectively uses and evaluates sources to support his worldview. For example, Chapter 1, which focuses on Chomsky's downplaying of atrocities by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia and the CPV in Vietnam, and Chapter 6 on 9/11, stand out as positive examples in this regard.

However, at its worst, the book does precisely what it accuses Chomsky of doing. It abuses language and history to defend dogma. In this case, for most of the included authors, the dogma is the exact opposite of Chomsky's, namely that US foreign policy has been entirely benevolent, solely aimed at spreading freedom and democracy worldwide. Some notable examples of this include:

* Describing (pre-statehood) Hawaii as a “benignly run colony” of the US.

* Summarizing US intervention in Latin America in the 1980s - 90s as attempts to “rescue” the citizens of those countries “from the clutches of their Communist oppressors” (a description also confusingly applied to Iraq).

* Characterizing Arabs' rejection of the UN Partition Plan and the subsequent war against Israel as nothing more than a "genocidal outburst" (ignoring the unfavorable terms of the plan for Palestinian Arabs).

* Stating that the Sandinistas in Nicaragua “had usurped their power from a democratic coalition” (where the “democratic coalition” is actually the brutal Somoza dictatorship), while the US was simply trying to assist the “peasant revolt” of the Contras (an interesting characterization indeed).

In conclusion, if you're seeking an even-handed critique of Chomsky's work from an ideologically diverse group of authors who are at least willing to consider the possibility that Chomsky's analysis has at times been both valuable and correct, you'll have to continue your search. Nevertheless, I found that there is enough substantive criticism in this book (albeit highly unevenly distributed across chapters/authors) to make it worth my time.

I didn't have a favorable impression of this book.

The author seemed to rely heavily on quoting various biographies rather than conducting in-depth research to verify the facts.

This approach gave me the impression that he was a rather lazy author.

By simply borrowing from other sources without doing his own legwork, he failed to present a truly original and well-researched work.

I believe that for a book to be of high quality, the author should invest time and effort in conducting independent research, analyzing the data, and presenting his own unique perspective.

Unfortunately, this author did not meet these expectations, and as a result, I was left disappointed with the overall content and quality of the book.

Perhaps if he had taken a more diligent approach to his research, the book could have been more engaging and informative.

As it stands, however, I cannot recommend this book to others.

The information presented in this book is good.

However, there is an excessive amount of filler content, which makes it a bit cumbersome to read.

It would be much better if the author could provide a summary at the beginning or end of each chapter.

This way, readers would not have to work so hard to find the really valuable and important bits within the text.

As it stands now, one has to wade through a lot of unnecessary details to get to the good stuff.

This can be quite frustrating and time-consuming, especially for those who are looking for a more efficient way to获取 information.

Hopefully, the author will consider making these improvements in future editions to enhance the readability and usability of the book.

The best antidote to being infatuated with an intellectual is to closely examine his ideas. This is because upon close inspection, his incoherence will betray him. Often, when we are initially charmed by an intellectual, we may overlook the flaws in their thinking. However, by taking the time to analyze and dissect their ideas, we can see if they truly hold up under scrutiny. If an intellectual's ideas are inconsistent or lack a logical foundation, it becomes clear that their charm may be more superficial than we initially thought.

Examining an intellectual's ideas also allows us to gain a deeper understanding of our own beliefs and values. By comparing and contrasting their ideas with our own, we can identify areas where we may need to further develop our own thinking. In this way, the process of examining an intellectual's ideas can be a valuable learning experience, helping us to grow and become more discerning thinkers.

So, the next time you find yourself infatuated with an intellectual, don't be afraid to closely examine their ideas. You may be surprised by what you discover, and it could lead to a more fulfilling and intellectually stimulating experience.