You can commence with small matters. For instance, I believe it would be an enhancement if the United States could become as democratic as Brazil. That doesn't seem like an overly Utopian objective, does it? Just compare the two most recent elections here and in Brazil. In Brazil, where there are lively popular movements, people were able to elect a president, Lula, from their own ranks. Maybe they don't approve of everything Lula is doing, but he is an impressive figure, a former steelworker. I don't think he ever attended college. And yet they were able to elect him as president. That would be unthinkable in the United States. Here, you vote for one or another wealthy individual from Yale. That's because we lack popular organizations, while they do have them.

Or take Haiti. Haiti is regarded as a "failed state," but in 1990, Haiti had a democratic election of the kind we can only dream of. It is an extremely impoverished country, and the people in the hills and the slums actually came together and elected their own candidate. And the election truly astonished everyone, which is why in 1991, there was a military coup, supported by the United States, to crush the democratic government. For us to become as democratic as Haiti doesn't sound overly Utopian. For us to have a medical care system like Canada's is not an unattainable aspiration. For us to have a society in which the wealth of the country isn't concentrated in the hands of a tiny elite isn't Utopian.

Economists have highly ideological methods of measuring costs. I'm certain you've had this experience. Suppose you want to order an airline ticket, correct an error on your bank statement, suspend your newspaper delivery, or whatever it might be. In the past, you could make a single call, talk to someone, and resolve the problem in two minutes. Now, what occurs is that you call a number, and you receive a recorded message that says, "Thank you for calling. We appreciate your business. All of our agents are busy." First of all, you are presented with a menu that you can't understand, and it doesn't have what you want on it anyway. Then it tells you to wait for someone. So you wait, and they play a little song, and every so often, this recorded voice comes on asking you to keep waiting - and you can sit there for an hour waiting. Finally, someone comes on, who is probably in India, doesn't precisely understand what you're talking about, and then maybe you will get what you want, but maybe not.

The way economists measure this, it is highly efficient. It increases productivity, and productivity is what is truly important because that's what makes life better for everyone. Why is it efficient? Because businesses are saving money. The costs are being transferred to consumers, of course, but that isn't measured. Nobody measures the amount of time it takes you to complete a simple task or correct errors, and so on. That's simply not counted. If we were to count such real costs, the economy would be extremely inefficient. But the ideological principle is that you count only the costs that matter to rich people and corporations.

You've stated that much of the media analysis you conduct is simply clerical work. The hidden truth is that a significant amount of scholarship is clerical work. In fact, a great deal of science is detailed, routine work. I'm not saying it's easy - you have to know what you're looking for and so on - but it's not an enormous intellectual challenge. There are aspects of inquiry that are serious intellectual challenges, but usually not those related to human affairs. There, you have to be sensible and self-critical, but anyone can do this work if they desire to do it.

How does one recognize propaganda? What are some techniques to resist it? There are no techniques, just ordinary common sense. If you hear that Iraq is a threat to our existence, but Kuwait doesn't seem to view it as a threat to its existence and nobody else in the world does, any rational person will begin to ask, where is the evidence? As soon as you ask this, the argument collapses. But you have to be willing to develop an attitude of critical examination towards whatever is presented to you. Of course, the entire educational system and the entire media system have the opposite goal. You're taught to be a passive, obedient follower. Unless you can break free from those habits, you're likely to be a victim of propaganda. But it's not that difficult to break free.

Imperial Ambitions

The Italian social theorist Antonio Gramsci wrote in 1925 that one of the main obstacles to change is that the dominant forces reproduce the ideology of dominance. One of the noble and pleasant tasks is to develop alternative interpretations of reality. In the documentary film "The Fog of War", Robert McNamara makes an interesting confession. He testifies to the words of General Curtis LeMay, with whom he served during the firebombing of Japanese cities in World War II: "If we lost the war, we would all have been prosecuted as war criminals." So what makes war immoral if lost and moral if won?

The American strategy that explains the recent American behavior is the strategy of preventive defense. As Madeleine Albright, the US Secretary of State under Clinton, said, it was in the pocket of any president. But it was George W. Bush who used it. Henry Kissinger criticized this strategy, saying that it tears up the UN Charter and international law, and even annuls the Westphalian system of international law established in the 17th century. Kissinger agreed with this view, but added one condition: we must all realize that this view is for us, not for anyone else. We will use force whenever we want against anyone we consider a potential threat. Maybe we will delegate this right to a subordinate country, but not to others.

The United States has committed major war crimes under Reagan. For example, it killed at least 200,000 civilians in Latin America. But when the United States commits these crimes, it considers them as if they never happened. The person responsible for one of the components of this terrorism, the Contra war in Nicaragua, is John Negroponte, the US ambassador to Honduras. He was also known as the governor of Honduras. Then he served as ambassador to Iraq. The Wall Street Journal published an article suggesting that Negroponte went to Iraq as a new governor. He learned his trade in Honduras in the 1980s when he was in charge of the largest US intelligence station in the world. Now he is in charge of the largest US embassy in the world.

The New York Times published an article about the conversations between Henry Kissinger and Richard Nixon, which included a shocking sentence. Kissinger tried to prevent its publication in court, but the court allowed it. Nixon wanted to launch an attack on Cambodia under the pretext of transporting supplies. Nixon said: "I want to bomb everything." Kissinger relayed the order to the Pentagon to carry out a large-scale bombing campaign in Cambodia on everything that flies or moves. This is one of the most blatant calls for genocide in the US historical record. The same orders were issued in Fallujah, Iraq. The direct conversations between Nixon and Kissinger went without comment or reaction.

The need to keep silent about history is a policy well understood by imperial rulers. Bertrand Russell said: "It is the nature of imperialism that the citizens of the imperial power are always the last to know or care about the conditions in the colonies. In fact, they care, and that's why they are the last to know, because they are exposed to extensive campaigns of blatant or silent propaganda. Silence about crimes is also propaganda."

In the 1960s, cities and villages were destroyed, but this did not happen in Iraq because public opinion was more present. Secret documents are often hidden from the local population for fear of the attention they may attract. Many documents are still subject to censorship even after more than thirty years, contrary to US law. For example, the documents about what happened in Guatemala in 1954 and in Iran in 1953.

The cover of Eqbal Ahmad's book "Terrorism: Theirs and Ours" features a picture of Reagan in his office meeting with the leaders of the Afghan mujahideen. This picture is not flattering because it reflects the active US role in supporting the mujahideen who later became the Taliban. The United States effectively helped organize, finance, and recruit radical Islamists from all over the world around them.

When the pretexts for the invasion of Iraq were exhausted, it became clear that there were no weapons of mass destruction, there was no connection between al-Qaeda and Iraq, and Iraq had nothing to do with the events of 9/11. Bush's speeches had to come up with something new. So they came up with his Christian vision of bringing democracy to the Middle East. David Ignatius wrote in The Washington Post that the Iraq war is more ideal than any modern war. The only logical justification for this war is to work towards achieving a democratic future for Iraq. The invasion was then a noble vision and a mission. Maybe we will find that if we had records, Genghis Khan, when he was massacring millions, also had a noble vision. Is there an exception to the noble vision theory of invasion in the eyes of its proponents?

Before World War I, when he was the British Colonial Secretary, Joseph Chamberlain, in the context of calling for an increase in British military spending, said: "We are not a young nation with a clean record and a meager inheritance. We have appropriated for ourselves an undue share of the world's wealth and trade, and we have obtained all the lands we desire. What we demand is to enjoy purely the vast and wonderful possessions that we have obtained mainly by force and have maintained largely by force, and which often seem less just to others than they seem to us." It only takes a moment of thought to realize that there is no way for the United States and Britain to allow Iraq to become a democratic country with national sovereignty. The policies that a democratic Iraq must follow will be based on an attempt to regain its place as a major power in the Arab world. What does that mean? That Iraq will rearm, and perhaps develop weapons of mass destruction to deter and confront the regional enemy, Israel. Will the United States allow that? A democratic Iraq is something that America or Britain cannot imagine.
It is up to the citizens of democratic countries to take the path of intellectual self-defense to protect themselves from deception and control. The government is based on public opinion, even authoritarian and military governments are based on public opinion. It is not necessary to torture to control the people; it can be done through acceptance. You will find in the media targeted at children, which shapes public opinion, a bias towards Israel and injustice that Israel itself does not follow.

An example of intellectual self-defense can be seen in the way we approach information. In today's digital age, we are bombarded with a vast amount of data from various sources. It is essential to develop the skills to critically evaluate this information.

For instance, when we come across a news article, we should not simply accept it at face value. Instead, we need to question the credibility of the source, the motives behind the reporting, and whether the facts are accurate and supported by evidence.

Another aspect of intellectual self-defense is the ability to identify logical fallacies. These are errors in reasoning that can mislead us into believing something that is not true. By being aware of common fallacies such as ad hominem attacks, straw man arguments, and false dichotomies, we can avoid being swayed by faulty reasoning.

In conclusion, intellectual self-defense is crucial for protecting ourselves from misinformation and false ideas. By developing critical thinking skills and being vigilant about the information we consume, we can make more informed decisions and navigate the complex world around us with greater confidence.

I had been hoping that, despite his reputation, Chomsky was an intelligent and well-informed radical.

However, instead, I discovered that he is just short of being like Lyndon LaRouche. There is a lot of borderline demagoguery and tinfoil-hat paranoia. The reasoning is sloppy, with more instances of Godwin's Law than I thought possible in just 200 pages. There is also a strange fixation on the militarization of space.

The style of the book, which is a collection of interviews with the sainted Chomsky, is so fawning that you would almost expect it to be a chat on Good Morning America with a presidential candidate. This style does not help matters.

Overall, my initial hopes for Chomsky were dashed, and I was left with a rather negative impression of his work and ideas as presented in this book.

This is a re-read of a book that I perused several years ago. It remains as incisive and thought-provoking as ever.

Here, Chomsky presents himself in a more accessible mode, not as the philosopher or linguist we might typically associate with him. The book consists of a series of interviews and talks that showcase the remarkable breadth of his knowledge. He delves into the minutiae of US imperial history, discussing events such as those in Grenada, Guatemala in 1954, Vietnam, and Cuba. He quotes figures like Mill, Cobden, Lord Curzon, and Robert McNamara with ease.

Chomsky dissects US foreign policy, particularly in relation to Iraq and the Middle East. He contends that the invasion of Iraq was an act of supreme folly and a war crime. There are also passing jabs at religious fundamentalism and the media, but the main focus is on US foreign policy. He argues that the US is a failed state.

Furthermore, Chomsky examines the origins of propaganda, drawing on Taylorism and its application to controlling people outside of work. He also mentions how Mein Kampf built on the ideas of Henry Ford regarding society and the Jews, taking the use of propaganda to new heights.

Overall, there is a wealth of material here to contemplate. Chomsky's writing is never dull and always manages to be provocative. His political thought might perhaps be described as anarcho-syndicalist, but as he himself would likely caution, labels can be insidious.

In this new set of interviews, America's foremost intellectual activist delves into new questions regarding US domestic and foreign policy.

In September 2002, the American government unveiled a novel national security strategy. Departing from pre-emptive war, which could potentially be covered by the UN Charter, the new strategy opts for preventive war, which is completely prohibited under international law. In essence, America aims to rule the world by force, and should any challenge to its domination arise, be it imagined, fabricated, or merely perceived in the distance, America deems itself entitled to annihilate that challenge before it morphs into a threat.

The Bush Administration speaks of targeting countries that shelter terrorists. However, Orlando Bosch, labeled by the Justice Department as a threat to American security, resides peacefully in Miami, having received a Presidential Pardon. In 1976, Bosch was implicated in the shooting down of a Cuban airliner, resulting in the deaths of 73 people, among other heinous crimes. Emanuel Constant, responsible for the deaths of at least 4000 Haitians, dwells in Queens, New York, as America not only refuses to respond to extradition requests but also refrains from explicitly saying No. Such doctrines are unilateral, granting America the prerogative to harbor terrorists and employ violence while denying others the same.

The individuals surrounding George Bush are remarkably candid about their intention to undermine the progressive achievements of the past 100 years. They have largely eradicated the progressive income tax. Their next targets are Social Security and health care. They do not advocate for a small government; rather, they envision a colossal, highly intrusive government that serves their interests.

This is yet another outstanding and enlightening book from Chomsky and Barsamian. For a fascinating exploration of the true workings of America and the world, this book is highly recommended.

Imperialism is a term that immediately brings the United States to mind. Everyone knows how low they can go in expanding their hegemony around the world. This is the very thing that has been repeatedly said in the words of the famous philosopher, writer, and thinker Noam Chomsky. This is a collection of some interviews conducted by Noam Chomsky in 2003 - 2004. Chomsky has easily given the uncensored answers to some questions about imperialism. Since the time was 2003 - 2004, the most talked-about events at that time, 9/11 and the US invasion of Iraq, have taken center stage in the discussion.

According to Chomsky, the United States is a fearful country, and there is always a kind of fear at work among its citizens. What exactly they are afraid of, Chomsky himself doesn't know. And the policymakers of that country use this fear. Starting from the banana republic Nicaragua to mighty Russia, they easily declare it as a 'threat to the country', make the people believe it, and then invade those countries with all those 'threats' and win the support of the people.

It reminds me of a colleague in my previous office. He was the weakest, laziest, and most opportunistic in the team. We used to go home on time after finishing our work. But he preferred to keep his work pending, and as a result, there were often big troubles at the 'customer-end', and those troubles always came from his customers. And then he would become a hero in my eyes by solving the huge crisis he had created in one day. But who knows that the crisis was his own creation!

Just as it is ridiculous that Kennedy declared Cuba a 'threat to the country', in the same way, it is also ridiculous that Bush declared Iraq a 'threat to the country'. Kennedy, Nixon, Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump, and now Biden, when the war history of their reigns is dug up, it becomes clear how ambitious they are in expanding imperialism! There is no documentary evidence to be found of how many war crimes these dedicated souls have committed in the 'divine mission of establishing democracy' around the world. In Chomsky's words, each of them should be on the list of those who deserve the death penalty under the Geneva Convention law. The Nazis were punished for attacking the Jews and for genocide without trial. And under the guise of the United States, so many genocides have been committed for no reason, and they call it 'collateral damage', and the terrified global believers have no choice but to accept it. In the same way, events such as the 'mission of building a civilized society' by the British and the French, Mussolini's great domination in civilizing the Ethiopians, the looting of wealth by Britain and the United States in the name of establishing democracy in the Middle East, and so on are also validated.

At the end of the book, there are some separate discussions and critiques in 2 chapters about the education and healthcare in the United States, where there is no political context. I would say the translation of the book is quite good, only some spellings need to be corrected in a few places. I would be disappointed if I don't get such an interview with Chomsky on international politics in 2024.

Warning:
After reading this book, you will develop a hatred for the foreign policy of the United States, and if you already have it, it will increase several times.

From the perspective of the "elite" (those who believe that the "dumb majority" should be ruled by the higher class of "smart" people), people are considered dangerous. Therefore, they need to be controlled, mainly through media propaganda images, hyperreality, sex, and so on. More details can be found in "Simulacra and Simulation".

The great propaganda achievement is that the American people are frightened, probably of anything, including aliens, without caring about the real situation (i.e., statistics).

"Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups." George Carlin

A presidential memorandum on February 7, 2002, authorized U.S. interrogators of prisoners captured during the War in Afghanistan to deny the prisoners basic protections required by the Geneva Conventions, making the U.S. basically another Nazi or communist country. The president's memorandum was a plan to violate the Geneva Convention, and such a plan constitutes a war crime under the Geneva Conventions.

The article "U.S. Won't Let Men Flee Fallujah" - "It's universally called genocide. When the Serbs do it. When we do it, we call it - liberation."

"As a US marine who lost close friends in the siege of Fallujah in Iraq seven years ago, I understand that we were the aggressors" src

"I’m a believer in American exceptionalism." secretary of defense David Sedney

American exceptionalism is also fueled by deep religious fanaticism.

The goal of the economics of the empire, as we know from other Chomsky books, is to make the "elites" rich without considering the costs, transferring all costs to the own people (regarding them as mere "dumb slaves"), to other countries, and to future generations. For example, it is why QE was created specifically for banks, not for the own people.

In conclusion, this view presents a rather critical perspective on the actions and beliefs of the United States, highlighting issues such as propaganda, human rights violations, and economic policies that seem to favor the few at the expense of the many.

I really enjoyed this book. It is easy to read and accessible, which makes it a great choice for anyone interested in learning about history and current affairs.

One of the coolest things about books like this is how they provide a snapshot of history. This book references current affairs that were happening in the early 2000s, which gives readers a better understanding of the context in which the events took place.

Chomsky's perspective is also very interesting. It is more similar to mine than most, which makes it easy for me to relate to his arguments. His writing is thought-provoking, detailed, and straight to the point, which makes it a pleasure to read.

Overall, I would highly recommend this book to anyone who is interested in history, current affairs, or just wants to read a good book. It is a great addition to any bookshelf and is sure to provide hours of entertainment and enlightenment.

It's a truly lovely book.

In the interviews, Noam Chomsky has provided some fascinating insights into his childhood life as well.

One point of great appreciation is when he vividly recalls his school days and reflects on his creativity.

During that time, there was no concept of competition among the students.

Each student was unique and special in his or her own way.

However, Chomsky claims that his creativity was damaged when he entered high school.

In high school, everything seemed to be centered around competition and grades.

This intense focus on achieving good grades and outperforming others overshadowed the importance of nurturing creativity and individuality.

It's a thought-provoking observation that makes us wonder about the impact of our educational systems on students' creativity and overall development.

Perhaps we should strive to create learning environments that encourage both healthy competition and the cultivation of unique talents and ideas.

The original article seems to be incomplete. However, I will try to rewrite and expand it based on what is provided.

The story didn't finish it. There were still loose ends that needed to be tied up. The characters' fates hung in the balance, and the readers were left in suspense. It was as if the author had suddenly decided to stop writing, leaving the narrative unfinished. This lack of closure was frustrating for many. But perhaps there was a reason for it. Maybe the author wanted to let the readers' imaginations run wild and come up with their own endings. Or perhaps there was a sequel in the works, and this was just the beginning of a larger story. Whatever the case may be, the unfinished article left a lasting impression on those who read it.

Please note that since the original article was very short and lacking in detail, the expansion may not fully capture the intended meaning. If you can provide more context or clarify the content, I will be able to rewrite it more accurately.

The interview, although a bit outdated, brings up numerous pertinent questions regarding US imperialism, especially in relation to the invasion of Iraq. This event has had far-reaching consequences and continues to be a topic of intense debate. The actions taken by the US in Iraq have raised concerns about its motives, the impact on the local population, and the implications for international relations.

Examining the invasion through the lens of US imperialism allows for a deeper understanding of the geopolitical forces at play. Was the invasion truly about promoting democracy and freedom, as some have claimed, or were there other underlying interests? These questions are not only relevant to the past but also have implications for the future.

By exploring these issues, we can gain a better understanding of the complex nature of US foreign policy and the role of imperialism in shaping global events. It is essential to have an informed and critical discussion about these topics to ensure that the actions of powerful nations are held accountable and that the rights and interests of all people are respected.