"Anti-American Sentiment" I thought after seeing that book in the congress library. I live in a country where criticism and accusation of the US about anything has become an indispensable attribute of social and political life, until now it is stupid and tiresome. However, in this case, it was a book written by an American himself. So I remembered the post-Soviet anecdote: "Unfortunately, what was said to us about communism turned out to be a lie. But even more unfortunately, everything said to us about capitalism has become true."

< p >
The Provocative Critic
Noam Chomsky is little known in Russia. Even in Moscow, I did not see his works on the shelves of popular bookstores and never encountered his citations or references to him in the media. One can only guess why the state propaganda machine seemingly overlooked such a talented and useful person. Perhaps it was due to banal stupidity and limited knowledge of Western intellectual life. But I suppose that for this oversight, Chomsky himself is to blame - a multi-faceted and provocative person, which always hinders straightforward propaganda.
< p >
"Trash!" - thus an anonymous user characterized him in the discussion page of the article about Chomsky on the Russian Wikipedia. He based such a crude opinion on some statements of the philosopher that seemingly justified terrorist acts and absolved countries of their representatives in occupied Europe. The accusations in both cases are serious, as they are related to the main symbols of evil in modern (Western) consciousness. Chomsky well understands their importance and actively uses the same weapon, always referring again to the concept of "terrorism" regarding US foreign policy and comparing the people and countries he criticizes with the Nazis. But what caused such a discussion?
< p >
The Enigma of Chomsky
This book presents nine interviews with Noam Chomsky by the American journalist David Barsamian between 2002 and 2005. Each conversation has more or less a specific topic, but sometimes the interlocutors digress as happens in any normal conversation. Mostly they discuss US politics, mainly foreign, but also domestic. Social problems, culture, and science are touched upon only to the extent that they concern politics and state mechanisms.
< p >
Let me try to summarize Chomsky's words. The US is an extremely powerful state, but a bit crazy and completely mismanaged by its elite. In American society, due to historical reasons, a sense of a besieged fortress has taken root, a fear that politicians skillfully use to manipulate the consciousness. With many examples and arguments, the author shows the baselessness and often even the absurdity of the US claims to be a victim of terrorists, the country being attacked and therefore defending itself and counterattacking. He always calls the invasion of Iraq an aggression, comparing it with the attacks of the Nazis. The same he says about US policy in Afghanistan, South America, and many other regions. Tortures in Iraqi prisons, war crimes in occupied cities, tricks and intrigues in South American countries - the kaleidoscope of facts is very colorful.
< p >
No less sharply, Chomsky criticizes the domestic policy of the US. The concentration of power and economic strength in the hands of a small group, the growing abyss between social classes, the neglect of the interests of the people in favor of those of the elite - all this he proves with facts and (sometimes) figures. From all that is said, an image of a great and terrible empire inevitably emerges, which shamelessly and continuously increases its power, extends its greedy tentacles to the farthest corners of the world to suck out their life and strength, nourishing a small but cunning manipulator, hidden behind the democratic facade. Is this particularly interesting? Hardly.
< p >
Criticism of the US is a very popular thing, similar accusations abound in the media, virtual forums, and social networks throughout the world. All the facts mentioned by Chomsky have long been known and discussed. However, I finished reading the book and did it in a few days, in one breath, and I'm sure I'm not alone in this. The certain reason for such success, in my opinion, is Chomsky himself.
< p >
He not only accuses and blames, which thousands of other activists do, but also clarifies the reasons, the sources of such a specific US behavior. Chomsky himself belongs to the two most strongly criticized countries by him - the Americans and the Jews, so for him, this is not an external, not someone else's, but his own problem. Therefore, when accusing, he often says "we". In addition, he not only describes and analyzes but also gives advice on how to counter, suggests ways to get out of this socio-political dead end. One can agree with Chomsky or not, but his proposals do not look at all extremist, offensive, or provocative. They are quite normal and understandable within the framework of anarchist philosophy, liberal ideas in general. So before us is not an extremist outcast but a normal university professor who says what we have already heard many times but now listens more carefully because of his fame, influence in the intellectual environment, and rhetorical skill.
< p >
I could not say that this book significantly changed my opinion on related matters, but undoubtedly it made me think about them more deeply, prompted me to move away a little from the most widespread now right-wing position and look at it from a more left-wing point of view. We are so accustomed to our stereotypes that sometimes a strong push is needed to change that way of seeing. Chomsky is truly a master of mind-pushing.
< p >
The Orator with Brilliance but a Flaw
Is he a master of everything? I'm not sure. I'm not an expert on most of the discussed topics, so I can only listen to everything said uncritically. But here Chomsky suddenly spoke about Soviet history, and I immediately stumbled upon a certain statement: "The Islamist fighters carried out terrorist acts directly inside Russia. And these same forces later changed their form into what became Al-Qaeda. Incidentally, these terrorist acts ceased when the Russians left Afghanistan..." (p. 80).
< p >
What caught my attention was not only the "Russians" in relation to the Soviet army, consisting of representatives of dozens of ethnic groups, including those "Islamic" (Tatars, Tajiks, Uzbeks, etc.). I'm already used to foreigners calling all the inhabitants of my country "Russians", although in Russia, people always distinguish the concepts of "Russians" (ethnic) and "Russians" (political), and even the Orthodox Church was formerly called not the Russian but the Russian. What surprised me the most was the mention of some mysterious terrorist acts that, according to Chomsky, occurred in the Soviet Union by Islamists during the Afghan war (1979 - 1989). As a historian, I was of course interested in the topic, but I never heard about these things. In the Soviet Union, there were decades of terrorist attacks, but they were carried out by crazy people, Armenian nationalists, anti-communists - anyone, but not Afghan Islamists or their supporters. I looked through many publications but never saw information about attacks by Afghan fighters even against targeted Soviet territories, let alone about terrorist acts "directly inside Russia". I well remember how in 1989 the last Soviet troops led by General Gromov crossed the Amu Darya River, leaving Afghanistan. But I don't remember any "cessation of terrorist acts" that, according to Chomsky, followed that event.
< p >
Let me add that, as far as I know, against the Soviet army, mujahideen fought, on the basis of which later was formed not Al-Qaeda but the Taliban - these are two different movements, quite antagonistic. Somehow or other, the Taliban as a separate force appeared around 1994, Al-Qaeda (according to Chomsky) no earlier than in 1998 - so both several years after the Soviet Union left Afghanistan.
< p >
Is it a small crack in the thinker's argument wall? Perhaps yes. But imagine that a painter paints someone's portrait and, to achieve some aesthetic goals, slightly changes a nose here, an ear there, a forehead. In any case, he changes little, but will we finally get the correct image? How many such cracks are there in Chomsky's factual basis?
< p >
Also, the author's logic is not always pleasing, seemingly brilliant at first glance, but after a deeper exploration, not very correct. For example, someone asks him about the reasons for the US invasion of Iraq. He immediately answers that it was caused by the desire to rule the region, rich in oil. Okay. But why was Iraq attacked by name, but not Iran or Libya, which had a more anti-American policy and no less oil and gas? Chomsky asserts that Iraq was the weakest target. But does anyone believe that a battle against the regimes of the Iranian mullahs or Muammar Gaddafi would be much more difficult? The US military is now the most powerful in the world, and truly no country that does not have nuclear weapons could effectively resist it. This was confirmed by subsequent events in Libya, where the local army was defeated by the rebels even without direct foreign invasion.
< p >
Chomsky confirms his conviction about the puppet nature of the Iraqi regime, among other things, by saying that the US does not need a truly independent democratic Iraq because, due to its mostly Shia population, it would soon be influenced by Iran, which is an enemy of the US and its ally - Israel. However, now I know that this is exactly what eventually happened. The pro-Iranian behavior of the Iraqi regime is clearly evident, for example, in its persistent suppression of the Organization of the Mujahedin of the Iranian People, which has been fighting against the mullah regime for decades and even participated in the Iran-Iraq war on the Iraqi side. Immediately after the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime, the new Iraqi rulers demanded the expulsion of this organization from the country, its disarmament, and the liquidation of its bases. After the words, direct attacks followed, dozens or even hundreds of Iranian oppositionists were killed - and all this happened despite the ardent protests of the US, which recently even excluded this organization from the "terrorist list" and apparently hopes to use it to counter Iran. Have the puppets become disobedient?
< p >
Also, strange seems the assertion repeatedly made by Chomsky that there is no problem in ruling an occupied country, so he completely does not understand why the US fails to rule Iraq: “…the Nazis in occupied Europe had few problems administering the countries under their rule” he says (p. 43). In this case, I completely disagree. Perhaps the Nazis did not face serious resistance in unarmed Holland or small Luxembourg, but their life in the occupied part of the Soviet Union was extremely difficult and sometimes terrible. This is attested not only by official Soviet documents but also by the memories of local residents and surviving Nazis. Even more - this is attested by the experience of the US military in Vietnam, a small country that Washington failed to rule despite cruel military means. Chomsky well knows this because he was an activist of the then anti-war movement and often uses the war in Vietnam as confirmation of his arguments.
< p >
Was it such logical and factual errors that the Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Žižek alluded to during his famous distant polemic with Chomsky?
< p >
Final Conclusions
The book is undoubtedly worth reading, and I strongly recommend it to everyone who is interested in politics, history, or the outside world in general. One can disagree with Chomsky, but for that, one needs to know his point of view and arguments that are accepted by millions of people. In addition, is there a better way to understand one's point of view than to discuss (even remotely and without response) with an opponent? "Imperial Ambitions" gives this opportunity to everyone, so use it.
< p >
I am especially glad that this book appeared now - only a few years after the US release. Reading the main works of world literature in Esperanto is a pleasant thing, but I would also like to see more often on our book shelves current publications - on politics, economy, and social life. Publications about which one could say to outsiders: "I managed to read this thanks to Esperanto because the national language release has not yet appeared" (as I can say about this book in Russia). The usefulness of the language is a much more effective advertisement than its ease and neutrality.
< p >
The publication itself is also praiseworthy. A beautiful cover, probably glued pages, good typography. The text was carefully translated and edited. The language is easily understandable, to which the well-chosen vocabulary of the translator, guided by Renato Corsetti, probably contributed. Nothing hindered my reading, perhaps only the use of "this one" seems too often (in many places "that one" would suffice), and the word "unsimple" surprised me - presumably a substitute for "complicated". I will not engage in language battles, but does the effort of using an unfamiliar (in real Esperanto) word that only hinders reading and makes understanding difficult make sense?
< p >
Finally, I will summarize that the publisher "Bero" presented us with a good book, and one can only hope that this initiative will be continued by the release of new current books that will help us better orient ourselves in the current world. I personally would like to read the works of Slavoj Žižek, perhaps the most famous of the current philosophers and at the same time the sharpest critic (and criticized) of Noam Chomsky. Listen to everyone, decide for yourself!

The best book I've read on left values is truly an eye-opening and enlightening piece of literature.

It delves deep into the concept of left values, exploring their significance and implications in various aspects of life.

The author presents a comprehensive and engaging analysis, using real-life examples and case studies to illustrate key points.

What makes this book stand out is its ability to make a complex topic accessible to a wide range of readers.

Whether you are a beginner or an experienced enthusiast in the field of left values, this book has something to offer.

It not only provides valuable insights but also encourages readers to think critically and form their own opinions.

Overall, I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in understanding the importance of left values and how they can impact our lives.

It is a must-read for anyone looking to expand their knowledge and视野 in this fascinating area.

I've always heard that Noam Chomsky is an anarchist, but I never quite understood this. Basically, he's a socialist who believes in true democracy, a government of, by, and for the people, not the rich elite.

With that condition in place, he very much does want all the trimmings of big government: universal health care, lots of regulation, and a strong military. He just wants it to answer to the people, and he wants the rich to foot the bill for all of it.

It's kind of hard to see fault in some of this. A real democracy that actually answers to the people? Isn't that kind of a foundational principle of our government? Theoretically, yes, but as he points out, the rich elite won't stand for anything but their own interests being represented, and this flies in the face of true democracy. What we have is exactly what those in power want, and therefore this is exactly what we will keep.

It's just that if a people wants to run things, they should probably foot the bill. But they can't. They need the help of the wealthy for this, and why would they want to help you out if this new system won't represent their own interests at all? Aside from this, Chomsky's politics is really just plain old socialism dressed in new gowns. Socialism has already been tried and failed. Fresh ideas are needed, and socialism just isn't new.

Noam Chomsky so often hits me in the head with profound new perspectives on things I've always just taken for granted. Sometimes I feel like I'm waking to reality when I read Chomsky, but I also feel the reality I'm getting is reality-as-Chomsky-sees-it, which is not objective at all, just more unquestioned ideology that Chomsky has always hated in others. He never questions, or even poses the possible nuance that can be detrimental to his cause. Probably because he's more interested in his own agendas, in the same way he detests the rich and elite are more interested in their own agendas.

All in all, you'll get his highly left wing perspective that he seems to think is beyond reproach. For all his love of challenging assumptions in the government and media, I always wondered why he doesn't question his own ideologies more. Rather than learning about how bad the rich are, why not see his ideology through these same lens? Maybe if he can examine his own assumptions, I would trust him a bit more.

I saw his assumptions and emotional reasoning everywhere in this book, stated as cold hard fact, and I just keep wondering what other perspectives we might find on those. It's like we need a meta-Chomsky, to evaluate the stuff Chomsky says. Wouldn't that be interesting?

A thought-provoking book offers profound insights into the USA and its policies.

It delves into how the country treats its own citizens, exploring the various aspects and implications of these policies.

Moreover, it provides an accurate portrayal of the foreign policy decisions made by the USA in the second-half of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st.

These decisions have had far-reaching consequences not only for the USA but also for the international community.

The book examines the motives, strategies, and outcomes of these policies, shedding light on the complex web of international relations.

By reading this book, readers can gain a better understanding of the USA's role in the world and the challenges it faces in formulating and implementing policies.

It also encourages readers to think critically about the impact of these policies on different stakeholders and to consider possible alternatives.

Overall, this book is a valuable resource for anyone interested in understanding the USA and its policies.

Noam Chomsky conducted interviews in the early 2000s. Through these interviews, he attempted to dissect the American imperial discourse on both the domestic and international levels, with a significant focus on the American imperial war on Iraq and the subsequent imperial occupation that followed.

Chomsky's problems with American imperialism began with his early years. Especially with the emergence of the United States as a major power and its imperial brutality that sought to fill the void left by the British imperial brutality that had persisted for centuries. From the dropping of nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to the war in Vietnam to the 1967 war and other American imperial interventions, these events shaped Chomsky's personal consciousness and inspired him to expose all these brutal imperial practices and expansions.

Chomsky's work has been highly influential in challenging the dominant narrative of American imperialism and has encouraged many to question the actions and motives of the United States on the global stage. His ideas continue to be relevant today as the world grapples with the ongoing effects of imperialism and the need for a more just and peaceful international order.

This work offers a good overview of several aspects of American foreign policy and Chomsky's enlightened perspective on it.

Sadly, it exhibits the typical inherent contradiction of the progressive left. On one hand, they believe that the power elite uses the government to exploit the rest of us, and thus advocate for more government power.

I've always found it strange that a certain segment of the left correctly perceives the government's actions as tyrannical power plays on the international stage, yet somehow views the government as our savior when it comes to domestic affairs.

This problem becomes especially acute in someone like Chomsky. He is supposed to be an anarchist, but in reality, he supports drafting people into the army and a coercive, centralized healthcare system.

Chomsky provides a penetrating analysis of the various ways in which the government dupes people into supporting its murderous crimes against foreigners. However, he seems unable to extend this analysis to the government's vile "welfare" schemes. These schemes have no more connection to actual welfare than the government's invasion of Iraq was motivated by a desire to liberate the Iraqis.

Once more people realize that the political process itself is the root of all evil, then and only then can we begin to restore civilization.

This 2005 volume presents a remarkable collection of concise interviews conducted by David Barsamian between 2003-2005. The reader is taken back to the era before the Iraq invasion, the build-up of the economic bubble before the great recession, and the various policies of the Bush administration. Some people may have been more aware of these events depending on their level of political attention during those years. I, for one, was mainly preoccupied with work and, although I tried to stay informed about political happenings and elections, I often used TV as an escape, falling asleep while watching old movies. I wasn't overly engaged in politics during those years as I didn't have much time to read. I was probably complaining about various things, but overall, I was uninvolved.

Chomsky has a talent for breaking down complex issues into easily understandable sentences, rather than using long and convoluted ones. As a result, the book is a pleasure to read and understand, filled with many memorable passages. It's accessible, and you can immediately grasp what he means without having to ponder over the meaning of sentences (although the ideas are thought-provoking). Chomsky connects his personal life experiences with concepts and ideas, and also compares the activism of the 60s and 70s with that of the 2000s, which is quite interesting. He can draw parallels between different eras. Generally, his conclusions are rather pessimistic, but the book ends on a hopeful note that "another world is possible." This is also an inspiring book, as being an activist requires optimism; otherwise, no one would attempt to bring about social change.

The book contains numerous interesting passages. For example, on the connection between Taylorism and public relations/advertising, Chomsky states that off-job control aims to turn people into robots by inducing a "philosophy of futility" and focusing them on "superficial things of life, like fashionable consumption." He also discusses how the founding of the country was based on the Madisonian principle that the people are too dangerous and power should be in the hands of the wealthy who respect property rights and are willing to "protect" the opulent minority against the majority, which must be fragmented. Additionally, he mentions how private tyrannies, such as corporate systems, now play a role in controlling opinions and attitudes, and how the elites marginalize and control people through propaganda, believing that since they are noble, they will use it for good and keep the ignorant masses separated from decision-making. These are just a few of the many thought-provoking ideas presented in the book.

A typical Chomskian reader would focus on post 9-11 American imperialism.

As always, his focus is extremely detailed, and he looks at the 2004 election as a focal point.

It is eerie how similar the Republican Party tactics in 2008 are an exact replica of those in 2004.

Moreover, there are also extended sections on our arcane foreign policy in the Middle East, Latin America, and Africa.

The detailed analysis of these aspects provides a comprehensive understanding of the complex political and social landscapes during those times.

Chomsky's work not only highlights the continuities and patterns but also encourages readers to think critically about the implications of American actions and policies around the world.

By examining these issues in such depth, he aims to raise awareness and promote a more informed and engaged citizenry.

Overall, his work serves as an important contribution to the ongoing dialogue about American imperialism and its impact on the global stage.

Noam Chomsky is a renowned scholar. However, this is the first work of his that I have come across. What he says about the United States, this Vietnamese reader cannot verify. Just taking it as true, he presents a lot of interesting information. But it seems that he somewhat does not highly regard the thinking ability of the majority of the American people. Generally speaking, he does not believe that the American people do not care about the situation of the colonies. Instead, precisely because they care, they are brainwashed by the state propaganda and thus cannot recognize the truth. Although freedom of speech is never truly free as long as there is an authoritarian state, in a country like the United States, for an ordinary citizen to access information and think independently seems so difficult. In fact, the only thing that comes to mind is North Korea.

I try as hard as possible not to get involved in politics, even though I know that in our daily lives, it is very rare to breathe a breath without the smell of politics.

Chomsky's views may have some merit, but they also seem to be a bit one-sided. We should view things objectively and comprehensively, and not be influenced by one-sided opinions.

Chomsky is like an encyclopedia that comprehensively documents the rotten things that the U.S. government has done in the past and is still doing at present. He also elaborates on how the ruling class employs propaganda to enforce cooperation.

Most of the time, he preaches to those who already agree with him. However, with his unyielding litany of detailed stories about ruthless evil, wherever he speaks, he has a tendency to heighten the level of fury and radicalism. That's great for him.

But for me, I don't find him particularly credible or even interesting. Perhaps it's because I'm already firmly convinced that the government is terrible. I might be more inclined to listen to someone who presents a more balanced view or offers solutions rather than just constantly highlighting the problems.

Maybe I'm just looking for something different in the realm of political analysis.

An excellent interview with a man who has a great deal to say awaits. However, it might take around 2 hours to read, which gives you an idea of the volume and depth of the content within. It's not advisable to purchase it at any retail price as it is likely inferior to many similar books for those seeking a more comprehensive exploration of the ideas presented here. Nevertheless, if you manage to find it at a cheap price or through pirated means, it is definitely worth a read. You might discover some interesting perspectives and insights that could prove valuable. So, keep your eyes open and see if you can get your hands on this interview without breaking the bank.

Yeah, ok, I should probably get off my ass and do something.

Life is passing by, and I find myself often just sitting around, not really making the most of my time.

There are so many things I could be doing, goals I could be working towards.

Maybe it's learning a new skill, taking up a hobby, or even just cleaning up my living space.

I know that if I don't take action soon, I'll continue to feel unfulfilled and stuck in a rut.

So, it's time to stop procrastinating and start being more productive.

I need to push myself out of my comfort zone and embrace new challenges.

Who knows what great things could happen if I just get up and do something?

It's time to make a change and start living a more purposeful life.