• expired

Noam Chomsky eBooks 50% off

520

Noam Chomsky books 50% off ebooks as well.free shipping above25$(in US Only)

"Noam Chomsky is like a medic attempting to cure a national epidemic of selective amnesia…. [Rogue States is] a timely guide to the tactics that the powerful employ to keep power concentrated and people compliant…. Chomsky's work is crucial at a time when our empire perpetually disguises its pursuit of power under the banners of 'aid,' 'humanitarian intervention,' and 'globalization.' Americans have to begin deciphering the rhetoric. Chomsky's a good place to start."

Related Stores

haymarketbooks.org
haymarketbooks.org

closed Comments

  •  

    I read the title as "boots"…

  • +15 votes

    One of my favourite quotes from him is where he talks about how censorship can be subtle and implicit. You need not outright outlaw certain topics of conversation but simply frame the debate to influence how it is perceived. An example from the US would be how the media depicts consensus on global warning as being split (often there will be a pundit for and against when the topic comes up on TV media) despite it being nearly universally held to be man made and occurring according to climate scientists.

    • +4 votes

      Precisely.

      Although by picking on the example of global warming you've created a festering mass of red-hot troll bait so I'm predicting a steady stream of nutcases to line up behind this comment and tell you how wrong you are :-)

      • +11 votes

        "simply frame the debate to influence how it is perceived"

        Calling people who disagree with you nutcases is the a prime example of this.

      • +3 votes

        What…. You mean Global Warming is real!

        And I put my faith in the media instead of Science. Right that's it I'm going to become an independent free spirit trendsetter and buy an Apple product to define me.

    • +9 votes

      I presume by "framing the debate" you mean the fact that anyone who has an opinion different to that being peddled by the politically correct mainstream media is called a racist, a homophone, a bigot, a denier etc, depending on the popular issue of the day being debated.

      Couldn't agree more…

      •  

        When I read RedSky's post the most recent example that sprang to mind was the SPLC's branding Majid Nawaz as an anti-Muslim bigot.

        Though I have to add that, in my view, real state censorship is a rather different phenomenon. Personally, as an emigre of the USSR, I wouldn't even risk partially equivocating the two by calling them different types of the same thing.

      • +9 votes

        Those homophones, always popping up to confuse people, usually in pears

      • +2 votes

        Labelling certainly plays a part, but there's also censorship by omission. For example, you would rarely if ever see Israel's settlements in the West Bank being identified as illegal under international law, but that is nevertheless the case. That's not even to say that there is some kind of conspiracy of elites who have collectively agreed on what can be discussed (the notion you see in some corners of the internet that Jews run the world for example). When it comes to things like that, I think people vastly underestimate how much disagreement there is and how un-coordinated large organisations become. I always relate back to the idea from Economics that people and organisations are agents acting upon their incentives. As far as media groups are concerned, their incentives are profit and I believe it is simply the case that at least as far the US is concerned, taking a negative view on Israel is perceived to hurt ratings in a country with a large evangelical population for whom Israel is a core part of religious theology (among other factors).

        That's not to say that interest groups have not actively tried to influence the nature of the debate, lobby groups like AIPAC (often touted as one of the most influential lobby groups in the US) are without doubt in this business but the boundaries of debate for topics like these are sticky and difficult to influence on a national level, and any group can only hope to have a marginal impact. Societal consensus is built over decades. For example, cap and trade as an approach to global warming was a Republican idea from the 1980/90s (maybe not a Republican consensus but advocated by Republicans). Look forward to 2008 onwards, after Obama's election and that idea that was all but untouchable politically, and the very notion of global warming as even occurring was in question from the right wing. We know that energy companies have funded advocacy groups for climate change denial, and no doubt there is some conflict of interest with energy companies being advertisers on media networks, but it was a gradual change in societal opinion not a switch flicked by elite puppet masters in a darkened room.

        • -4 votes

          Israel's settlements in the West Bank being identified as illegal under international law

          Under which international law?

          Unfortunately, Jew-bashing is another favourite passtime of the left.

        • +1 vote

          @elektron:

          There is a lengthy wikipedia article that taks about how Palestinians have had homes demolished en masse (using dodgy excuses like building code violations), to make way for Israeli settlements (civilian gated communities, shopping centre) on the West Bank. These have involved confiscation of land, the splitting up of communities via a network of discriminatory checkpoints.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_demolition_in_the_Israel...

          International law:

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Counci...

          "Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict"

          Not being able to keep conquered / occupied land after war time is a key tenant of international law.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit

          The international consensus of the failed agreement above under Clinton was a two state solution with an autonomous West Bank with compensation for existing settlements by Israel, with equivalent land swaps. The continued action of the Israeli government in building settlements like a patchwork across Israel has made this plan now nigh impossible:

          http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/media/images/49266000/gif/_...

          Being opposed to Israeli settlements (largely a policy by the right wing Likud government, and with significant opposition domestically) is not Jew-bashing. I myself am a quarter Jewish.

          While Palestinians living in Israel generally enjoy democratic rights (with some curtailed by the security services), those in the West Bank have essentially been living under tyranny since 1967. It is my belief that the right wing Israeli government is determined to expand Israel's territory to include the West Bank by status quo and essentially make a two state solution impossible (it largely is already). I strong believe that the notion that this will be viable with a large portion of effective citizens being without rights is fantasy and is guaranteed to lead to violence and national crisis.

        • +1 vote

          @RedSky:

          Thank you for your words. You being a quarter Jewish I have 100% faith in what you say. I'm 100% Muslim and seem to have the opposite view to you (surprise surprise)

          But to make a self-rebuttal, I'd love you thoughts on why such policies exist. Things like Islamic terrorism/indoctrination, number of wars started by surrounding countries, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad etc, boycotts, freedoms (religious, economic, sexual etc compared to their neighbors).

        •  

          @shavi:

          Which policies specifically? You listed a very broad range of topics :)

        • +2 votes

          @RedSky:

          It was more of a tongue in cheek reply to your comment "censorship by omission", and then your subsequent selective commentary re IvP.

          I really don't want to get into a debate but I am very glad to see some self reflection (you being part Jewish and critical of Israeli policies), and me being Muslim (and critical of the Muslim country policies).

          I think this is the basis of at least starting real peace (acknowledging our own flaws instead of pointing fingers).

          Cheers and all the best.

        • -2 votes

          @RedSky:

          I myself am a quarter Jewish.

          So was Hitler.

        • +1 vote

          @shavi: Interesting. I've been friends with a few Muslims in my life. But I have never met one that shares your views . Would I be right in assuming that it must be.. uncomfortable (to say the least) for you to express your opinions within the Muslim community?

        • +4 votes

          @simulacrum:

          Needless to say I will be in the minority. I'd be generous in saying I'm one in a million. I disengage as much as possible with the "community". The pure evil that seeps out from them while finger pointing is hypocritical at best and downright revolting at worst. Keyboard warriors and trolls don't help and only cause further division by spreading lies and hatred.

          Also, these people are not "Islamic State inspired" as the media would like you to believe. Such vitriolic attitudes are not isolated incidents or a few bad apples. For the sake of humanity, there's a systemic issue that needs to be addressed without being labeled an islamophobe or racist. This mentality is counter-intuitive to holding bad people accountable for doing bad things, without a chorus of defenders making excuses.

        •  

          Well.. I applaud your rare ability to think freely. I wonder if you've seen some of Maajid Nawaz's stuff? https://youtu.be/q2s_n6St1OI

        • +1 vote

          @simulacrum:

          I used to follow him and a few other anti-radical muslims doing the circuit when I was going through my questioning phase. I must admit I have "checked out" of any debates because I have made my mind up internally and believe I am right in my own views, not through stubbornness or ignorance, but in what I have seen and experienced behind the scenes as a muslim.

          I can't compete against state sponsored propaganda or internet trolls, and it's not my job to get the word out. Events will continue to happen and people will continue to defend or chastise them. People's minds will change when they're ready to accept it or have been directly affected.

        •  

          @shavi: fair enough. I'm not a political activist by any means. Personally I'm not particularly enamoured of the "left" or the "right". Whatever those labels mean these days.

    •  

      fox media might say that but the rest dont.
      manufacturing consent is his best book.
      a lot of the others are just lectures / interviews transcribed

    •  

      An example from the US would be how the media depicts consensus on global warning as being split

      How is that censorship?

  • +1 vote

    I would love to hear his perspective on the rise of the left (and subsequent right) in recent years and if his theories are less/more applicable.

    •  

      The left today would be considered centrist/mild right when he was writing years ago.

      When you consider hard left is a fully socialist state.. nobody is even close to that kind of thinking today.

      So there is no "rise of the left"

      • +7 votes

        I believe Shavi was referring to the rise of the left as the uptake & ownership of the left on what would have been considered extreme social positions in our grandparents times - think gay marriage, immigration etc. You are right that economically the right seem to have won the day and very few people (& parties) truly represent a hard left economic position (in Australia try the Communist Party - definitely not Labor).

        Socially though to hold traditional values, most often associated with the "right" means that one is outcast from society in a social sense (you are a bigot, a homophobe, a racist). This has been the true rise of the left -the absolute domination of social discussion (climate change, immigration, gay rights).

        IMO Both sides get a lot right… and a lot wrong. Our societies would be better off with economics a little bit left of present and social policies a little bit right of present.

        Agree, having read all of Chomsky's books that I would love to hear his opinion on the rise of the left over social matters.

        As he is a Communist though (his words), and hard leftist, I don't hold out much hope that he would actually notice it. Most on the hard left do not recognise that their actions in the social sphere mirror the actions of the right in the economic sphere - absolute shouting out (through framing etc) of issues to completely obliterate all the good points and ideas AND TRUTHS! of the other side. People on the left do not hold that there are two (or more) viable & legitimate social paths - only that theirs is the only legitimate way and destiny of mankind (e.g. open borders, total sexual freedom etc) and all others are backwards.

        What they fail to realise is that where a single society is ultra-progressive, and does not act to maintain its advantage and power over rivals in a world with super less progressive rivals that their position becomes unsustainable and is eroded.

        In this fashion the social gains of the Western World will be eroded by the very progressiveness these gains engendered to be replaced by societies that maintained a less 'evolved' (read:traditional) stance.

        The old adage that history repeats is quiet apt: Rome was quiet progressive compared to its neighbours and to the Dark Ages that followed.

        • +2 votes

          the left are very loud on social issues but they dont dominate.
          if they did we would have gay marriage, more climate change policies etc.
          its often just a small minority pumping out articles, ganging up on anyone that says anything they dont like are doing mass signings on polls to make it look as though a lot of people support something.

          but as with brexit and maybe trump presidency the quiet majority often think differently.

          modern 'progressivez' are actually regressive.
          left used to be free speech

        •  

          he calls himself an anarchist not a communist.

        •  

          Yes, what you said, thank you for articulating.

      • +1 vote

        The fluid gender theory that's being taught to Victorian primary school kids at tax-payers expense is "centrist/mild right"?

        • +1 vote

          I think people look for something to get upset about when there are no real issues to debate.. and that's how politicians like it.

          Most of this drama would go away the instant some crisis happens.. look how quickly people stopped caring about global warming when the GFC came along. The issue just didn't involve most deeply enough (both sides).

          Anyway, can't say I've heard Chomsky getting into those debates much either.

      • +2 votes

        There's no "rise of the left"?

        During the '60s and '70s, Mr. Chomsky was considered too radical, and perhaps a threat to the American establishment. Nowadays, Chomskyites would be quite welcome on any campus or media outlet. It's the conservatives' turn for alienation.

        http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/what_chomsky_got_right.htm

        •  

          America during that time is a special case - it was during the cold war, just short of Mccarthyism.

          In the 60s in most of the rest of the world there was a cradle-to-grave welfare state (Australia, UK and Europe) or outright communism (China, Russia).

          America had (and has) no tolerance for even mild socialist policies.. they don't even have universal healthcare (though it would save them money).

        •  

          @gringo:

          America had (and has) no tolerance for even mild socialist policies

          That may have been true under Reagan but is no longer the case. During the presedential debates Hillary openly stated that she would actually grow the welfare state by increasing the entitlements, and the mainstream media called her the winner of all three debates.

        • +1 vote

          @elektron:

          If you uninsured and sick in America you die or go bankrupt, possibly both. It's inefficient and costly to the country.

          Whatever entitlements they have, they are growing a low base.

        • +1 vote

          @gringo:

          Whatever entitlements they have, they are growing a low base.

          Which is a big part of why the US, at least for now, is still the biggest and the most resilient economy in the world. Despite recently having gone through the worst recession in 80 years, it now has lower unemployment rate than Australia, which has not had a recession in a quarter of a century, but has a much more generous welfare system.

        •  

          @elektron:

          Not true. They are successful because they can print up an infinite amount of dollars at no cost to back their failing industries (banks, agriculture, automotive), which is exactly what they have been doing.

          Which makes their decision to use none of it to help their poor (who would spend every dollar into the economy) a despicable decision.

          Australia on the other hand digs up real stuff from the ground and gives it away for no real benefit (iron ore, gas). Is there any reason why Australians should be paying so much for energy? Look to Norway (or even Saudi Arabia) for the right way to do it.

        •  

          @gringo:

          They are successful because they can print up an infinite amount of dollars at no cost to back their failing industries

          If it were that easy everyone would be doing it.

          So the biggest companies in the world (Apple, Alphabet, Facebook etc), all founded in the US in the past 2-3 decades that have survived the multiple technology stock market crashes and the GFC are not the proof of the entrepreneurial spirit unparalleled anywhere in the world but the result of generous government subsidies?

          Norway are doing some things right but you lost me at Saudi Arabia. I think our economy would also doing much better if we had legalised slavery.

        •  

          @elektron: The United States spends more per capita on welfare than the UK and not by a small amount so your theory is ass backwards.

          Do you educate yourself by listening to neo-con politicians?

        •  

          @Diji1: Mate, you're confused - it was gringo who said that the US welfare system is growing from a very low base…

        •  

          @elektron:

          It's not where America's wealth comes from no.. being the world's only military superpower and minting the world's reserve currency is. Make no mistake. They have put on $10 Trillion in debt since 2008 - which would have annihilated any other country that couldn't simply print up more dollars.

          Saudi Arabia gets value for their assets by having direct ownership and by being in a cartel. They distribute their oil wealth to their citizens and have virtually free oil within their country (.50c a gallon). They also have a massive sovereign wealth fund.

          "Socialist" maybe - but it's not stupid.. WA was getting 25c per tonne royalties on iron ore sold for ~$170 per tonne during the boom.

        •  

          @elektron:

          If you spend a bunch of money on healthcare but flush half down the toilet (as the US does), both statements can be true.

  • +2 votes

    These books are 60% longer than they need to be.

    • +2 votes

      so at 50% off … they are only 10% longer than they should be? loll

    •  

      I'm not saying this is true for the author in question, some authors have a minimum word/page count so sometimes fluff is involved. Like writing a 5,000-word essay, if you're not good enough or lack material just fluff it out.

  • +1 vote

    End date is 7 November.

  • +1 vote

    His views on atheists leave a lot to be desired.

    • +1 vote

      By atheist(s) do you mean his critique on Sam Harris?.. I'm pretty sure Chomsky is a lapsed Jew, he'd fall into the agnostic atheist camp. He's a big fan of Bertrand Russell.

    •  

      Hi view on atheism is not usually propounded. His view on secular religion, even if cloaked in atheism, is something else.

  •  

    Shipping comes to over $30 on 3 books. Doesnt seem to be free shipping for over $25 as poster suggest unless im doing something wrong.

  • +2 votes

    I've actually happened to watch this hip-hop english journalist that was interviewing Chomsky where he discusses the importance of linguistics just a few days ago…

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOIM1_xOSro

  • +1 vote

    Every time i see his name i just think of that damn garden ornament from left 4 dead you have to carry around lol

    • +1 vote

      I so want a Gnome Chomsky, but I'm fearful that linguistics students will either steal it or set up camp nearby in the garden!

  •  

    poor old noam.
    he hates the republican democrat establishmenr but i bet he doesnt support trump

    • +4 votes

      That is a silly thing to say. It is like saying he does not like the "republican democrat establishment" so you he must love Lenin (phew I managed to not break Godwin's law). People that do not like the establishment do not have to automatically vote Trump. What if he runs USA like his casinos?

  • +2 votes

    for 3 books at $28.96 total price the cheapest shipping comes to
    $32.06 First Class
    Estimated arrival: 8-22 days

    edit: Put that the free shipping is to "US only" in title .

    better yet remove it off ozbargain and post it to an murrican equivalent site of ozbargain.

  •  

    I am sure these are on special to coincide with the release of the film "Captain Fantastic".

  •  

    Americans have to begin deciphering the rhetoric.
    Noun: rhetoric - Loud and confused and empty talk