is this book good?

>>8838521
It's by Chomsky and isn't linguistics so probably not.

>>8838521
> Reading ((((((Chomsky))))))))))))
You should read Hitchens' critique of that guy first.

>>8838521

its alright.i read it not too long ago but the effects of the wars in the middle east are and have been well known. in terms of theoretical depth, it'll probably leave you wanting. think of it as long editorial story about why we shouldnt have been there.

neoimperialism is an interesting topic, but probably should be viewed through the lense of other works.

>>8838574
>neoimperialism is an interesting topic, but probably should be viewed through the lense of other works.
got any recs
im a 19 year old pleb

>>8838552

>You should read Hitchens' critique of that guy first.

Which one?

I'd like to see Christopher tearing him a new asshole, even though I hate both him and Chomsky.

>>8838612
it was probably a joke. hitchens embarrasssed himself trying to argue with Gnome

>>8838521
It's alright but not as good as Zizek's books on politics. Gives facts alright but can't theorise on their meaning.

>>8838552
Why have /pol/ retards suddenly become afraid to say Jew and use parentheses instead?

>>8838607
Killing the Host by Michael Hudson is a good examination of financial markets and foreign policy in the last 20 years. It's very readable but poorly edited and his rhetoric is lacking. The information in it is the real meat.

Super Imperialism is his first and most famous book but it was written in the 1970's and largely details the rise of financial domination and the changes it precipitated.

>>8838632

>It's alright but not as good as Zizek's books on politics.

That's a low blow.

Try to keep the insults above belt.

>>8838638
In this case it is especially ridiculous, in that Chomsky hates zionists and the media more than any Jew alive.