Beautifully designed A-Z of the totality of revolutionary politics. This brand new Crimethinc book is the action guide - the direct action guide. From affinity groups to wheatpasting, coalition building, hijacking events, mental health, pie-throwing, shoplifting, stenciling, supporting survivors of domestic violence, surviving a felony trial, torches, and whole bunch more. Incredible design, and lots of graphics give it that hip situ feel. Loads to read, to think about, and to do. At 650 pages, you could always throw the damn book at a suitable target. What are you waiting for?

A gentle introduction to Chomsky, as it is a series of short questions and answers in an interview with David Barsamian. And by gentle I don't mean soft or empty of hard truths. Not at all. In very few words it is full of clear examples of the brutality of America's foreign policies and the role of the media in disseminating delusion. Even though I am very familiar with Chomsky's critiques of American global hegemony, I still came across some new gems. For example, here is an American intellectual's justification of 'colonialism': It is interesting to see how [colonialism] is treated in the West these days. There was an amazing article in the Wall Street Journal [Jan 7, 1993] [sic] criticizing the intervention in Somalia. It was by Angelo Codevilla, a so-called scholar at the Hoover Institute at Stanford, who says: Look, the problem with the world is that Western intellectuals hate their culture and therefore they terminated colonialism. Only civilizations of great generosity can undertake tasks as noble as colonialism, which tries to rescue barbarians all over the world from their miserable fate. The Europeans did it — and of course gave them enormous gifts and benefits. But then these Western intellectuals who hate their own cultures forced them to withdraw. The result is what you see [general poverty and 'third' world status].You really have to go to the Nazi archive to find anything comparable to that. Apart from the stupendous ignorance — ignorance so colossal that it can only appear among respected intellectuals — the moral level is so low you'd have to go to the Nazi archives. And yet this is an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal (61).And in a rare comment, I read him refer to one of his books suffering from a publisher's editorial cuts. That which was cut was very interesting. He elaborated on that in the section near the end of the book, sub-titled Human Nature and Self-Image: is racism something that's learned, or is it innately endowed? Chomsky's initial response is I don't think either of those is the right answer. He then elaborates on the nature of being an animal of the human genus. ... The people who are in control, who are harming others — those people will construct justifications for themselves. They may do it in sophisticated ways or non-sophisticated ways, but they're going to do it. That much is in human nature. One of the consequences of that can turn out to be racism. It can turn out to be a lot of other things too.Take the sophisticated ones. One of the intellectual gurus of the modern period in the United States was Reinhold Niebuhr. He was called the 'theologian of the establishment.' He was revered by the Kennedy liberal types, by people like George Kennan. He was considered a moral teacher of the contemporary generation.It's interesting to look at why he was so revered. I went through his stuff once. [There was supposed to be a chapter about him in one of my books — but the publisher thought it would be too arcane for the audience, so I didn't include it.] The intellectual level is depressingly low — you can hardly keep a straight face.But something made him appealing — his concept of the 'paradox of grace.' What it comes down to is this: No matter how much you try to do good, you're always going to do harm. Of course, he's an intellectual, so he had to dress it up with big words, but that's what it comes down to....That may well explain why Niebuhr was so appealing to American intellectuals in the post-WWII period. They were preparing to enter a life of major crime. They were going to be either the managers or the apologists for a period of global conquest.Running the world is obviously going to entail enormous crimes. So they think, 'Isn't it nice to have this doctrine behind us? Of course we're super-benevolent and humane, but the paradox of grace...'Again, if you are an intellectual, you dress it up and write articles about it. The mechanisms, however, are quite simple (72-4).There is a great deal more. I almost stood up and cheered when Barsamian and Chomsky mocked David Frum for lying (or at least exaggerating) about Chomsky's having had a big presence in the op eds of The New York Times (85). I thought it very funny. And what brought me to my feet is that whenever I see Frum talking I see either a full blown liar or the epitome of intellectual stupidity and sycophancy the like of which has little to compare outside of Fox's creative news-entertainers.