Current-order Books

In this book, Beck offers us an interesting alternative to typlical postmodern thought and theory. He elaborates on Giddens' concept of «reflexive modernity», treating it as the state of flux in which we presently live. This transitional phase between industrial modernity and the next modernity is marked by the radicalization of modernity, the integration of risk into the social "order" as well as the fall of the welfare state and the uncertainty that follows it. Beck also analyses social and political tendencies angainst reflexive modernity as well as its effects on the political systems in the western world.

Beck's analysis is, for the most part, clear and consise, save for chapter 4 where he examines possible outcomes for the next modernity (a little to philosophical for my taste). The remainng chapters define reflexive modernity (chap. 1), counter-modernization (chap. 2), sub-politics (chap. 3) and the effects of reflexive modernization on the (western) political system (chap. 5). The book ends on another (overly) philosophical examination of the role of doubt.

By examining the rise and fall of the Spanish, Dutch, British, French, and lastly the United States Knutsen, in my opinion, refutes some of the claims that have been directed toward the eventual fall of the United States as a world power. Knutsen shows that some of the theorectical claims in dealing with why major powers have fallen, and there is a solid basis as to why the theories are not entirely applicable.

I do think and wish that to some degree, while he refutes the various theories and points out why they are not applicable in all of the situations that were addressed, that he had proposed a theory that might fit the various situations that were examined. Overall however, Knutsen's book is well written and even though it does address a serious topic in the realm of political science and international relations, he does make it so that the average person can read it and understand it. I recommend this book as a good overview as to some of the reasons great empires of the past have fallen and what maybe, we might expect in the future.

As China continues to grow at an impressive rate, the book (already 3 years old) speculates on how this will affect its neighbours. Contributors from outside China point out possible effects, as other countries might adjust their trade and foreign policies to accomodate a greater Chinese influence.

The tone is optimistic. Suggesting that Japan, Korea and others will also benefit from a peaceful cooperation, that yields increasing prosperity for all concerned. This theme of mutual benefit pervades the book. Especially as the Chinese market will demand both raw materials and sophisticated products. The former can be well supplied by Australia, while the latter offer Japan and South Korea great prospects for their advanced technological companies.

Published over ten years ago and this book is still more relevant than ever. Whether or not you agree with Huntington, you cannot dispute that this is an excellent read. Those who agree that the West is at war with Islam will find much to like within these pages as Huntington offers much empirical date to support this argument. Those who disagree with Huntington will strengthen their position by better understanding this thesis and further developing their counterarguments. This book is a must have for anyone who is serious about understanding global conflict. I also really like Huntington's book [[ASIN:0684870541 Who Are We: The Challenges to America's National Identity]. I'm starting to agree with conservatives who say they would much rather be defending our own borders from invasion than defending the borders of places like South Korea.

This book is a bad read. Book does show that the author has vast knowledge of world history and geography but at the same time brings out his strong biases towards racial and religious make-up of the world. The book makes some very simplistic judgments about the historical nature of conflicts and adds huge amount of weights towards some abstract "civilizational" construct of human life. Humans are way more complicated and driven a lot by nationalistic and regional concerns than depicted in this book. I found reading this book quite a waste of time.

As an Arab-Canadian, I'm pretty much at the forefront of this so-called "clash of civilizations", and the way I see things as it stands, it seems as though there is indeed a 'clash' materializing. However, that is only a superficial gut feeling, the same feeling the respect Dr. Sam Huntington subscribed to when writing this book.

My interest in this issue started when I read John Esposito's book, Political Islam - truly a masterpiece - which picked stripped the religion of Islam bare, down to its origins, and described its evolution over time, spanning the Muhammedian era up till 9/11. He also dedicated chapters to specific issues such as the Jamaat-e-Islami group in Pakistan, the Iranian revolution and the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt - all these were discussed in a political and religious context. In the afterword, he mentioned how there is almost no overlap between these movements, that these were truly independent movements spawned by the circumstantial political and socioeconomic currents in the region in question. From there, he concluded that the idea of a 'clash of civilizations' is preposterous. Indeed, it's a figment of Dr. Huntington's imagination.

There are almost 1.5 billion Muslims on this planet. The Islamic world stretches from West Africa all the way down to Southeast Asia. There is absolutely no common political denominator between the Muslims in, say, Morocco and the Muslims in China, because there is a massive cultural cleft within the Islamic world (and even within the Western bloc - something Tom Freidman also missed).

I won't go into the details, refuting every claim this book makes, but my impression of this book is that it's trash. I was even slightly offended by how much generalizing and statistical abuse this Harvard graduate has managed to cram in his book. The very fact that he didn't go through the trouble of trying to analyze the Muslim World in a greater depth left me uneasy going through the last couple of pages of the book.

In the end, this is just racist propaganda by a Xenophobe, not more. It shouldn't deserve that much attention, and indeed should be pulled of the shelves of all libraries for being more of a hate speech inciter than even the holy books!

Islam presents no death dealing threat to the US or the West. There are real dangers facing the West, of course but these dangers emanate from within the West. George W. Bush has basically tanked the standing of the US in the world guided by neo-cons who redescribe Hegelianism as the Western tradition, see Francis Fukuyama. Progessives such as Richard Rorty advocate redscribing the West away too. The West vis-a-vis Rorty is just one damn thing after another. Whatever redescribes the West away is acceptable these days. The question isn't whether Islam is going to defeat the West it is whether the West is going to commit harakiri. To fail to acknowledge that the threats to the West come from progessives such as Richard Rorty and neo-cons such as Leo Strauss is to fail to see the real dangers that the West faces. Vis-a-vis the Middle East terrorism, of course, has to be contained but the real threats to the West are of the West rather vis-a-vis a clash of civilizations.

First published in 1996, this scholarly discussion of future international relations has been a classic from the beginning and will remain so for decades to come. From among the seven most important civilizations the author selected three, which may collide in conflict. Thus, in Moslem eyes Western culture is decadent in various ways and therefore utterly unacceptable. The current resurgence of the Islamic civilization is seen as an evolution no less significant than the Reformation or Marxism, demanding society's complete overhaul, renewal and purification, a movement whose impact on history will grow as the Moslem population will soon represent thirty percent of humanity. At the same time, Islam is seen as the least tolerant of religions, as it promotes peace inside their ranks but hostility toward the infidels outside.
Similarly, in East Asia, the Confucian civilization adheres to commandments like order, discipline, hard work and abstemiousness, where the individual subordinates to the needs of the community. Alien to them is what they call the West's sanctifying of human rights. Whereas we in the West expect our value system soon to become universal, the Confucian world is convinced that "the Anglo-Saxon module is not working" and that their own standards must of necessity apply to the rest of humanity. Here, again, the impact of such convictions will be immense as the center of gravity of economic power is rapidly shifting from the West to the East.
Out of such discordance, there arise economic and political contentions and military ones cannot be ruled out. Huntington believes possible conflicts could arise from a contest between Western arrogance, Islamic intolerance and Sinic assertiveness. The spark igniting material strife, however, will most likely be generated by more prosaic crises such as the youth bulge among the unemployed, terrorism, rivalry in the search of resources such as oil, and the pervasiveness of weapons of mass destruction among those who suffer and rebel.
The main message carried forth from this study is that any military clash in the future will most likely oppose not nations but rather civilizations in what he aptly calls fault-line wars. He points to the danger that such inter-civilizational feuds will be uncompromising and almost impossible to halt.
Huntington advises the reader that cultural universalism, so engrained in the mind of the West, is ill advised and that especially includes the American tendency to be "a nanny if not even a bully" in other civilizations. We must, he says, renounce universalism of values, and instead accept diversity and seek commonalities.
Since these thoughts were first published, much has been confirmed. The power shift toward East Asia is rapidly progressing. Fault-line conflicts in Afghanistan, the Middle East, Chechnya and the Balkans have resisted or defied peacemaking efforts. Our promotion of democracy, civil rights, and individualism has been rejected elsewhere in favor of soft authoritarianism. Most importantly, perhaps, is the West's failure to observe the "abstention rule", that is, for one civilization to abstain from invading the lands of another.
Every prospective world leader should read this book at least once.

Neo-cons elites on principle have no problem working with Europe. The neo-cons aren't being standoffish because of Europeans values. The problem is Europe has rejected US neo-cons elites and wisely so. Europe won't come to the party the neo-cons are throwing. The US is the rejected suitor but neo-con elites claim the break up was at the instigation of the neo-cons to save face. Until the US can reign in the neo-cons Europe best keep the US at arms distance. The neo-cons are now looking toward India and Japan two coutnries that the neo-cons are hoping fail to grasp the what the neo-cons are all about. Again there is no principled stand for the values of India or Japan or the hardworking people of India or Japan by the neo-cons, a new league of democracies with India and Japan as centerpieces is a neo-con sham, but the neo-cons are betting that that the Indians and Japanese aren't as sophisticated about the neo-cons as the Europeans. This book is nonsense.

As usual, great perception and excellent writing. There is much in this book to guide future political decisions such as recognition that the world is no longer monopolar. We've blown that, and now it is tripolar with another trio waiting in the wings.

In a sense much of what Kagan says in this work has been obvious for some time. The U.S. is the great power of the world constantly intervening throughout the world. The Europeans no longer have military power and are concentrated on building their economic strength. The U.S. defends Europe and gives it a free ride in many ways. Europe shows its ingratitude by being increasingly reluctant to support U.S. initiatives for intervention in various places in the world.
As Kagan sees it the power of the U.S. will continue to increase. And U.S. will continue playing its role as promoter of its own liberal democratic ideas throughout the world.

Robert Kagan's book 'Of Paradise and power' is a mere narrative of historical relations between the United States and Europe. Ironically, Dr. Kagan is behind time since the book has little relvance for the post cold war world order. With the collapse of the bipolar world order, European nations had to interact not with a weak United States but a colossus in more than one sense. European countries are keeping a low profile not because of the hang-over emanating out of the cold war days and of four decades of Atlanticism as Dr. Kagan would have us believe. One must appreciate that leaders and policy makers of the history-conscious erstwhile great powers viz., Britain, France, Germany, and Russia have no reason to remain in hibernation and inactivity because of the peace dividend enjoyed by these nations under the American umbrella during the cold war days but because of the fact that a a unipolar superpower like the United States would be difficult to rein in. History of the United States tells that even in their haeydays, European powers failed to keep the United States within the confines of the two oceans. Dr. Kagan simply magnifies the fact that because America took Europe's help in containing and defeating the erstwhile Soviet Union, the former will be treated as equal by the United States in matters of global leadership. Europe will reveal its true colors once the lone super power gets weaker. In a word, European nations are matured enough and know when to lie low and when to assert. The book may have some superficial appeal for the general readers but lacks real depth when it comes to analyzing the transatlantic and international relations.

Gautam Maitra
Author of 'Tracing the Eagle's Orbit: Illuminating Insights into Major US Foreign Policies since Independence.'

Blatant distortion, historically ignorant, and inaccurate. From the opening pages the reader is treated to partisan, agenda driven rhetoric straight from the Bush White House. I was anticipating real though-provoking points, but was greatly disappointed.

This book, though the author is a respected scholar, seems to be guided by the two golden rules of journalism: 1) Over-simplify; and then, 2) Exaggerate. If you are looking for serious analysis backed by verifiable facts and figures, look elsewhere. If you want a stew of smug opinions and outrageous generalizations, then this is the book for you.

Emmanuel Todd shows he can master an other approach than the usual to the subject. He admires the core values in the US constitution but in his analysis he is all but part of the academics either critical to the US Foreign policy or supportive to the US.

He has a voice of his own and his analysis ranges from an antropogistic view to a review of the US balance spread sheet.

I can only say I enjoyed a different voice and a holistic approach. The book should be read together with Zbigniew Brzezinskis "The grand chessboard" and Henry Kissingers "Diplomacy". To get the most out knowledge out of these three books one might consider complementary basic reading in macro economics.

Todd offers valid analysis and provides sound arguments in this book. While one cannot deny that some thoughts expressed are clearly of an ideological nature, it pays to remember how emotional this topic can get - just read some of the reviews about this title.

I think this book asks the right questions and provides arguments that are worth thinking through. What is the US's role in the world, how do American leaders vs. the American public perceive this role, and why? And why does that matter? Furthermore, Todd's explanation of the divide that is going through American society based on its drifting away from universalism has given me a rational handle on things that go on around me. I grew up in Europe and have lived in the US for most of my adult life.

If one is willing to take an objective look at this topic and Todd's arguments, a lot of them make sense and turn out to be helpful. However, if someone reads this book in order to be proven right about his or her own opinions about this emotional topic, buying this book will be a waste of money.

I do actually share most (65%) of Todd's analysis. I am reading this book 5 years after its 1st publication and to me it sounds pretty true. I would have had probably more restrictions if I would have read it in 2002 but it seems that actual facts confirm some of the trends suggested by Todd. I agree when Todd states that Germany and Japan are real economic powers compared to US. It seems US became a country of leisure and consumption and has less and less production capabilities. And regarding Russia, we can see now that it comes back on the international scene, as stated by Todd.
However, I can imagine that this book may irritate some american readers because, even for me, french citizen, it gives sometimes the impression that America is "dying", and that Europe is the "new" light of the world. I do not agree with this vision and I think that America, inspite of current bad choices, still has internal good capabilities to change its current direction. But will it do so? Maybe the author acts like that because he is disappointed (like many others) by the path chosen by the US on the international stage. Seen from outside the US, americans have lived since 2001 under an incredible propaganda orchestrated by the US government. But hopefully people are waking up now.
Regarding the expected "magnificent" future of Europe, I am more pessimistic than the author : there are some difficulties to find our own way which is normal, but I do belive however that we have an interesting potential. Will Europe be able to let it bloom as he says? I hope so but it is not won yet. Regarding France, my own country, we play a role in Europe for sure, more political than economical; regarding economy it's peanuts compared to the great economic health of Germany.The economic power of Europe is mostly the fact of Germany.
And curiously, the author does almost not talk about China. It is likely that China is a more dangereous competitor than Europe, since even in Europe big parts of industry fly to China. There exists a tricky balance in relationships between China and the US and when China has the means to break it at its advantage, no doubt it will do it and for me THIS really will sound the "collapse" of the "American" Empire.
To summarize my opinion on this book, I do share most of the trends explained by Todd (role of Russia, future possible role of Europe); I am more suspicious when he says that islamic countries are converging towards a kind of democracy.
And anyway I think it is worth reading it for having an external point of view on the US and for understanding the main world geostrategic trends which are moving in the backstage.

In 1976 Emmanuel Todd, predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union, in his book "The Final Fall: An Essay on the Decomposition of the Soviet Sphere"

Todd now turns his gaze to the U.S. in "After the Empire: The Breakdown of the American Order". In this second book Todd's demographic arguments are weak, but his economic and historical analysis seems trenchant, and he predicts that in the relatively near term America's financial indiscipline and runaway consumption habits will result in a crash leading to a necessary 15 to 20 percent reduction in American living standards. (Note the 2007 US Subprime mortgage financial crisis).

Todd argues that the U.S., despite its military prowess, simply lacks the power to enforce its hegemony everywhere it wishes and that its increasingly fragile, debt-dependent, Free trade economy cannot sustain for long such an overreaching imperial policy.

Todd describes the U.S. as a "superpower living hand to mouth," led by a "rudderless and clueless" ruling class who is incapable of achieving its global aims through repeated applications of "theatrical micromilitarism."

Todd argues that the disintegration of American hegemony is already in full swing, and he predicts that the Bush American Administration and its neocon theorists "will go down in history as the gravediggers of the American empire."

Todd's compelling argument / formula for great empires decline and collapse is that Great powers (such as the French, Spanish, British, Japanese, Soviet, and now America) get in the habit of using military force to protect what they view as their broad economic interests, but in doing so, they divert investment from productive social and economic purposes into nonproductive military ends. (The US has already spent close to $500 billion on the war in Iraq, the ultimate cost could reach $1 trillion or more).

Inevitably, Counties with more dynamic, productive economies position themselves to replace the aging great power when its military overspending inexorably leads to its relative economic and social decline, whether gradual or sudden.

The more the U.S. seeks to assert its will through unilateral military force, the more it ensures that the other major players will find it increasingly in their best interests to collaborate more closely with one another to deflect and frustrate the American imperialism.

* Note the increasing collaboration between rising Asian giants China and India. Newly published data shows that China has replaced the U.S. as Japan's major trading partner.

* Note the deepening commercial relationships between China and Europe.

* Note the rapidly increasing economic and political collaboration between China and Saudi Arabia.

* Note the accelerating drift away from the U.S. dollar as the world's reserve currency. In the past week the dollar fell to historical lows against the euro.

* Note the robust military collaboration between China and Russia.

* Note the recent decision by China and Japan to establish a military "hot line." China will hold military exercises with several ASEAN states in the coming year.

* Note the increasing disinclination of Europeans, notably the Germans, French, Spanish, and Italians, to support--much less finance--American imperial misadventures, such as the rapidly imploding debacle in Iraq.

* Note the disinclination of the Europeans to continue to tolerate the tenure of American neocon ideologue Paul Wolfowitz at the World Bank.

The collapse of the American Empire is not over the horizon-- WE ARE ALREADY IN THE VERY MIDST OF IT. It is like a staged train wreck unfolding frame-by-frame as we reflect in head-shaking disbelief on each day's news and on each new blunder by the Bush Administration.

When and where will the Bush Administration and US Congress blunder too far? Perhaps that blunder will turn out to be the invasion and failed occupation of IRAQ.

Or perhaps the ultimate catalytic blunder will occur in IRAN, which remains a target for destabilization, intervention, "liberation," and regime change.

The US quixotically and unstoppable strive for sole global hegemony will unavoidably lead to further military misadventures and debilitating financial and economic crises the central cause being corrupt, clueless, inept, and rigid leadership, as was in the Soviet Union collapse?

It would be easy to dismiss this book by Jeff Greenfield, former field worker for Democrat Bobby Kennedy and political analyst on the Clinton News Network (CNN). It would also be wrong, because this book is hilarious and a serious treatment of the issues of the 2000 Election simultaneously.

I must commend Greenfield for being one of the few analysts who - on the written paper - spelled out his thoughts that Bush had the election in the bag from the earliest hours of the Florida debacle. Had Vice President Gore read Greenfield's points, the entire country could have been spared the 36 day ordeal and who knows how many millions in attorney's fees.

Greenfield is a worthy successor to the old Jack Germond/Jules Witcover series which itself was a worthy successor to the Theodore H. White series of books, "The Making of the President." He recounts in vivid detail the back and forth shock of Election Night 2000 - the only night in American history where the networks somehow got the winner of the election wrong not once but twice.

I can see how a Gore supporter might think the book is biased against Gore though I disagree with that assessment. It points out Gore's biggest liability - exaggeration - and makes the valid point that Gore's exaggeration as well as his demonstrated arrogance cost him the first debate and may well have cost him the election. Greenfield also shows what Republicans knew - the nomination of George W. Bush was a foregone conclusion as have all been ALL GOP nominations since 1968 (with the possible exception of 1976 - but that caveat comes from Ford having not been elected by the voters).

Greenfield covers McCain (the maverick who is conservative but not radical) and Bradley, pointing out that Bradley missed a vital exchange that could have altered the Democratic race. But the best part of the book is the conclusion.

Greenfield demonstrates - rightly so, might I add - that regardless of what the US Supreme Court would rule and regardless what was done - Bush had Gore beaten in every possible way. The governor's office as well as the Secretary of State's office (Katherine Harris) were in Republican hands and the Supreme Court had a conservative majority. On top of that, all Congress under GOP control would have had to do was not accept the Gore electors even if Gore had won. Gore was simply beaten in every constitutional way possible despite his slight edge in the popular vote.

Greenfield also points out some of the Republican hypocrisy: after all, it was presumed by many in the Bush camp that Gore might win the election without winning the popular vote. Yet when just the opposite happened, the Bush cry became constitution over what they (on the previous Friday) had called 'the will of the people.' Suffice it to say that there were no angels on either side of the debate.

I hope Greenfield writes a 2004 tome. It would surely be interesting if it's anything like this one. Get it and enjoy.

great fun to be reading this book at the start of the 2004 campaign -- so many of its insights about the personalities, the parties, the processes that shaped the 2000 election seem as pertinent today as they did when first written a few years ago. Greenfield is a peerless writer with extraodinarily dry wit and a priceless ability to find just the right concise anecdote to summarize what others might take long chapters to chronicle. He appers even-handed -- a partisan for only intelligence and common sense, in his coverage of the respective campaigns, election night, and the 37-day aftermath. No one interested in politics will fail to find enlightenment and entertainment in this charming, timeless volume. Although I have become addicted to the 'blogosphere' and rarely look to tv for news and commentary, Jeff Greenfield's appearances on the tube would provide a rare excuse for me to turn on the tv again.

So many political books nowadays cater to one particular idealogy or another. This is a book that can be received by both left-wingers and right-wingers. For a CNN analyst, Greenfield is surprising down-the-middle, focusing on both candidates strengths and weaknesses, and giving us his own perspectives on the fiasco as it happened. The wit he includes in the book is dry but extremely well-done. If I ever have to teack about the 2000 Election in a college classroom, without a doubt this would be the book I'd use.

I've read *At Any Cost* before. This time, I thought, it might be interesting to read a review of the election resolution by someone who wasn't displaying his bias on every page. I respect Jeff Greenfield as a journalist, because he comes the closest of just about any of them out there to staying objective and removing his preferences from his reporting. And besides, most of the other books on this subject have a clear bias.

I must say that that is exactly what I got. I was amazed how objectively he managed to report on the events, especially when it came to the "We want every vote counted," vs. "They're devining the intent of the voters." You could believe that he really did see some merit on both sides; in fact, he seemed frustrated that the politicians he interviewed could not. If the only reporting in this book were on the events of the election, he'd get a four or five star review from me.

Where his bias creeps in is when he explains how the two bad calls of Florida occurred. It is as though he is telling the reader, "Don't be too hard on us. After all, who would have EVER thought such a fluke could have occurred." I do believe that if it were up to Jeff Greenfield, there would be no cause for regret at all. It was fate that led to the press calling Florida twice when it never should have been called at all!

He argues, rather persuasively in fact, that calling Florida before all the polls in Florida were closed didn't change the outcome at all. And he may be right, but I think it would be hard to prove definitively either way, and even if it were true, it doesn't justify calling it when they did at all.

As a conservative, while I wish neither call had been made, I have always thought that that was the bigger faux paus. I don't really believe that the final call after most of the apathetic public had retired for the night truly persuaded them that Bush won. As a Bush supporter, while I hoped it would come out that way, when the closeness of the vote became clear, I didn't know who won. I disregarded the media call when they said it was no longer certain. And initially, before ridiculous things like holding the cards up looking for light to peak through were done, I thought a recount was only reasonable. The call in the wee hours of the morning didn't convince me of the outcome; the mechanical recount did. I think most of the public does enough thinking not to just decide Bush won because the press called it too soon.

But it was clear that the only call Jeff Greenfield worried much about was the last one. The fact that the voting in Florida wasn't over before they called it the first time was no big deal. I don't expect Jeff Greenfield, or anyone who would prefer in his or her heart for Gore to have won to share my emotions about it. I simply think that they should acknowledge that whether it affected the Florida results or not, it SHOULDN'T have been done, and was something the powers that be that called it should lose a little sleep over.

Another reason why I give this book three stars is that it just didn't grip me clear through. I started out engrossed in the book but found that the last fifty pages or so really started to drag. I finished the book, but I'm not really sure why I made myself do so. I guess I felt like his perspective on the final days of how it wound down didn't really offer anything to provoke consideration that hadn't already been discussed before. I think the point at which it started to drag was after he covered what each side was saying in the aftermath of the recounts.

Greenfield writes very well and uses humour to make good points. He provides some sound insights from the point of view of the media on the inside.

About the only place where I thought he went astray was the lengthy and detailed (tortourous?) passage on how the moon and stars lined up and led to the bad calls on Florida. Besides using this explanation as a "devil made us do it" defense; he also points out that all of the available studies indicate that media calls do not influence subsequent voter action. Greenfield is much too intelligent to believe either of these points.

Overall, well worth reading.

This book is not an investigation into the New World Order as is commonly understood today: a global political conspiracy typically involving covert organisations such as the Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg and Masonic Lodges. The author is an angry and easily offendable Christian who throws ancient Egyptians, Freemasons, Communists, New Age and for some reason, Shirley MacLaine (!) on one big pile and calls them devil worshippers. The book lacks structure, argumentation, even cohesive narrative and reads like a pamhplet written by a rambling street prophet. Essentially it is a prolonged tirade against everyone who annoys the author. In Epperson's view, Darwinian Evolution is a 'fraud' and a 'hoax'. The New Age movement is treated like an organised satanic cult rather than a collective term for individuals and minority groups searching for answers outside the boundaries of established religions. To Epperson, the only acceptable world view is that of orthodox Christianity, making him an Evangelist instead of the objective historian he professes to be.

when I buy this Books.I buy it' just for sinple curiosity,
but after i read the Book.I say (my God I can Believe)
all the things the I dont' not.

everything in here is real. just his timing was off; but only by a year, really... cuz in 1991 Bush announced the New World Order. epperson called 1990 as the year. great, scary, worthwhile read

Let us begin by getting one thing straight. There is a New World Order.

Sadly the subject naturally attracts a lot of paranoiacs and conspiracy theorists who make mincemeat of the solid facts and compelling evidence that is right there before all our eyes. This book is no exception. Frankly it is almost impossible to find a single decent unpolluted source on the New World Order so I give this book four out of five.

It is worth a read. Many books on this subject are worth a read, though the proportions of raving and utter nonsense vary.

Why are the Star of David and the pyramid and the blazing eye of God on the Great Seal of the United States? Who or what is "Lucifer?" The answers are linked to the New World Order but the links are almost always taken wildly out of context by frankly quite delusional people.

The Star of David, the hexagram, is about Freemasonry and the Temple of Solomon. It does have connotations within witchcraft but that's because the covens of witch "Craft" and the Lodges of the Masonic "Craft" intermingled in the days when both had to hide their pentagrams and elabourate rituals in order to survive. The pentagram is not about satan it is about the human form as depicted by Da Vinci. It is about the universal life force and the creative principle. The pyramid arises from Freemasonry and the quasi-Freemasonry of the Illuminati, both of whom once had the mistaken belief that the Hebrews built the Pyramids (There is no historical evidence for this) and both of whom use analogies about architectural perfection in their philosophy. The blazing eye of God is also Masonic and also found its way into the Illuminism movement that infiltrated the Craft.

Lucifer is not a serpent of all-devouring evil. Wake up and flip the universe the right way around! Lucifer literally means "giver of light" as in source of knowledge. Snakes get rather bad press but Moses used one, the therapeutae used the symbol of the snake-bound staff/caduceus and you'll see this on most ambulences around the world thanks to the widespread influence of the Knights Templar who were exposed to certain ancient teachings in medieval times. Lucifer pointed out to Adam and Eve that God was lying to them: they wouldn't die of eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge - rather they would come to know themselves. ("Know Thyself" was later the sacred command given to devotees at the temple of the oracle at Delphi and in their wisdom the greatest philosophers, including Socrates and Pythagoras repeated it to those who had ears.) When Adam and Eve had self-knowledge they realised they were just naked cattle in a great big farm of delusion and ignorance.

If you really want to understand the ancient omnipresent themes of healing, medicine, life, creation and their symbols - the ankh, the red cross and the snaked caduceus - then you might start here because your journey of discovery may brush against the New World Order. But then it will take you far beyond.

The myth of Adam and Eve ends with the first ever enlightened human beings thrown out of what they thought was heaven on earth.

Ignorance is bliss ...
... isn't it? ...

Epperson's book NWO seems like a good idea, but the problem is when you research his quotations you will find that they are taken out of context to advance his viewpoint, however, in the scheme of things, Epperson doesn't bring facts to support his theory, which may be true to some extend. Certainly there are business people that seek only to advance their greed and power, but that blame cannot solely be put on Freemasons, if at all.

Freemasons seek light, which in Latin is translated into Lucifer (i.e. light bringer). How Epperson comes to the conclusion of Masons seeking light [knowledge] to somehow equal Satan worshippers is beyond me, but it just shows how his conclusions are wrong, and if anyone bothered to read the sources of his quotes from books like Morals and Dogma (Pike) they would reach the conclusion that Epperson is indeed wrong. However, since most will not take the time out to do their own research they will buy into this nonsensical rhetoric.

This is something like a Ben Shapiro book in that each chapter starts out with a premise and then follows up with about 15 pages of examples that you're already amply familiar with if you half keep up with the news media and talk radio. In other words, the book consists of chapter after chapter of (1) an interesting premise and then (2) a boring laundry list of examples that most people already know. You could pretty much get by just reading the first couple of paragraphs of each chapter and skipping to the next.

The only difference between this and a Ben Shapiro book is that this author is much more emotional than Shapiro and tends to make inflammatory statements, the truth of which he seems to think the reader will just find obvious. So it's a preaching-to-the-choir sort of book.

If you like to read about things you already know packaged in a different way than before, you will probably like this book. If you want to read penetrating analysis and learn things you've never heard about, you'll be disappointed.

I liked this book because it explains how Liberal lies work to their advantage. I have only recently started to read these kinds of books because I want to be able to counteract the liberal agenda. This book helps to build that foundation. The book helps recognize the why and wherefore of the liberal agenda for their socialist purposes. Divide and conquer is their goal against liberty and the right to one's own property. Subsequently many factions join together to attack freedom through some government program. "Good" Competition and "Bad" competition plus groupdividual are just the beginning of terms one should know that are found in this book. Easy read and worth it. Another good book--
Knowledge and Decision by Thomas Sowell.
Roy in Colorado.

The author makes a good case for how the Left uses divisiveness as a weapon to turn the underachiever against the majority and points to their own shortcomings as proof that the conservatives in this nation are against them a have some how stolen everything from the poor. However he oversteps his bounds in several places using fuzzy logic to support his own suppositions. In fact the decisiveness of this book itself could be brought in to question since I have thus far not found any substantial foundation for some of the assertions carried fourth. Specifically he attacks Non-Profit organizations at one point as being liberal tools to enslave the poor, which is a ludicrous generality. Many people work tirelessly with Non-profits without enslaving or subjugating anyone. Nor are they specifically anti-capitalistic in nature. Some people simply want to help others using their own resources or the voluntary resources of others with out utilizing government funding or taxes. The book has some good points but is certinly not a well researched exposition, rather it is a collection of mostly unsubstantiated accusations supporting a flimsy social matrix.

A must read! Richard Mgrdechian has turned understanding the tatics of the activist left into a science. This book should be given to every student before they reach college. Then, maybe we can save a few of them before they get brainwashed.

If genius is the ability to piece together ideas in new and creative ways, this book is truly the epitome of genius. I HIGHLY recommend it to anyone (Left or Right) who has a sincere desire to understand in no uncertain terms exactly how and why modern-day liberalism is destroying American society.

This book would almost be better titled, "Quotes About Conspiracy Theories From People in High Places." It is an excellent reference book for anyone wanting to back up their claims for a "shadowy cabal," as it quotes the very men and organization who are implicated, saying just as much. As an example:

[December 15, 1922]"The CFR's Journal, Foreign Affairs, publishes an article...in which it states:

'Obviously there is going to be no peace or prosperity for mankind as long as (the earth) remains divided into 50 or 60 independent states...until some kind of international system is created which will put an end to the diplomatic struggles...'"

The book goes to show that whether you think there is a conspiracy under foot or not is really irrelevant given the fact that the people who have all the power DO believe in "conspiracy theories". I highly recommend this book. I would compliment it with Antony Sutton's "America's Secret Establishment" and Stan Monteith's "Brotherhood of Darkness" to get a full picture. Cuddy focuses on Cecil Rhodes, while Sutton focuses on Skull and Bones and the hegelian dialectic. As Dr. Monteith puts forward in his book, the true answer is a spiritual composite of all these groups combined. Excellent information all around though.

I am the author of this book and find remarks by critics such as the one from Delray Beach to be amusingly selective. His review contains "oooh, conspiracy" putdown remarks, but he omits one of the conspirator's remarks 40 years into the plan admitting what they were up to. Furthermore, he omits Rhodes Scholar Strobe Talbott's criticism of national sovereignty while saying "the case for world government is clinched." And he omits Rhodes Scholar Bill Clinton's compliment to the World Federalist Association for giving Strobe an award for writing what he did, etc., etc. I would suggest that "oooh, conspiracy" putdowns are no substitute for the many documented quotes in the book.

This is an interesting compilation of information, but the documentation for what is included in here is, to put it mildly, weak. Just how does the author know that such and such a person said such a thing? What newspaper, what public speech, what page of what book, what article, who overheard who, who related it to who, that it became public knowledge? The documented references that are made are still not as well documented as one would expect from a Ph. D. on such a subject if he really believes so passionately in it. If the documentation in here is real, and it really leads to the conclusions of a global conspiracy, then the lack of documentation is critical.

An updated book including how it was possible for Bush II to get elected, twice, over the objections of the elitists the author quotes as running the world, would be very interesting.

The other part is that since Radical Islamofascists are going to demographically overrun Russia, all of Western Europe including England, Canada, and Australia early in the 2nd half of this century, and that the USA may very well become AMERABIA before the end of this century due to multiculturist liberals, how did Cecil Rhodes and his great plan for a Liberal European (English culture based) rule of the world miss the fact, for the evidence was available in 1999 when this book was written and published, that the conquest of Western Civilization by Radical Islam was probably going to come true before 2100?

This book is interesting, but without the shortcomings listed above rectified, it will remain a fringe book for conspiracy experts.

As one reviewer pointed out, this isn't really a book. It is presented as a chronology with excerpts from newspaper articles, books, etc. that show the history of the globalist movement.
The typical people are on the scene, international bankers, the Round Table people or 'the Group', Skull and Bonesmen, the Council on Foreign Relations, with the numerous quotes from Tragedy and Hope.
The methods behind the New World Order aren't clearly spelled out, so other books would be much better to get. However, a self-confessed conspiracy nut could find some interesting leads for research. For example, apparently the Washington Post ran an article on Carrol Quigley shortly before his death entitled, "The professor who knew too much." I was unaware of this and would like to obtain a copy.
If you are willing to pay the price to get a handful of items like that, get the book, otherwise read a book by Antony Sutton or Carrol Quigley.

Rhodes scholars appoint other Rhodes scholars?

Oooooh. Conspiracy.

How about "highly educated Western leaders and industrialists
are often educated as Rhodes scholars at Oxford"?

And then "highly educated people appoint other highly educated
people who are like them"?

Poof. No conspiracy at all.

So George Bush said "we are entering a new world order"....

Ooooh. Conspiracy.

I bet George Bush wishes he had said, "we are entering a new
geopolitical framework, with the US being the only superpower.
But with developing nations rapidly accquiring ( and how I hate
this phrase ) weapons of mass destruction. We are living in
uncertain times".

Not as snappy as NWO ( as wrestling fans will testify ), but if
he had amplified his statement like this, you see no conspiracy
again.

As to what Rhodes himself said, Jesus, Mary and Joseph, that was
at the height of the British Empire - clearly he thought that
Britain was going to stamp English all over the world and be
possibly the dominant world power ( as the US is now ). So, how
wrong he was!

So again, no conspiracy, just imperialist rhetoric and nothing
more.

And these people are all "Rhodes scholars"? Well, I am afraid
that that is called "history" - something many Americans lack a
perpective of. The scholarships were started by Rhodes, they
still bear his name. That does not mean in any way that they
also bear or teach or promote his imperial asperations.

There is no "global conspiracy", there is nothing sinister going
on. It's just the rich and the powerful sticking together as
they have always done.