Current-order Books

This is an outstanding collection of vintage and new Didion. It is a MUST have for Didion fans.

I seldom read non-fiction, due to habit and training, mostly. However, when I read essays like these, I am as amazed and inspired as I would be by any great piece of fiction. Joan Didion's voice is clear, her eye sharp. This collection gathers essays from the 60's (a time I remember very well)up to and including the Bush Administration (a time I'd just as soon forget)and manages to combine history, social commentary and personality profiles into keen observations not only about the world at large, but also about herself as a part of that world. She moves from Las Vegas (I love her take on that place!) to California to Miami to El Salvador. All the while, as I read I stand in amazement at the way she writes. In his intro to the book, John Leonard says her "black album" is the "habitation of a brave heart and a radiant intellect, an ice palace and a greenhouse. . . to instruct us and the sentences we can almost sing." Certainly said better than I could have. If you can appreciate journalism as literature, you will no doubt enjoy these essays.

Tasteless, meaningless, insipid, Joan Didion is a writer for our times. Her cool detached nihilism dovetails perfectly with a world that abjures conviction and commitment. Even so, her work won't long outlast her life.

This book came up while I was buying "Political Fictions" for a friend of mine, and I was worried I'd missed something, but actually it's every nonfiction book she's written up through 2003. I've savored every word of Didion's nonfiction since reading "Goodbye To All That" (the final essay of Slouching Toward Bethlehem) in a nonfiction class in college , and she's never let me down. It's not simply that Didion is one of our greatest writers, its that her style is so incisive and unforgettable because she works with only a whisper of the incredible effort and vision she creates, she undoes the reader with observations that don't appear to be observations - she makes her conclusions about culture, nature, and humanity the only conclusions, and she can devastate, over and over again, in a single sentence. It's crazy to think of all of the nonfiction books I've bought of hers fitting concisely into under 1200 pages, but how lucky for the people that own this book to be able to do what took me years to do - track down each piece and appreciate it separately (except for the uber-successful Year of Magical Thinking, which still requires its own purchase). I hope readers take the time to appreciate the differences in each work, to consider how time and how Didion's consciousness adjusted from one book to the next, but the important thing is that she continue to be read and enjoyed. Here, you can read a piece like "Goodbye to All That," or "Quiet Days In Malibu," or that devastating final chapter of Where I Was From to hear that beautiful, plaintive, liberating sad voice, and then follow it up with Salvador or "In The Realm of the Fisher King" or "Vichy Washington" and appreciate a cunning that rips into politics and the culture at large. One strange review on here stated that it was unlikely Didion's work would outlast her life much, and while I don't know that to be untrue (I mean, she's still alive), one thing I've loved about her is that any contextual writing she does - writing about Joan Baez in the 60's, say, or seeing Georgia O'Keefe in the 70's, or Miami, or El Salvador, or Reagan or Hawaii - feels current because it speaks to the human observation watching it occur, and because the culture we make up (the "stories we tell ourselves") around whatever's occuring always remain the same. I wasn't alive or cognizant when much of what she writes about occurs, but to me, Didion's one of the great writers that made me feel connected to the world, feel less alone, and feel thrilled at every topic she's discussed.

WARNING! This is an extremely biassed review!
No one writes like Joan Didion. Every story, almost every sentence is a study of someone who obviously loves the language.
Didion hones in on our finest feelings, our fears, our sorrows shot from her literary arrow, with the truest aim.
I cannot read Didion without wanting to know more...there is something in her non-fiction pieces which reaches out and grabs you, drawing you into facts that would send you to sleep if it were someone else offering them to you.
This is a fine collection of Didion observations. No one does it better. I am still resonanting to Self Esteem from Slouching Toward Bethlehem and I read it 10 years ago. Where I Was From is full of California stories, and even if you've never even visited the place you would know it intimately when you finish the book.
A great collection.

This is quite possibly the best history book of all time. As a ph.d. in history myself, I've read thousands. A handful have actually made me sit up and take note. Two or three have made me go "wow!" This is one.

This is possibly the best educated person's introduction to the liberal arts and what it means to be conservative in the United States. Kirk intended this book as a history of what he terms the "Permanent Things" throughout the history of Western Civilization. Kirk traces the history of ideas from the Law and Prophets of Ancient Israel, the experiments with liberty and community of Ancient Greece and Rome, the Christian discovery of transcendent and intimate moral order, and the development of English common law and constitutional governing institutions in their triumph and travail. Then he analyzes how all these varied traditions congealed together in the experience of the British colonies to create a uniquely American order. This order was beautifully expressed in but not created by America's founding documents, especially the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The narrative is approachable, erudite, eloquent, and enlightening. Those looking for "hard" political science analysis might be disappointed but those looking for a refreshing stroll through Western history, especially for the first time outside of a college class, will be delighted. Highly recommended! Should be required reading in any undergraduate History, Political Science, or American studies program.

I received the item earlier than the posted date (though Amazon usually ships early anyway so I had high expectations - which were met).

Kirk is a powerful thinker, and his work deserves close reading. The rediscovery of conservative political philosophy owes much to him. But what is unique about this book?

Here's the key; Kirk's historical approach shows the importance of order as a foundational political principle. When you study him, you will realize that the constant rhetoric about personal philosophies in political life are really secondary. The crucial role of government is to protect societal order, and we are dependent on thousands of years of history in formulating our ideas of how that is done.

Anyone who wants to be thoughtful about politics should read this book. It will change your understanding of what an official is actually supposed to do, and it will guide your voting decisions accordingly.

Please read and reread this excellent book. DR,Lee Cheek has the best insight on this book, Ignore the clueless review just before Cheeks, Dr Kirk didnt fail in acedamia he left because he was fed up with what is what it was becoming, Yet he lectured for many years on may campuses aterwards with many requests, he has wriiten over 30 books and thousands of articles, He has known some of the best and the brightest read his autobiograhy. "The Sword Of Imagination" You CANNOT judge this book or its author or his MAJOR accomplishements by a flyleaf and pass judgement as the one reviewer did.

British Diplomat Robert Cooper has written a straight forward and to the point analysis of the state of the world as we know it; and, the future of places like Europe and the United States in it. Cooper dissects the world into three readily definable camps - not first, second, and third world, "Pre-Modern" "Modern", and "Postmodern". Pre-Modern would be hopelessly lost and failed states such as Afghanistan; Modern states would be defined as nation states such as China or India; and the Postmodern would be defined as supra/super states such as the European Union and Japan. The United States sometimes fits somewhat into the Postmodern state while at other times fits a Modern nation state; all while also standing above it all in some ways (including that the U.S. has far outspent the rest of the world militarily, and more efficiently at that) to Cooper - a thread that runs throughout the book.

From these definitions, Cooper then works forward as he describes how the world is changing and how it affects these types of states in general as well as specific states such as the E.U. and the U.S. One major factor for the future to consider is that imperial, territorial, and state-against-state wars are mostly a thing of the past. Replacing these are civil wars, wars over ideology, and most importantly wars waged by non-state aligned groups with no actual territory and no actual government.

Cooper sees a secure future of the world dependent upon a few things: the European Union must solidify a stronger internal defensive infrastructure that is not reliant on the United States; that beyond that, the E.U. and the U.S. must work better together (and this he sees as a two-way problem to solve with both sides part of the problem); and the problem of non-governmental enemies must be tackled before it consumes everything.

This book is very readable and I found myself at times stopping to contemplate what I have just read and at others rereading a section to better absorb Cooper's thoughts on the subject. This is an honest consideration of the subject that is balanced and does not show a favoritism to Cooper's home country England or its Postmodern state the European Union...he is equal in his praise and his critique.

>>>>>>><<<<<<<

A Guide to my Book Rating System:

1 star = The wood pulp would have been better utilized as toilet paper.
2 stars = Don't bother, clean your bathroom instead.
3 stars = Wasn't a waste of time, but it was time wasted.
4 stars = Good book, but not life altering.
5 stars = This book changed my world in at least some small way.

Although the author appears to present a compelling case, it is rampant with idealism. He relies extensively on his academic and diplomatic credentials to float ideas, a thesis and methodology that he does not substantiate with scholarly work. The author uses 3 essays with the liberal use of many historical analogies to both build and support his case, regrettably for all his alleged academic and political experience he does not write as scholarly as one would expect and asks the reader to accept all his notions at face value without providing the necessary references, notes, footnotes or endnotes to support his case. In the three essays that total 175 pages he barely provides 38 endnotes.

The book is not entirely without merit. He debunks Kagans "Of Paradise and Power" and admonishes Europe for riding the "Free Security" ticket. Although he blasts America for its missteps and poor decisions in foreign policy, he is equally blistering of Europe. If you are looking for the observations that an experienced diplomat would make, then this is a great book. remenber, the operative word is observations;If you expect to use this book as a reference or source of primary evidence then I would suggest that you think twice because the book is heavy on opinion and idealism and essentially asks the reader to make the quantum leap of faith without the necessary supporting references.

Robert Cooper has written a brilliant book that takes a big-picture look at the vast scenery of the international community at the beginning of the 21st century. His short treatise is made up of three parts. The first is a discussion of the differences in makeup of pre-modern (the third world), modern (the U.S., Japan), and post-modern states (Western Europe).

The second section is a discussion of diplomacy today. It is broken up into a discussion of five maxims for international relations: 10 foreigners are different; 2) in the end, what matters is domestic politics; 3) Influencing foreigners is difficult; 4) Foreign policy is not only about interests; and 5) Enlarge the context.

The last section is a discussion of Europe and the U.S. today. This part has a special resonance as Cooper is currently the Director-General of the Council of the European Union. Cooper says that such simplistic postulations as Robert Kagan's in "Of Paradise and Power" that Europe and America are drifting apart because of different values are wrong. Europe and America may have different capabilities, but they want the same objectives. They both want to create conditions for prosperity and freedom. They both are threatened by rogue states and terrorists. However, Cooper sees the biggest problem in the relationship Europe's reluctance to create force capabilities that can work with the U.S. military by increasing defense spending. Cooper believes this is wrong and should be rectified before the problem becomes untenable.

This is a short and concise work that should be widely read. I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in international relations in the 21st century.

In this remarkable book of essays, Robert Cooper, former foreign policy adviser to Tony Blair, gives a brilliant analysis of the present state of international relations.

Since the Peace of Westphalia, in 1648, modern European states have organized themselves according to two principles: empire and balance of power. This was known as the arena of the great powers and, in the 19th century, Japan and the United States joined the game. By 1945 most of the great powers were in shambles; there remained only the United States and the Soviet Union as two competing "imperial systems." And after 1989 there was only one, the United States as sole superpower. Many observers saw this as the global triumph of markets and democracy, and saw it as an end to the battle of ideas. Francis Fukuyama called it "the end of history." However, with the events of September 11, the world is again plunged into history and the battle of ideas, this time looking more like Samuel Huntington's "clash of civilizations."

In his analysis of the present-day world, Cooper divides nation states into three types: premodern, modern, and postmodern.

The premodern states are the "failed states." These states have lost their monopoly on the use of force; where governments have lost control to warlords, gangsters, terrorists, and other non-state actors (examples are Somolia, Liberia, and Afghanistan under the Taliban). These states have lost their sovereignty and chaos rules the day.

The modern states are sovereign states that pursue their own national interests. They fit into the traditional balance of power or hegemonic scheme. For them the world is a jungle and world government interests them only insofar as it furthers their national interests. Prominent among the modern states are Russia, China, Brazil, and India; and most prominent among them, the United States.

The postmodern world consists of nations that have relinquished much of their sovereignty to international governmental bodies, the primary example of this, of course, is the European Union. In Cooper's words it "is a highly developed system for mutual interference in each other's domestic affairs." European states gain their power from being completely vulnerable and transparent to each other. They operate on mutual security and rule of law. War between postmodern states would be next to impossible. Cooper believes this to be a higher level of civilization, but also sees the problem when not all states are postmodern.

Cooper also rightly notes that the development of the European Union from the Treaty of Rome (1957) to the present day was underwritten by American power, without which it would not exist today.

What is most interesting in Cooper's theory is the difference between how a postmodern and a modern state confront terror or genocide in the premodern world. Postmodern Europe failed to respond to genocide in the Balkans nor could it respond to terrorist attacks originating in premodern states. The postmodern outlook prevents them from building up a unified military capable of intervening in a time of crisis. Their primary tools are diplomacy and legal action. The response of the United States, the pre-eminent modern state, of course, is overwhelming military force. This, however, is insufficient and so unsettling to the rest of the world that is counterproductive and destabilizing.

According to Cooper, the key ingredient needed is legitimacy. Yes, military force is needed but it must be done in a multilateral way to bring along the rest of the world for a successful outcome.

Cooper's argument is much more complex than just described. I highly recommend this book for those who are concerned about the dangers of the present and those on the horizon.

This is a somewhat deceptive book. It is quite short, just a 180 pages including notes and is very well written. This might cause some folks to dismiss it out of hand as yet another self-serving tome form a retired bureaucrat (all be it an English one). In point of fact the book is an intelligent and original look at the way the post Cold War world looks and works.
The author describes this world as divided between `pre-modern', `modern' and `post-modern' nation states. He postulates that the post-modern state actually is more trans-national than national, with a strong affinity for multi-lateral foreign relations, a transparent security system and a high tolerance for outside interference in its domestic affairs. This sounds pejorative, but it is not. In the author's view the post modern condition is exemplified by the nation states of the European Union (EU) and Japan and is the model for a stable and prosperous world order. Yet in a remarkably realistic assessment of the condition of the world, the author notes that the EU and Japan can enjoy their status as post-modern states only because the United States posses the most powerful military force in the world. He refers to the U.S. as a `modern' state with attributes that include a penchant for unilateral action, a closed security system, and no tolerance for outside interference in its domestic affairs. He sees the U.S. as providing the security that allows the post-modern states to flourish and grow. This insight, to this reviewer, is a very generous and realistic view of the role of the U.S. in world affairs. The book contains a host of other insights, ideas and practical advice for making the post-cold war world a place worth living. They certainly make the book worth reading.

Monbiot's manifesto is a lucid and often elegant call for a radical transformation of systems of global governance. His writing is reasoned and quick, rarely wasting a word, which lends precision and power to his argument. His basic premise is that humanity is doomed to a future of continuing war between nations, increasing inequity between the powerful few and the impoverished many, and environmental devastation unless and until we make the transition to the "metaphysical mutation" whereby we begin to see ourselves first and foremost as a single species rather than as loyal members of mutually exclusive communities.

In the meantime, he argues, the "least worst" political arrangement that provides a balance against the "dictatorship of vested interests" that is the inevitable consequence of unfettered commerce is institutional democracy. The world has already been globalized economically, but the resulting inequities of power and privilege have not been formed by consent of the world's people. What is needed is a global democratic revolution that will establish democratic political institutions measured to the will of the people.

Monbiot believes that the current international institutions are solidly in the grip of a few developed powers, particularly the US, and that they are constitutionally beyond democratic reform. New institutions will be required which are designed to function by democratic consent from the start.

Monbiot suggests three major institutions that could form the basis of a new more equitable global democracy. The first is a world parliament. Every human being on earth would receive one vote. Representatives to parliament would be elected by populations divided by number and not national, racial, or other designation. The world parliament would function as a forum by means of which the existing political and economic powers would be held to account in the formal court of global public opinion. As this parliament is neither formed by nor beholden to existing powers, we can build it now. "This assembly will belong to the people, and we require no one's permission to establish it."

Secondly, Monbiot calls for the creation of an International Clearing House, along the lines suggested by John Maynard Keynes, which would function as a new global reserve system. It would create a new and independent currency as the unit of account of trade between nations, freeing national treasuries from dependence on the US dollar (the current standard for national reserves), and it would provide various financial mechanisms ensuring the balance of trade between nations.

Finally, Monbiot wants to see the creation of a Fair Trade Organization which would "prescribe and enforce the standards to which corporations wishing to trade internationally must conform." By virtue of it's democratic composition, whereby poorer nations may join their interests in opposition to the rich, the FTO would provide a mechanism for the global redistribution of wealth through trade; a leveling of fortunes that is the precondition of global stability.

"Nice ideas, but they will never happen." Maybe, maybe not. But what is clear is that we already live in a globally integrated economic society, and it is lacking the accountability of democratic political governance. Left to it's own devices a few men at the head of a few massive corporations are going to rule the world. Or we will devolve into a chaos of international resource wars. The center will not hold, mere anarchy is loosed upon the world.

Why do we establish governments in the first place? To assure that power is subject to the will of the people. The metaphysical mutation has already happened. We as humans are one species inhabiting one shared environment. Unless the existing international institutions find themselves capable of radical democratic reform, we will have to replace them. Whatever you think of the particulars of his plan, at least Monbiot has gone a long way towards envisioning a viable alternative. It's a good place to start.

The idea of a world government is not new, and it is not a novel thought that humans to achieve the species' highest potential must become unified. The trick is how to unify humanity. Here, Monbiot fails to provide a realistic, understandable method for doing so, and thus deserves an incomplete grade. The missing ingredient, of course, is applying the same federalistic principles used to unify the 13 American states.

George Monbiot lays out his proposal for a New World Order which consists of two major points:

1. A global parliament
2. A restructuring of unguided capitalism (ultimately a destruction of capitalism which he advocates in the end) in favor of a more democratically "fair" trade scenario in which people of all economic levels have a greater say in how their economic situation is presented.

Monbiot claims to be an enemy of the usual Marxist or Anarchists who currently seem to dominate the global justice movement. He is instead in favor of highly democratic, global system of economic governance that would ultimately make governments and huge mega-corporations "play fair" in the global economic arena. As he purports, the globalization phenomenon has placed the world in the hands of mega-corporations and has been taken out of the hands of its global citizens where it should be. Rampant, unchecked capitalism has taken the form of an all consuming monster that feeds on the poor nations of the world, says Monbiot, and it is up to every citizen to demand a stop to this unbalanced, raping of poor countries.

Monbiot is well aware that his cause could be construed as some form of Marxist, or socialist foundation, so he makes great efforts to distance himself from that notion and to place himself in a global democracy; a true democracy, as he says. One unlike what we have now where poor nations and our environment are at the hands of unrestrained capitalists. Part of this global parliament would arise mostly out of a revamped economic system that would resemble the current fair trade movement already in play (a trade policy where individual companies, independent from WTO control, demand fair labor laws, fair prices, and consumer awareness in order to create an economic base that is mutually beneficial to everyone in the production chain on all levels: not just beneficial to a corporation and consumer).

To be honest, I didn't really get much out of this book. Monbiot makes some good points about why this world revolution needs to occur, but provides little incentive other than to "get off your duff and do something." Also, while his vision is very specific and elaborate, it is going to take a series of steps that merge in his direction, not a single revolution as he suggests. These steps may not even fulfill his ultimate goal, but could be implemented to satisfy all involved. But by simple pointing out the evils of unbridled capitalism, Monbiot will not persuade anyone in power-positions to listen to him (which, I guess he accepts and is depending on "the average man" to step up to the plate). He attempts, in the beginning, to present a very logical, and non-radical approach to the problem and its solutions, but by the end, he comes off as just another radical, wannabe revolutionary who has nothing really to offer except anger at the system. Anger that is understandable, but his presentation is very similar to Marx's manifesto (in the sense that it is aimed more at those already involved in the global justice movement).
He attempts to bridge the gap between players already immersed in the anti-globalization, and global justice movements, but ultimately only sings to the choir. Monbiot fails to bring in new members to his cause and fails to thoroughly educate one on the basics of the global justice movement, or the ramifications for an average Western citizen. In other words, what's in it for me? I realize that the suffering of poor nations should be enough to get me fired up, but by Monbiot's book alone, I don't feel as though the problem has been thoroughly delivered. If this were any other book on the subjects of global economy and its pitfalls, I wouldn't expect the author to have this responsibility. But putting this book in the form of a manifesto is supposed to do just that: declare to the world your cause, the problems, and the solutions in a clear, concise manner (even at the end of the book, Monbiot admits that he wrote this book in reverse order by mistake. He talks about the global parliament first, and then a restructuring/destruction of capitalism when he should've talked about the new economic systems needed to bring about a global parliament first). If one can't convey one's message to the masses who aren't already on board, then Monbiot will never get the mass revolution he desires.

A lesson in not judging a book by its cover. What looks like a manual for anarchist or Marxist revolution turned out to be a very critical look at both the state of the world and the movements attempting to change it. Monbiot is clearly looking for pragmatic answers to global problems--he utterly refutes anarchy, Marxism and self-appointed world constitutionalists. Buy one for your protestor friend and help them understand how to make a real difference. For those who are looking for a bit of idealism mixed in with their practical politics, however, Monbiot satisfies as well. I was reminded of Emery Reves' Anatomy of Peace from the 1940s and thanked the powers that be for this "updated" version.

George Monbiot's 'Age of Consent', to give this book its original title upon its initial publication in the UK, is a powerful and visionary call to arms from a seasoned campaigner of the Global Resistance Movement. With devastating clarity of thought, the author sets out a detailed and ambitious blueprint for creating a fairer, more just world, while simultaneously exposing the muddled thinking of those who would lead us down the blind alleys of neo-liberalism, Marxism, anarchism, or 'consumer democracy'.

Ironically for a fully paid-up member of the so-called 'Anti-Globalization Movement, one of Monbiot's central arguments is that there is, paradoxically, a need for more rather than less globalization - in the sense of greater connectivity between people beyond national frontiers as opposed to the unrepresentative and undemocratic 'internationalism', which at present merely masquerades as globalization.

Though Monbiot has been, and will continue to be, criticized for his lack of realism, such shortsighted reactions only serve to underline how vital his horizon-expanding views are to defining the early 21st-century zeitgeist. This book's central aim is clearly to inspire its readers to act, a goal in which it will undoubtedly succeed.

To quote the author's opening broadside: "Everything has been globalised except our consent. Democracy alone has been confined to the nation state. It stands at the national border, suitcase in hand, without a passport." Indeed, releasing democracy from its current shackles must surely be the foremost challenge of our times - fortunately, this book may well provide the key!

I was going through one of my closets and I came across the book Big Dragon. I read the book eight years ago, and I remember having pause at that time for the huge impact China seemed to represent for the rest of the world. And looking back, all that was said then seems prevalent now. China annually graduates one million college students and they completely dominate the information and engineering fields. This represents two major issues that most people take for granted: 1st. China's domination in those fields camouflages India's important position in those same fields: 2nd. Their competitive nature generates a protectionist American attitude. Chinese students typically graduate high school with five years of physics. Typically, these are students that are recognized in their formative years as promising. And with 800 million candidates the prospects continue to show promise. Public education in the U.S. will be hard pressed for several years, if ever, to match the stellar performance of China. Noticable personalities such as Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and Michael Dell all worry about America's worldwide educational placement. And because the Chinese population have grown up accustomed to richer levels of competition, they may be better positioned to compete globally. As their ecomony expands and their need for petroleum grows, the price of oil increases, forcing the entire world to take notice. And as their hunger for economic expansion grows, their need to forge alliances with oil rich Western enemies increases. Whether this represents future challenges for Western economies remains to be seen. But in the end, when the full impact of the tenacity with which the Chinese are capable and accustomed to competing is realized; especially in the U.S., the palpability of nationalistic resentment towards China from working class Americans is going to be extremely high.

A very dry but ultimately absorbing book attempting to describe China's place in Asia, the world and in particular its relationship to America and also then the implications of China's economy continuing to grow at a fast rate for the next 20-30 years.

It is now nearly 8 years old since this was first published and so reading it is a little bit like reading old newspapers but the age of the book does not make it irrelevant; we can compare their projections with reality and also see how much has actually changed in terms of what the current state of the relationship between America and China is, what the main concerns are around the world with a rising China and how well the Chinese economy continues to perform.

The authors are obviously experts in China and this is shown in that impressively most of their predictions seem on track. For example, Hong Kong is still relatively a independent territory but as they pointed out its economic importance has diminished in favour of Shanghai - this was sort of predicted by the authors. Also, the so called bankrupt and in dire need of overhaul State owned enterprises are still up and running, still apparently unprofitable and have not (despite some commentators - see strator) collapsed bringing the whole country with them. And finally, the issue de jour of late 90s of the Asian Financial meltdown (when the book was written) has passed and the region has recovered, without bringing the whole continent into the same turmoil seen nations of the old USSR.

As a read this is a pretty dry and you should only bother if you have an interest in the subject. Nonetheless, if you ARE interested in geo-politics and trying to predict where the world's balance of power is going then this book is very good, as borne out by reality 7 years later - maybe the authors will write a follow or a second revision which would be well worth a look.

Written about 5 years ago by a NYC investment banker and a China Mgmt consultancy based in CT, this book is naturally positive towards PRChina. This book covers the end of the second decade of Premier Deng's Reform and Opening to foreign investment. And before the Asian crash of 2000.

The authors' point-of-view is towards the political, sociological, and militarily first, economics second, and corporate investment third. They obliquely discuss US corporate investments, but this is neither a How To book, nor a B-school reader. Many remarks and keylines are more towards an extended discussion of temporal news and the sensational, as opposed to business facts and analysis. Like a fleshed out Neisbitt text of glittering generalities.

The strengths of this book are in interpreting and extended discussion on the how's and why's socialism with Chinese characteristics work as it does. When the Western press lays down emotionally charged words of democracy, free market, entrepreneur, etc, these concepts need careful explanations on what, exactly, this means in the Chinese context and the surrounding business milieu. These explanations, implications, and why they are so, as the reader will discover is quite different from straight Western interpretations.

The first half of the book deals with China history since Mao after WWII. Then Deng's Opening in Chap 2, p47 there is a 2-page discussion on Overseas Ethnic Chinese and their investment into the homeland in the Shenzhen SEZ. On p127, the authors agree that a "Greater China" exists including Hong Kong, Taiwan, and the OEChinese business dominated ASEAN countries all cooperating. In Chap 8, they discuss the enormity of the State-Owned-Enterprises which are largely non-performing by western standards, but who employ over 70% of the domestic urban workforce of 170 million people. Many SOEs are producing obsolete products, with a featherbedded workforce, that have been superceded by a market economy in other sectors. The new Premiers Jiang Zemin and Zhu Rongji appear serious in slowly reforming the SOEs, the bedrock of the socialist empire.

The second half of the book deals with China's problems and issues, starting with Chap 8. Most Western press criticize the apparent lack of responsibility from leaders on these issues, SOEs, banks, SOL, SSI, etc. The authors, in contrast, evaluate this criticism in context of the larger whole and cite how deliberate progress is being made. As illustrated by three entrepreneurial case studies in Part III covering 30 pages, Chinese entrepreneurship is fostered by the Politburo as an experiment to help shore up the SOE profitability. So-called capitalism with Chinese characteristics is fostered in order to quickly develop real estate, along with large OEChinese capital infusions, so that there are suitable industrial parks (SEZ) to attract foreign investment to setup hi-tech manufacturing. The Politburo then covets corporate America with deep pockets in order to gather hard currency, implement new technology, create new jobs, and expand exports to further fund national and educational infrastructure and technology upgrades in SOEs. This conclusion is consistent with Jim Mann's book a decade earlier in "Beijing Jeep," and the authors agree on p90 that for corporate America to be successful in PRChina, it will require both manufacturing and technology transfer to the Chinese JVs. All under the watchful eye and blessing of the Politburo. Pretty crafty!

In Chap14 and 15 The Next Five Years, on p278 significant political and social change will not occur until the Chinese GenX, 5th gens who grew up in a post-Mao era, come to power in about 20 years, about year 2020.

Lets see if any of the author's prophecies came true. While discussed along with MFN status p364, they did not predict that China would win WTO admission in 2001. Also they didn't predict the Millennium crash in Asia, their forecast was for 2004 p341. On p340, they said that the Three Gorges Dam's first generators would turn on in 2003, actual is 2004. On p309, the authors did write about 2 inches on the oil, Persian Gulf, and Islamic issues, but did not predict the US-Iraq War. Pretty myopic vision for globalists? Score is 1 for 4. Not good. There are many more prophesies to 2024, Year of the Dragon, which includes Taiwan's return to the China fold.

In the last Chapter 18, the authors continue harping on US-China Cold-War. They plead that after 30 years, an updated Shanghai Compact 2002 needs to be enacted. I fail to see the significance in ending their book with 20+ pages on the subject, including many shorter US Hawk rampages on the subject spread throughout their text.

The book's rear dust jacket poses 6 fundamental questions on the coming changes in the new world order. These questions must have been written by the editors, because I'd say that the authors did not really specifically address these questions in any detail, read: don't judge a book by its cover, which I read at a local public library.

The authors have 18 Chapters and a 14-page index. Each page has a sidebar quote from important dignitaries, both western and Chinese, hence the inflated 400 page book. There are no tables of World Bank numbers, no pictures or figures or maps. There are 10 pages of Notes, mainly from US / UK periodicals. The Acknowledgement pages give recognition to about 150 people that they interviewed, more than three quarters have Chinese surnames. However, for security reasons, they are not footnoted in the book.

Another one of my highly recommended books is Big Dragon: What it means for Business, the Economy, and the Global Order. Overall, the authors have a good comprehension of China's economic and political structure. However, Big Dragon has one important omission. Although the authors casually mention the economic impact of FDI on China by overseas Chinese, I would have devoted at least one entire chapter to the subject. In fact, the vast majority of foreign investment continues to flow from overseas ethnic Chinese around the world (over 80% of FDI). Along with Taiwan, there are significant ethnic Chinese communities across Southeast Asia. Inspite of the war of words, Taiwan has over $40 billion and growing invested in China. The chances of a hot war between China and Taiwan are minimal. The overseas Chinese FDI permeates throughout China's economy in almost every sector including agriculture, biotech, services, high tech manufacturing, etc. Many Chinese officials that I have spoken to would disagree, but I would argue that China's economic renaissance can primarily be attributed to the skills, technology, and capital provided by the overseas ethnic Chinese across East Asia. The growing informal structural ties between the Chinese communities across East Asia and China illustrate the development of a Greater China with Beijing at its core. China's current government is similar in many respects to the earlier dictatorships of the Park regime in South Korea or the Chiang regime in Taiwan.

This book does what it sets out to do admirably well, although the reaction of certain readers makes it clear that its approach is lacking in certain areas.

This book is a comprehensive but well-focused review of the current political and economic system of China, recent trends in US-China relationship, and the emerging currents in Chinese society that will shape the country in the next quarter century. The book is written primarily from a business perspective, focusing on China's economic and market potentials (forecasted to match the US in total GDP by the 2020's though still much poorer in per capita terms) and the impact of political developments on the business environment. For those readers not yet familiar with contemporary China, this book is a remarkably well-informed primer. But even old China-hands will find the authors' detailed discussion of the probable future of China (some 100 pages are devoted to the section titled "Geomancing the Dragon") thought-provoking even if their own conclusions may vary.

However, the authors sought to instruct as well as inform. And their recommendations for improving US-China relationship - although perfectly sensible - may not persuade the human rights hawks in the US, who may consider arguments on strictly mercantilist terms immoral. But it's no accident that most of those intimately familiar with China are "pro-China" in the sense defined by a previous reviewer. China has plenty of human rights problems, but it has also come a remarkably long way in a amazingly short time. Progress cannot be measured without the context of history, and it's this area that did not receive sufficient treatment. The general normalcy of China today is an accomplishment that cannot be adequately appreciated without greater understanding of 20th century Chinese history.

There are issues of fundamental human rights and there are issues of political organization. While one is certainly entitled to avidly avocate the political system of his or her choice, one should refrain from waging moral crusades when we are all equally human and fallible.

I read this book while I was in the university, and it still has things to say ten years later. I am an Asian, so I feel qualified to say that Huntington's ideas were not racist. If anything, he saw things very clearly. He has a good grasp of how politics work in non-western societies. He also clearly understood the needs of under developed Asian societies. He understood better than writers supposedly sympathetic to Asians (i.e. Naom Chomsky and his intellectual cronies)how political stability is the most important political issue of the day.

(Just a note on the Clash of Civilisation. It was widely mocked when it first came out in the early 1990's, but after 9/11 it was proved that what he wrote was right and - as usual - perscient.)

Huntington takes issue with Lipset's argument regarding modernization, arguing instead taht the process of modernization may lead to instability rather than democracy. Huntington aruges that the process of modernization - urbanization, industrialization, increased literacy, and rising wealth - expands political conscioussness which broadens political participation, thus multiplying political demands. In a state where political institutions are weak, these increased demands can lead to political disorder and instability. In other words, where Lipset argues taht modernization will bring in lower-class, potenitally disillusioned groups into a more coesive state culture, Huntington would argue that this will occur only if institutions are in place to provide a medium of voice for those lower classes.

Additionally, Huntington calls for a strong state structure during the modernization process. Modernization destroys traditional authority structures which must be replaced by one central authoritative body. This parallels the Weberian idea that as political freedoms expand in modern society, strong bureaucratic structures for social institutions are imperative.

When discussing modernization, Huntington argues that during the process it may be necessary to constrain some human rights in order to ensure political stability. This illustrates that modernization may not lead to total democracy. Donnelly (1984) referred to these human rights versus development conundrums as needs tradeoffs, equality tradeoffs, and liberty tradeoffs. For example, Huntington argues that economic development (modernization) may require that the central authority limit "consumption-oriented" human rights during the economic development process.

Huntington also sees the potential of an equality tradeoff. This idea holds that a society in transition to a modern economy will experience high levels of income inequality, but over time, this inequality will recede to a more moderate level. Where Huntington sees the equality tradeoff as temporary, Donelly argues that the problem may be more long lasting.

Lastly, Huntington argues that when modernization weakens traditional authority structures, other associational groups may arise, which may lead to political decay, i.e. these groups may rise up in opposition to the central political authority. As such, the civil and political rights of these groups may need to be suspended during the early stages of economic development. Huntington would argue that the long-term interests of modernization must take precedence over the short-term interests of various groups.

I find it slightly incredible that a book of this caliber and renown remains basically unreviewed, in the sense that no previous reviewer has deigned to even touch upon Huntington's argument. They have chosen merely to register their opinions on his argument. But to someone who has not yet read the book, how could those opinions be of any guidance when the grounds for those opinions are not laid out? I write this review for those who believe that the integrity of an opinion depends upon the reasons given to support it.

I came to this book highly skeptical that I would learn anything important. In college, I read Huntington's The Third Wave, a text of canonical status in the field of democratization studies, which at the time nonetheless (or perhaps for that very reason) struck me as insipid. Here is not the place to discuss whether and how my views on that later book have changed. Suffice it to say that Political Order in Changing Societies surprised me pleasantly with its fresh insights, wide learning, and clarity of argument. Its reputation as one of most important books in political development is well-deserved.

If I were to describe this book in one sentence, I would say that it is Hobbesian in outlook and Hegelian in method. That the book is Hobbesian in outlook is indicated by the justly famous opening sentence: "The most important political distinction among countries concerns not their form of government but their degree of government." It is confirmed beyond doubt by Huntington's elaboration of that statement: "The function of government is to govern. A weak government, a government which lacks authority, fails to perform its function and is immoral in the same sense in which a corrupt judge, a cowardly soldier, or an ignorant teacher is immoral" (28). One might wish to count all the times Huntington uses "Hobbessian" as an adjective. To say that the book is Hegelian in method is to stress the movement of Huntington's argument. He is concerned primarily with political modernization or political development. That is to say, he is concerned primarily with transitions, whether from a traditional to modern polity, or from a praetorian to civic polity. The causes of those transitions are certain contradictions or tensions within the socio-political system. As Huntington will later suggest, this book highlights "developmental contradictions and crises," e.g., rapid political modernization coupled with slow political development, or the conflict b/t short-run and long-run interests (the "King's Dilemma" that he describes in ch.3 is a variation on this latter theme). One might wish to count all the times he uses the words "dialectic" or "dialectical."

For the student of contemporary political science, this book will be of interest in that it presages the currently fashionable interest in institutions. Political institutions are at the heart of this book. As Huntington tells us, "The primary thesis of this book is that [the violence and instability characteristic of the post-WWII era] was in large part the product of rapid social change and the rapid mobilization of new groups into politics coupled with the slow development of political institutions" (4). "The primary problem of politics is the lag in the development of political institutions behind social and economic change" (5).

I give this book four stars rather than five because in his later chapters, where he is elaborating upon the basic argument laid out in ch.1 and filling in details, he is not always convincing and he sometimes glides over tough problems. Also, some of his passing statements stand in considerable tension with his broader argument, e.g., his statement, "Institutionalization of power means the limitation of power" (238), and his general argument, "Authority has to exist before it can be limited" (8). Incidentally, this example should suffice to show that statements that seem plausible and even insightful when taken alone can nevertheless be highly misleading.

Still, this book was a pioneering work in its time and remains an excellent introduction to the primary issues of political development. One cannot say that it has yet been surpassed, and it therefore remains essential reading for political scientists.

Reading this book was like opening a window in a stuffy room to get a breath of fresh air. The stuffy room is the current public discourse surrounding "democracy" and "civil society." The fresh air is Huntington's discussion of the phenomena of political modernization around the globe in the face of revolution and terror (not a new phenomenon). Although dating from the 1960s, the insights are still fresh. Basically, Huntington argues that order is essential to modernization, that reforms can catalyze revolutions and civil war if applied in the wrong way to the wrong people (Urban Elites), and that there is nothing inevitable about people's love for democracy or progress. Leaders have to lead, that's what they are for. Ataturk comes our very well in this book, as does Lenin, somewhat surprisingly to this reader, because political organization is a the center of Huntington's prescription for modernization and change. As an analyst, Huntington is unbiased. He may get some details wrong, although he seems to have a photographic memory, but his overall analysis has withstood the test of time. Order is required for changing societies. That's something President Bush and his followers didn't seem to understand, and one reason that America has seen a (hopefully temporary) slip in its prestige. I would ask that any foreign policy political appointee in any administration be required to read this book--and pass a Mandarin-style exam to be sure they understand Huntington's main point, namely: Political order is required for changing societies.

To be fair, Huntington is a great writer. However, some of his ideas border on racism. I would read Huntington to understand how people in the social sciences thought 50 years ago, but I wouldn't take his broad general truths too seriously.

I knew John right about the time he wrote this book and also met his family. The reviewer who suggested that he might be part of a CIA program in writing this book is way, way off. This man has put himself (and his family) in a very scary position and he deserves a lot of credit for coming out with the truths he knows. I knew him and did some work for him for about a year and I also knew someone else that had known him for decades. John Stockwell deserves many kudos for his courage and integrity in coming out with what he knows. You can believe the book. I hope he will come out with more.

The Praetorian Guard purports to tell the secrets of what the US government is really doing in the world and why. The author is ex-CIA and uses his inside knowledge to tell stories of what goes on in the world-behind-the-scenes. And they are interesting stories, certainly. He especially dwells on what are in his views the evils of the Reagan and Bush (1st Bush) administrations. He does mention activities before the Reagan era, but his disgust and dislike of the politics of both Reagan and Bush make his writing into more of a rant against those two than against world destabilization. One gets the feeling that he would still be in favor of all the secret dealings in the world if only they favored his own political objectives. That may be completely wrong and Mr. Stockwell may indeed be against these activities in general, but if so he spent a little too much of his anger directly on Reagan and Bush. Not that they are blameless.
When I picked up this book, I expected something much more "scholarly" than what I got. Perhaps that is my fault. I expected more time to be spent on the Why's of all this covert activity. I expected more revelation as to the motivations and direction or these top policy makers. Instead I got stories. Certainly, some of the subject matter is supposed to be secret and undocumentable, but there was plenty of mention of activities which were and are documentable. Mr. Stockwell's credibility in the book would have been much improved if he had included documentation for those things where it was available.
The author makes the claim that the CIA has had many books published to favor their own agendas. I am left wondering if this book itself was written and published under the same program. The stories contained therein are certainly plausible, and I believe much of it. But as the author well knows, a little truth makes for the best lies. The reader is left wondering how much to believe, and I am sure will believe only what their previous political inclinations let them believe.
I am a bit baffled by the 5 stars reviews previously posted. Perhaps my hopes were too high when I began reading this book. It is interesting and worth a good read. It is written well enough to be read in a couple of days. It is not a five star book, however.

This book explains the intricate, intense, and often unjustified involvement of the CIA in many parts of the world, through thousands of covert operations, which, according to the book and other sources, have ended the lifes of millions of people. It describes secret and obscure operations, some of which entailed the killing of people by the thousands at Angola, and others such as the one which overthrew the first democratic government in Guatemala, and the creation of the infamous "death squads" in that country and El Salvador, to murder civilians and seed terror among the people. All orchestrated by our CIA, apparently in the name of national interests. I will not say much about this, because I urge you to read the book, but many of these operations were bloody, bloody, bloody, and they were emphatically denied at official briefings to the Congress, which, needless to say, is a felony.

Stockwell goes deep, and he surely has bases to do it. He is the highest rank CIA official ever to go public. And even though this book has been censored, you still can get pretty much information from it. You will realize that most of the time, the CIA hasn't really had fair motives to carry out the operations. The real interests behind all of it are completely different from the picture that we get from the news and the official reports from our government. Reading this one will make you end up with a sad feeling after having been shown the bitterness of reality. It will make you wonder about which has been our true government, and you will want to ask if all our "liberties" and "freedoms" have been paid at the cost of millions of innocent children, women, and men from all over the world.

The Praetorian guard is so good it almost defies description. John Stockwell has finally answered the question of why elements in the U.S. Government would "want" to carry out some of the covert operations which seem to make no sense other than a desire for power or perhaps simple Sadism. Why for example would the government want to destabilize a small country, throw it into civil unrest, and have a corrupt dictator take over? What possible reason could there be for that? The answer is more down to earth, and for that reason more obscene than I had imagined. This book answered so many questions, and made certain actions by agencies in the government which seemed almost insane to me, finally make terrible sense.

While Mr. Stockwell does not write in the manner of a Noam Chomskey, citing historical precedents, etc., but his book is still a must read for anyone concerned about the damage that is about to be perpatrated upon us as a people. Mr. Stockwell's writing is closer to a thesis style and that's why I gave it 4 stars. This, however, does not minimize the importance of the information provided. This book should be read by all those concerned with our civil liberties, the ecology, and humanitarian issues. He even touches upon two items that failed during the Bush presidency, but appears to become a reality during the Chaney presidency: the raping of our social security, and the destruction of freedom as we know it today. Back in 1990, Mr. Stockwell inadvertantly warned about what bi-partison economists are saying today. That is, the social security fund WILL NOT be bankrupt as the American people are being told. It's just seen as an extra windfall for the elite. Once this is dismantled, we will be returned to the days working 12-to-16 hours per day, 6-to-7 days per week, no healthcare, and script to buy from the company store. Knowledge is power, do yourself a favor, get knowledgeable.

The mantra throughout the book is that the elite are trying to "immanentize the eschaton". This phrase popularized by neo-conservative, William F Buckley, literally means, "heaven on earth within history." The authors echo the claim of the phrase's originator, Eric Voegelin, that this is a gnostic ideology that shares many similarities between communism and Naziism. But this is really a misrepresentation of Gnosticism. The purveyors of modern political ideologies like communism and fascism subverted the spiritual wisdom in the Gnostic tradition for their own nefarious ends. Gnosis is INDIVIDUAL, SPIRITUAL revelation, NOT a theory to be used to craft social policy. Gnosticism generally employed asceticism. And as with any religion, many of its adherents were prone to extremism (e.g. material world = hell). However, claiming that political ideologies like communism and fascism are actually Gnostic makes about as much sense as attributing them to Christian monasticism. The elite are spiritually bankrupt, and have simply found a convenient religious tradition to subvert in advancing their corrupt ideology. It doesn't mean that there are not kernels of truth with Gnosticism.

All religions have threads of spiritual truths at their cores, but they are usually wrapped in such corrosive and spiritually destructive packages that all but the most discerning of individuals would be wise to just walk away. Religions, as Jung said, are defense mechanism against a direct experience of God. They keep humanity as spiritual infants. While the Collins brothers admit that the elite used religion to manipulate and control the population, they never stop to question how many of their own religious ideologies might still be relics of this manipulation. It's unfortunate that, despite their sharp intellects, they have still not seen through the sham of Christianity. While it does engender some positive, genuine spiritual feeling in its adherents, and while it has given rise to remarkable sacred artistry (Rachmaninov's Vespers), this in no way justifies Christianity's more destructive dogmas. But for the Collins brothers, it's all or nothing. To them, God is still a monarch and "jealous", off-planet landlord; and Jesus Christ is the only way to keep out of a fiery pit called "hell". They bristle at statements like that of Gene Roddenbury (p154) when he suggests that we are all "pieces of God". (It's blasphemous to the murderous warlord, Jehovah.) Yet, I would urge the brothers to really examine their concept of the Christian God, and how "he" could be infinite, omniscient and omnipresent but still be SEPERATE from any part or existence. I prefer to phrase it as Bill Hicks did: "we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively." Are we all "God"? Well, yes and no. The way the Collins brothers think of God? Certainly no. The power elites say "yes" because they love to have a justification for considering themselves literal, INDIVIDUAL Gods with dominion over the earth. This idea is, of course, repugnant.

But here's the mode of thought that's so frustrating coming from this book and all other conspiracy researchers who are heavily wrapped-up in their own rigid, religious beliefs: Some ideology, spiritual practice or current of thought was once associated with some historical [...] and should therefore be dispensed with entirely. For the Collins brothers, this applies to such things as entheogens, meditation, and evolution in its ENTIRITY! Yes, there's a lot of TERRIBLE science in Darwinism, but surely we can recognize the tendencies of biological complexification as SOME KIND of evolution.

The words "moral" and "morality" are tossed around liberally throughout the book. But the word "ethics" is never used. What's the difference? One is a system of circumscribed beliefs and codes of behavior. But to me, "ethics" really refers to the guidance that comes from the indwelling spirit in man- the conscience or "higher self". But where Darwinism denies the existence of any kind of spirit, Christianity relegates it to the trash bin with "original sin". The soul must first be "saved" by God before it may pass into the heavenly realms. But the Gnostics had a different idea. To them, entrance into the material world necessitates a forgetting of the God-force within. Salvation then comes through opening up to this indwelling spirit and remembering ones origins (gnosis). And for the Gnostic sects that believed in reincarnation, gnosis meant freedom from the birth/death cycle. (see Ian Stevenson for overwhelming EVIDENCE for reincarnation). This echos the Hindu Upanishads and many other spiritual traditions. Here, Christianity is the "odd man out."

Another interesting subject the book examines is that of the "predictive programming" of science fiction. This is the noteworthy theory that the presentation of a future scenario in a work of fiction can have the effect of conditioning the minds of the audience to expect and even welcome the events portrayed. So what is the Revelation of John of Patmos if not predictive programming? Notice how this piece of literature has shaped the expectations of millions of people throughout the centuries. The blind belief in Christian eschatology has been a destructive force on this earth - in everything from the European domination of the New World under the cover of "conversion", to the current disregard of environmental concerns by Christians who think, "What does it matter? When Jesus comes back the earth will be destroyed anyway."

Despite all of my criticisms, I would still recommend this book, if you can look past the bible-beating. The analyses on the DSM IV, Durkheim on deviance, China & Russia and the eugenics movement are all first-rate. I might read the Collins brothers again, if they were to release another book. But I would hope that in the meantime they spend some time getting to know people like Alan Watts, Jordon Maxwell, Michael Tsarion, Terence McKenna, John Lash and John Marco Allegro. A little deprogramming could do them a lot of good. Paul and Phillip, may you both have an experience of gnosis, so that you may set aside your faith and belief for genuine spiritual experience.

Being a student and while working parttime i academia i have for some time been apalled by how the university diciplines really suck when it comes to presenting the social reality in a way as to empower democratic citizenship.

The undemocratic nature of, and history behind the body of knowledge that is given legitimazy by academia is well uncovered in this book.

Many of us are familiar with U.S. president Dwight D. Eisenhower's farewell speech to the nation on January 17, 1961, in which he warned the American public to "guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence" of the "military-industrial complex." A less known quote from the same speech sets the tone for the Collins brothers' incredibly erudite tome: "... we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite."

This book discloses exactly who these technological elite (technocrats) are; that they've been working behind the scenes for centuries, and public policy has indeed become its captive. Its aspiration has always been the implementation of a sociopolitical, technocratic utopian world order.

The breadth and scope of Philip and Paul Collins' massive study is nothing short of dazzling. "The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship" is a meticulous examination of a shared ideological construct centuries in the making. This elite circle of technocrats hasn't simply carried forth a unified grand master plan, however; the Collins brothers stress the fact that what we are dealing with is a "conspiracy of ideas," whose adherents have developed into a powerful "epistemological cartel."

Reading "The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship" is to embark on an intellectual journey of the highest order. The Collins brothers effortlessly discuss a wide range of philosophical concepts, all of which are integral to understanding the thinking and development of those behind the formation of a would-be technocracy. There simply isn't any other book that is even in the same league. "The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship" penetrates the core concepts of Gnosticism, Rosicrucian mythos, Baconian utopianism, Freemasonry and the Royal Society of London; from Darwinism to scientism, population control, eugenics and Malthusian propaganda; Jung, Hegel, Wells and Huxley; Fabian socialism, world government, evolutionary pantheism, and the deification of man. The reader is privy to the fact that there is genuine continuity between Illuminism, Jacobinism, Socialism, and Marxism; that the dialectical manipulation of society is symptomatic of "the Hegelian nexus where Darwin, Marx, and Hitler intersect." The Collins brothers are equally at ease with diverse concepts such as Bentham's Panopticon, sociocracy, semiotic manipulation, "sci-fi predictive programming," transhumanism and the techno-eugenic movement - and the implications thereof. Other books that have attempted only a fraction of what is discussed in this book seem haphazard in comparison.

I highly doubt it is even possible to convey the scope of the book in a simple review: with the range of topics discussed, along with judicious quotations from a dizzying array of sources - the breadth of "The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship" is simply mind-numbing. This book is the definitive statement identifying the significance behind the political concept of a New World Order. "Worth its weight in gold" really does apply in this case - and, of course, as is customary with such scholarly endeavors, the bibliography is worth the price alone.

This is the first edition. The new 2006 revised version, however, has an extra 200+ pages of material. See ISBN 1419639323 (authors Paul & Phillip Collins).

Get the latest version of this book. It is excellent. The yellow cover of this book is for the older release.
This book is excellent. It ties together the players in this NWO.
It shows why the NWO seems to be at opposition with someone else.
The truth is that the Bush NWO team have opposition from the more socialistic elite eg. French and Russia, who want a more communist NWO.
Their formation of this NWO is not absolute; at least not yet.
This coincides with the bible showing this NWO as being iron mingled with clay. Due to opposition from their elite brothers, their rule will not be a complete foot on our neck. We are in sooo much trouble with these NWO people. We are screwed America unless you wake up.
This book is very professionally done and well researched.
I think that this book takes the time to show what has been planned for decades if not centuries. The elite think that we are sheep.
They have a plan for an American Union soon. It will be just like the European Union. Sovereignty of the U.S. is almost completely gone. America has been stolen. Blame the Bush Family, Rockerfeller, Rhodes,Rothchilds, DuPont, Fords. Most of these families supported Hitler during WWII.

China has constantly been referred to as the sleeping giant. In the last 30 years or so it has surprised many with its radical economic transformation. Having been a non-capitalist country for many years, the sudden capitalist experiment undertaking was not only the surprise but also a bold step towards economic prosperity. China has formulated a vibrant front to strengthen its manufacturing, trade and finance industries to much success. It is a great example or a good case study for an International Business class.

The impact this has or will create to the rest of the world is huge. With its vast consumption of raw materials e.g. copper, aluminum, cement & oil, other parts of the world would soon start competing for the same raw materials from other nations hence sky rocketing their prices. Just a few years ago, fleets of bicycles were visible in almost every major Chinese city. Now that has become history with many of its residents developing an appetite for automobiles. China therefore has become a marketer's haven for selling automobiles. This is a direct result of its globalization campaign.

This campaign has come with its drawbacks. Environmental degradation has some very concerned. With its massive carbon dioxide and other industrial emissions, China is becoming one of the fastest regions to raise eye brows on issues regarding environmental protection (the US and China will atleast have something in common in that regard). With the economic growth, corruption & cronyism have cropped up. This has also lead to tension between China and the USA especially regarding the large China/USA trade deficit gap.

China is also holding a large cache of dollar reserves which it then uses to purchase US T-Bills and other investment in the US . The US in some ways has come to rely on foreign investment for its own economic growth. Just today ( 3/5/08 ), Federal regulators said that the country needs to open its gates to foreign sovereign wealth funds. They went ahead to state that these funds foster domestic growth and provide financial stability to US financial markets and US companies.

China is also flexing its muscles to other areas like Australia and Africa . Africa has been important to China because of its vast resources of raw material e.g. copper, aluminum, uranium & oil. In the next few years, this economic sleeping giant will be a great economic super-power to recon with.

Hezron Karanja, Los Angeles, CA

This new book from Dr. George Zhibin Gu is a geo-economics and geopolitical masterpiece from an insider, someone that thrives