Current-order Books

Keylor's "World of Nations" is one of many titles that covers the post-WWII era of international relations and is frequently used in college courses delving into that subject, although it is a fine read on its own. In both respects Keylor's book is a very good choice as it covers the topic in good detail, foregoing a straight chronological organization and opting instead to cover the era by various regions such as Europe, Africa, Asia, and the Americas. While that can lead to some repetition and redundancy Keylor's prose is particularly good at holding the readers attention and he writes in a very straightforward direct manner. The result is a book that is a very good survey of this era, but one that uncovers little that is new or previously unknown. Keylor includes a lengthy listing of books on specific topics and subjects in the appendix for readers interested in learning more on a particular subject as well which I found to be most helpful. Considering the other titles out there on this subject "World of Nations" is a very good starting point and highly recommended.

Here is a very well written and detailed book about world politics since 1945. Most of it is concerned with the Cold War and all the attendant topics. Like the nuclear arms race between the US and the Soviets, and the doctrine of mutual assured destruction. Regional conflicts figure prominently in the account. In part because the 2 superpowers dared not directly go to war. So there are the proxy wars in the Middle East between a new Israel and its Arab neighbours.

After the Cold War ended, the book's coverage is still detailed, albeit depressing at times. As when it recounts the genocide in Rwanda. But the end of apartheid in South Africa was at least one positive note from Africa.

What an amazing eye-opener!!! Despite a few rather dry and complicated passages and a slightly confusing organization, I rate this as one of the most enlightening books I have ever read. It answers questions I have had since Bush was first elected. The extremely insightful author provides good documentation for every point he makes. It would be so beneficial for the USA to have the information in these pages widely disseminated.

Mark Crispin Miller's "Cruel and Unusual: Bush/Cheney's New World Order" provides an indictment of both our current administration and the press assigned to report both the good, the bad, the praiseworthy and the abuses of this administration. The most telling part of the book was the comparison of the press-perceived Clinton and the actual character of Bush - the way Clinton was reported to have acted was the image of the way Bush acts, whereas the press-perception of Bush is close to the way Clinton actually acts. It's a masterful job by the press to display the characteristics of these two men to the way they want the public to view them - a sneaky, pedestal-lifting, character-assassination job, but masterful. Also in the masterful character-assassination class is the debunking of Scott Ritter's abilities as a weapons inspector shortly before the Iraq war. Miller, once again, has created an expertly written book on the dysfunctional leaders of our nation and the protectors running interference for them, and has done it in spellbinding fashion.

Cruel and Unusual is an outspoken narrative about the Bush administration and its many abuses of power from 2001 to 2004. This book was published in August of 2004; most likely timed to coincide with the presidential election of that year with swaying some voters against Bush as one of the author's many goals.

Mark Crispin Miller wrote this book to detail some of the many abuses of power in the Bush administration in its first term. Many of these abuses are now old news, like the phony Weapons of Mass Destruction claim; the alliance with Christian fundamentalist organizations; the trampling on free speech; the blatant use of propaganda to support the war; etc., etc. Miller wrote this book in 2004 and at that time, some of this information was fresh and interesting. Today, it is a little bit outdated and most readers will not find anything new or noteworthy.

This book spends its time attacking Bush's every move as president and it offers some compelling arguments and sound examples of Bush's many abuses of authority. More coverage is given to the false claim of "Weapons of Mass Destruction" and the ensuing War Against Iraq than the other topics. Miller apparently felt there were enough violations of the U.S. Constitution surrounding this war than any other Bush act, and so he felt it necessary to talk about this more than anything else. The coverage of Scott Ritter and his outspokenness against the supposed Iraqi threat are among the best parts of Cruel and Unusual. Miller includes segments from several of Ritter's interviews, showing how absolutely certain Ritter was that weapons did not exist. Miller also shows how the media was hustled by the Bush administration and coerced to back the president's plan without question.

Cruel and Unusual tries to spend time talking about many different abuses and it sometimes fails to present a fully- rounded argument. Still, this book has its moments and its key strength lies in Miller's use of engaging intellectual discussion and in its matter of fact style. At first, I wasn't too keen to Miller's style of writing but I warmed to it as I continued to read. There are some segments of his writing that require a second read to fully understand, so I cannot rank Cruel and Unusual among books considered easy reads. It requires greater concentration at certain points. And it is very blunt in its presentation, telling the reader some things that he/she may not want to hear.

One thing that gets a little tiring with Cruel and Unusual is its tendency to refer to Bush as a "fascist", a "dictator", etc. I can sympathize fully with the author's concerns about the fate of the nation and I can understand the outrage many felt with the media and its submissive attitude toward the war and toward anything Bush says. But I still get a little tired of the constant labeling of Bush in this manner. The way the book describes him, one would think Bush was an incarnate hybrid of Hitler, Satan, and Stalin all rolled into one. We don't need the constant labeling. Bush's actions speak for themselves.

Overall, Cruel and Unusual is a good book about the many encroachments of authority during Bush's first four years in office and it could be viewed as the official first term Bush hater's handbook. It is now a little outdated, and there are certainly hundreds of additional abuses of power that could be examined since Bush was re- elected in 2004. It is also a little extreme in its language and quite negative. But it does offer some good reading points and intellectual discussion about one of the most dishonest, power- hungry administrations in U.S. presidential history.

Simply a great book. I have read so many books about Bush, the Republicans, and the Iraq War that I am thoroughly disgusted with our current national leadership. This book actually put my mind at ease because after reading it I realized that Bush and the conservatives are just liars, hypocrites, and criminals ..... and will ultimatley self-destruct. In fact America is finally seeing Bush for who he really is. His legacy will drag the Republican neo-con movement down for years to come.

This was an excellent read. Miller brings to light the Bush Neo-Con's Machiavellian agenda, and how this agenda has become the proverbial ambsace that is rotting the inner core of America. In chapter one of the book Miller points out Jeffersonian idealism and the U.S. Constitution. In the early days when our country was young and vivacious, citizens were accustom to the laws. They knew their rights because people participated in the process. But in the modern age of Television, shopping, and entertainment, peoples' languishing approach to academia has become a copious problem/weakness, and the Neo-Cons are playing this weakness to the utmost. In the book Miller elaborates, " The Constitution is unknown in the United States, and not just by the folks at home who read 'People' and 'Parade' and watch TV, but also-or, perhaps, especially-by the privileged ones who write for 'People' and 'Parade' and make the TV shows, the news included." In other words, American citizens are unfamiliar with Constitutional laws and provisions, and this unfamiliarity is Bush's weapon of choice.
The book also sights the Project for the New American Century's Rebuilding America's Defense doctrine, which states as follows: "to maintain American military preeminence, to secure America geopolitical leadership, and to preserve the American peace." This quote is really a euphemism for U.S. hegemony, unilateralism and contumacy since the Bush Administration has rescinded the Geneva Conventions, and is trying to rewrite the War Crimes Act of 1996, plus he's managed to render the Bill of rights meaningless and has replaced it with the U.S.A. Patriot Act, which represents the aposematic rise of fascism.
Mark Crispin Miller is a heavy-duty writer who covers many issues such as, the media, nuclear weapons proliferation, the war in Iraq , and Bush's nefarious dealings behind closed doors.
If you are an avid reader of Noam Chomsky or Gore Vidal give this a try. But be mindful that Miller's opinions lean in favor of the Democratic party.

Hans-Hermann Hoppe's "Democracy: The God That Failed" is a unique assessment of modern Western history based on the most radical strain of the Australian School. The Austrian School believes firmly that private property rights are the most essential component of a civilised society. In fact, from the Austrian perspective public ownership is the most extreme violation of natural rights.

In "Democracy: The God that Failed", Hoppe applies the theories of Murray Rothbard to government itself - something not done by previous Austrians. Hoppe analogises absolute monarchy to a privately owned government and a democracy to a public-owned government. He then uses classic Austrian theory to show a monarchy has an interest in maintaining the long-term welfare of its subjects because it expects to rule the country it rules forever via hereditary descent. A democratically elected ruler, on the other hand, does not own the country it rules and thus has no interest except immediate enrichment of politicians or those who elect them. As an illustration, Hoppe shows that taxes were always extremely low (under ten percent) under absolute monarchy, but have risen to around forty to fifty percent under democracy. Similarly, savings rates, which should naturally rise with economic growth, have fallen as people under democracy desire instant gratification. Fertility rates have drastically fallen as public welfare eats up the high taxes of democracies (and Stalinist or fascist dictatorships) and children lose their value. Interest rates, which Hoppe says will tend to zero with increasing "civilisation", have also risen since democratisation, whilst prices, which actually fell during the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, have risen almost exponentially as democracies build up huge public debts to gratify the masses.

After considering the effect of democratisation as "decivilising", Hoppe then goes on to look at the reason why he views any form of public welfare state as unsustainable, thus utterly dismissing attempts at welfare reform. Instead he looks at the possibility of total privatisation of public assets and believes that could have caused a massive economic boom in the former Stalinist nations and undone the Western European welfare states as they aim to compete.

The last half of "Democracy: The God that Failed" is devoted to various aspects of "natural order" or "private property anarchy", which Hoppe believes to be an alternative to both democracy and absolute monarchy. He shows how "private property anarchy" with much more prosperity and higher civilisation than democracy allows would actually be an extremely exclusive society with little tolerance for dissent - because the owners decide what ideas are allowed and what are not. I can relate Hoppe very well to one highly critical analysis of the Catholic Church's doctrinal control system. Moreover, having become more sympathetic to that institution than ten years ago, I can understand the sort of society he would like without definitively being able to say it would work well.

Hoppe also has a good look at the failures of the nihilist anarchism so popular in the 1960s and 1970s. As I already know from my experience with student radicals, he shows that, for all its opposition to government, "left libertarianism" has exactly the short-sightedness of socialism. Hoppe also attacks praise by other Austrians of the original interpretation of the US Constitution, claiming it possesses the same problems all constitutions do, and in a related article showing that "limited government" as many believers in absolute monarchy theorised is quite impossible. The last chapter, rather less direct than most in "Democracy: The God that Failed", looks at private provision of defence and security. Hoppe shows that public provision of them - just like any service according to Austrian theory - means their value is not paid for and service is poor. In practice, I imagine this as literally user-pays security, which logically might means many victims of crime would not be able to compensate themselves.

Assessing this work, despite it not being unusual in size, is not easy. His illustration of the changes in social behaviour that have taken place since the democratisation of Europe is remarkably clear and consistent, but he completely ignores the relation of charitable giving to time preference. This I see as critical to understanding society's time preference. Arthur C. Brooks shows declining charity correlating much, much better with fertility reduction than declining savings, yet Hoppe does not write a word about changes in charitable giving.

Hoppe's perspective has the plus of being very clear and detailed. In some ways it is also persuasive, for instance in the way it suggests direct socialist democracy as advocated by the likes of Sandra Bloodworth and Tess Lee Ack is impossible because a nation's entire wealth would be destroyed and productivity eliminated. Although Hoppe does admit some democratisation was taking place beforehand "Democracy: The God that Failed" also contradicts popular viewpoints that democratisation was a necessary consequence of development by showing how the war contributed to it. His view of how an absolute monarch has interest in preservation and conservation of his kingdom echoes Jared Diamond's showing many monarchies much more effective at environmental protection than democracies. Oddly, Hoppe quite clearly contradicts Pat Buchanan's claim that European working classes were "socially conservative", and indeed shows Buchanan's whole program as utterly impossible. The theory that any form if big government inevitably leads to social liberalism is quite reasonable given the experience of not only Europe, but also Latin America and much of Asia.

Another point which I can agree with is the way in which warfare has changed as a result of democratisation to allow free attacks on civilians - though other sources say this began with the Russian Civil War rather than World War I and attribute this (either in a positive or negative way depending on ideology) to the threat of socialism and the response of fascism. However, Hoppe does not realise that few democracies have ever actually started a war and that governments or organisations who start modern wars are generally either Marxist, fascist or Muslim (e.g. September 11, 2001). Even if they are democratic, they are more often than not responses to organisation of the above three types.

Hoppe is oddly limited in his perspective. He discusses the US and its decline since the Civil War, but not Canada, which has become the epitome of a modern democracy since Quebec's "Quiet Revolution" - arguably the final triumph of "big government". He similarly ignores the democratisation of Japan after World War II, or the collapse of other Asian absolute monarchies in the twentieth century. Hoppe's godfather Mises apparently understood there to be essential differences between Asian and European absolute monarchies, creating a very worthy topic for further expansion.

From my own experience, I also wonder if it is not possible to expand Hoppe's three tiers of natural law - absolute monarchy - democracy to a greater number. Knowing with my experience in environmental science the effects of industrialisation on the value of Eurasia's main natural resource (fertile soils) I wonder why Hoppe did not compare theocratic nonhereditary monarchies (who as shown by Gregory XVI's ineffective ban on railways in the Papal States recognised industrialisation as devaluing their own property) with hereditary nontheocratic monarchs who never understood this. There is also the question of modern dictatorships, about which Hoppe makes no analogy as he does with absolute monarchy versus democracy.

Crucial here is the fact that Hoppe literally wastes the second chapter with a near-repetition of another - space that could have been used to look at any of the unanswered questions mentioned above. There is also a bit of repetition of other parts of the book in later chapters. One really does wonder why Hoppe was so unwilling to edit his essays to give room for unanswered questions that would have made "Democracy: The God that Failed" far more watertight in its theses.

Some critics have also pointed out that large-scale warfare did not being with democratisation and that World War I really was more than a territorial war before Wilson entered. This does not contradict Hoppe entirely, though - it merely questions him.

All in all, this is hard book to get over and has many interesting arguments. However, its repetitiveness and limited focus make me feel generous giving it three stars even with enough plausible ideas to be a wonderful book.

Democracy: The God that Failed. Such a captivating title for what is ultimately a rather shallow treatise. Those that find this book interesting have apparently neither thought or read about stateless systems before, while those who consider its statements and conclusions valid demonstrate little historical knowledge or the ability to recall it. Indeed, the only reason to recommend this title is if one wants some exercise in critical thinking to debunk Hoppe's various theories. Hoppe occasionally states something both interesting and likely to be true. For example, "the smaller the country, the greater will be the pressure to opt for free trade rather than protectionism." Such sentences are sparsely scattered, however, and not there is no reason to trudge through 300-odd pages of otherwise poor material to find them.

Reducing Hoppe's thesis to a superficial core, democracy is to blame for everything. It fosters low time preference in people (that is, a hand-to-mouth mentality), moral bankruptcy, intellectual stultification, general malaise, the decline of "family values" and traditional hierarchy, and the general the degeneration of "civilization." Hoppe also posits that governments tend to expand, rather than remain constant in size, which is thoroughly more difficult to dispute due to its historical accuracy.

Opening the book with a discussion about World War 1 and how it marked the end of monarchical order, Hoppe blames the massive amount of death and destruction evidenced in this war on the United States' entry, claiming that in doing so, the US turned the battle into "ideological warfare," which made monarchical powers fight all the harder to prove their legitimacy. Hoppe seems to re-vision his own history here, forgetting that World War 1 was started by monarchies, that the US joined the battle very late, and had a marginal impact on its outcome. Additionally, the Great War was extremely brutal and ideologically-driven long before the United States entered the theatre. If Hoppe had read any of Karl Kraus' work (oddly left out of the list of Austrian "geniuses" he places in the book), he would have realized the high level of animosity between European powers, even in the early years of the war. The development of new technological weaponry, such as the machine gun, tanks, aircraft, allowed for new levels of violence and bloodshed to be reached, with or without the US's help.

Such revisionism or forgetting is common throughout the text. Hoppe never bothers to mention the countless examples of monarchs trampling over individual rights, taking formerly public lands, and generally ignoring the needs of the people. The threat of punishment always exists, after all.

For those libertarians who think "anarcho-capitalism" is the preferred and less abusive form of self-governance, Hoppe acknowledges that libertarian "order" is maintained via violence, just like order in any other hierarchical, statist enterprise:
"...in a covenant founded for the purpose of protecting family and kin, there can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal. They - the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centered lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism - will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order."

Moving to economics, Hoppe criticizes democratic government in its production of goods that no one buys. Thus, he says, it is impossible to attach any sort of value to them. What Hoppe neglects, though, is that people are not unaware they are paying taxes for various public goods, and their inaction (as most people do not contact their representatives to voice their opinions), effectively acts as a consent, of getting strung along in the government's sales pitch. He further states that the subsidizing of government encourages production "with little or no regard for the well-being of one's alleged consumers, and with much or sole regard instead for the well-being of the 'producers'." One could easily rank any number of examples in the capitalist business world as well. Many resource-extractive or producing industries, particularly coal, oil, and chemicals, have poisoned and/or killed any number of their supposed customers with little to no concern other than their own profit-taking.

The general understanding of labor is poor and rooted in non-historical thinking. Hoppe treats the problem of labor as if people had only ever been working under industrial conditions, when in reality historical behavior of laborers is quite different from their industrial brethren, as evidenced in Hugh Cunningham's _Leisure in the Industrial Revolution_. Before industrialism, the development of the factory and the threat of permanent layoff if one did not continue working, people worked as much or as little as they needed to. An individual typically worked to earn enough money to meet current needs, and then used his or her savings until depletion. The distinction between "leisure" and "work" was virtually nonexistent. One must also not forget that through the middle ages the concept of usury (and thus interest) was considered irreligious and immoral, and thus earning a return on hoarded capital was anathema. Hoppe chooses to ignore all this and instead glorify the capitalist-traditionalist-hoarder above all else.

Claiming that all those in government are "rogues and loafers," Hoppe never seems to have spent any time in a company of any particular size and noted the various character structures within it. In government, as in business, you will find a mixture of lazy, unintelligent, active, and knowledgeable people, the first two adjectives usually describing those who are at the top of the hierarchy. Regardless of what Hoppe thinks, it is not particularly difficult for a company to get rid of an unwanted employee. There are any number of daily infractions that can be used to justify one's termination (using the internet for non-business purposes being a simple one) regardless of the actual reason.

Politically, Hoppe's thinking is also incorrect as he continually considers democracy to only be a function of the executive branch and always claims that democracy pursues short-term interests due to the limited nature of any politician's reign. Such thinking is incorrect, as while the politician may leave its office, it still has to reside in the country that it formerly governed. Unless the politician suffers from a desire to live in an impoverished, declining "civlization" (as Hoppe calls it), it would be in its best interest to at least maintain the current level of affairs, would it not?

Having finished the so-called general political and economic "intellectual destruction" of democracy, Hoppe generally abandons that intellectual line of thinking and concerns himself in the latter half of the book discussing how the libertarian movement has partly been co-opted by "immature leftists," how classical liberalism necessarily evolves into allowing an overbearing state to occur, and a libertarian notion of how domestic defense would be handled. There is little I can say regarding the correctness of Hoppe's account of the infiltration of the libertarian movement by supposed poseurs; I haven't cared to read on the topic at all.
More humorous is Hoppe's belief that insurance companies can move in and provide, in the absence of the state, an effective means of large-scale defense. As if defense technology was instantaneously hot-swappable like a drive from a computer, such that if I wanted to change my defense provider, I could expect new service to begin the next morning, or even next week.
Contradicting himself, Hoppe criticizes the idea of a single world government, but finds it quite agreeable that there could be a single or few large international insurance agencies that have massive amounts of capital to support themselves and vast quantities of information to base their premiums off of. I wonder who will be making global policies in such a world. The individuals? no, they will do as their insurers tell them, lest a higher rate be imposed.

Hoppe adds that under a privatized insurance scheme, aggressors will be selective in their targets as one never knows which of a vast number of powerful insurance agencies is supporting a property, if any at all. What Hoppe doesn't mention is that there will always be one sure group not to have insurance: the poor or otherwise troubled. What Hoppe is asking us to do, essentially, is to secure ourselves while damning those who, for whatever reason, aren't able to afford their defense insurance. It would be nice if all poor people were as subhuman as Hoppe paints them to be, then we could easily forget about and condemn them without worry. However, all of us are not the bigots and racists that Hoppe is (a cursory read through the text will reveal this, as will an examination of some of his sources) and not willing to simply condemn our fellow men to their arbitrarily poor lots in life.

The book ends with the continuing refrain to secede wherever and whenever possible and to do as little with any government as necessary. This is, perhaps, sound advice for those who distrust government (and after examining the events of Hurricane Katrina, we should all know to expect nothing from our government); unfortunately, the poorly reasoned and intellectually suspect pages between Hoppe's thesis and conclusion reveal little reason to feel his anarcho-capitalist "natural order" will provide a better way of life.

What happened to the Republic? STOP THE IDOLATRY-STOP THE MADNESS!

(from Plato)
"All men are by nature equal, made all of the same earth by one Workman; and however we deceive ourselves, as dear unto God is the poor peasant as the mighty prince."
"Excess of liberty, whether it lies in State or individuals, seems only to pass into excess of slavery."
"Democracy leads to anarchy, which is mob rule."
"Democracy...is a charming form of government, full of variety and disorder, and dispensing a sort of equality to equals and unequals alike."

Praise to Herr Hoppe, for helping to smash the legitimacy of the State. He philosophizes with a hammer and then some.

In sum-If this author founded a city state, I would move there immediately.

And as for charges of racism ect.--that label (libel) is devoid of content: in any case, it can only represent a badge of intellectual integrity (the courage to state the obvious) in today's hyper emasculated pussyfooted 'intellectual' climate.

And now a joke from the man himself:
Q: Who are the two most important figures in Western History?
A: Jesus and Socrates.
Q: Who Killed Jesus and Socrates?
A: Democracy killed Jesus and Socrates.

"The outstanding personalities of history are criminals" --Robert Musil, "The Man Without Qualities."

As one reviewer puts it, this book can be summarized as "Natural Order > Monarchy > Democracy". Utopia is always great, the only problem is we just can't get there. Time preference is not enough as a proof for the superiority of Monarchy, there is a huge "commitment problem" that Mr. Hoppe failed to address. A Monarch has the incentive to take care of his own property doesn't necessarily mean that he wouldn't break his own promises or wouldn't abuse his power or doesn't have conflicting preferences. In democracies, the key is also about the durability and efficiency of the system, not just the time horizons of leaders who are limited by terms of office.

The best part of this book is probably the part about democracy. For those who see democracy as a universal ideal, Mr. Hoppe's critiques are like a wake-up call. It is unfortunate that this book simply failed to prove that Monarchy is actually better than democracy, or privately-owned state is any better than publicly-owned state. Private good, public good, but how about "club good"? This is what I try to argue in my new book "China Fever", which is for those who don't want to be a "prisoner of one culture".

I liked this clearly writtten book with its novel viewpoint and analysis about the perils of government which is not limited in its scope and is firmly believed to be acting for the good by way of democracy. It occurred to me after reading chapter 1 that the current situation in Burma is simply the Junta exercising its high time preference to leapfrog the democratic process and go straight to the logical consequences of contemporary democracy. This would be a valuable book for the Burmese pro-democracy leadership to read, so that they might not repeat the mistakes of the world's most recently liberated states.

The conclusion that the state should be replaced by insurance companies and contracts is reasonable, and does currently work in certain classes of international business activity to circumvent the complications and delays of inter-state law, but I suspect--if computer security is anything to judge by--security and sophisticated scare-mongering would become a dominant preoccupation and divert capital from more productive activity.

The state as a monopoly is democratically granted its temporary monopoly, and although any constitution is simply a piece of paper which may be capable of abuse by interpretation and manipulation, it is up to the electorate to exercise good judgement in their electoral choices. Which is another good reason for many to read this book at this juncture in time. Furthermore--as a crude metaphor--just because a metal ladder doesn't specify hat it should not be leaned against overhead electricity cables, sufficient 'a priori' knowledge should avoid this from happening instead of having to legislate for the banning of metal ladders and pursue claims for damage or death through the courts and seek compensation by way of insurance.

There are easy to read, well explained ideas about the state of the world in this book, it is enjoyable and informative.

This is a "useful" book that reads more like a travel guide of the post-American pre-Chinese-hegemonic world. It promises more than it delivers, offering tantalizing vignettes of different countries dealing with internal problems and external players without really giving you anything to chew on. In truth, the book's title should be "101 Ways China is Kicking America's ..." It spends a great deal of time telling readers how China is playing its diplomatic and economic cards (really the same thing) to the detriment of an arrogant and culture-ignorant America. Is this news though? And the author has the annoying habit of getting major historical events wrong (Vienna was besieged in 1683, not 1687.) Still, it brings you up to date about many obscure countries struggling with post-colonial corruption and poverty.

I liked this book, complements contemporary readings on world affairs.
Each chapeter is dedicated to a different world arena, I found Asia, Europe and North America well documented and with depth analysis. But as true as for me that is, I tought the Middle East and Latin America chapteres were not at the same level as the rest.

I don't think just one book has to cover the whole depth analysis of current global affairs, a wide books can complement.

But again is a good read.

This is an excellent overview of the current world situation and look at what is developing. Political forecasters take note, this is one-stop shopping.

Author does a good job juggling a mountain of information and making a coherent whole out of the disparate world at large.

From the introduction, Khanna distances himself from other current theorists. In Khanna's description of the world, there are three empires which are competing with each other for influence and power - the US, the EU and China. Each of these empires has differing ways of maintaining empire - the US through coalition; the EU through consensus and China through consultation. Where this new imperial game is played is in the "second world" - states that lie in the income brackets between the first and third world.

Khanna creates this model of the world and then proceeds to go through each region of the second world describing each country's individual situation within the competing powers of the first world empires. These are fired at you at machine gun pace - most countries are covered in four to ten pages.

The speed of the survey is not the only problem. He seems to straddle between the fall of American Civilization and the rise of new institutions. He appears to make American failures couched in "culture" while its successes are in "institutions."

His conclusions are basically that America should act as if it is a multi-polar world. But to be honest by the time you get to the end of the work you just want it to be done and don't really care anymore. Even IR theory people don't have to read this thing.

Excellent book about the political cult of neo-conservatism. This book gets into the nitty-gritty from the start to current dogma. Interesting because it divides the camps of the older 'neos' and contrasts that of the younger, second generation neos, who are responsible for the preemptive war strategies that are in vogue with the George W. Bush administration.

Authors Halper and Clarke expose the criminals who have been driving US foreign policy during the disasterous G. Bush administration-the Neo-conservatives.

It's all here, in its raw naked truth. If you think these authors haven't stepped on some neo-con toes, take a look at the critical reviews, obviously written by the same "Ministry of Truth" propaganda program that fabricated the reasons for the Iraq War.

All pertinent associations are covered, including Leo Strauss and the Neo-con obsession with Niccolo Machiavelli's "The Prince". (Several neo-cons have written books about their love of Machiavellian principles).

Also, pay attention to the names of the neo-cons. They aren't yet wearing orange jumpsuits, but the key criminals are named.

The authors approach the outer perimeter of establishment thought when talking about the causes of 9/11 by commenting: "about which there is still some uncertainty today".

The authors mention the Defense Planning Guide, written by the neo-cons with oversight by Dick Cheney. The guide was so militant that it had to be revised. Later on, the letter written to President Clinton persuading him to attack Iraq by the neo-cons is discussed with all its proud signers. Then, the Project for a New American Century was discussed and its details of conducting war on many fronts simultaneously.

The neocons left no doubt about their murderous intensions in their writings leading up to 9/11, including the transparent: "the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event-like a new Pearl Harbor". I know there's a lot of non-thinking sheep in this country who are fixated on FOX "News", but that statement leaves not doubt about the causes of 9/11.

The book explains how the neo-cons recruited the Christian Right and Right-Wing radio talk shows to support their murderous agenda. They were all happy to join.

This book is a very informative read and an awesome US history lesson-one you might not study...in class...

This book describes how the moderate conservatives lost their bid to still govern effectively by allowing a certain scet of neo-conservatvies come in and with a sense of paranoi and war mongering, slip us into a state where we are no longer the world's mediator but the world's tagert of hatred. The book concludes with 'And there will be plaenty of help from America's friends, who know that the world works best when they and America are in partnership.'

The two authors here are ex-Reagan foreign policy officials. They argue that the neocon groups, that dominate the Bush administration and who claim to be "neo-Reaganites", are essentially exploiting Reagan's popularity, not reviving his policies.

The real Reagan regularly over-ruled his hardline advisors. And the neocons turned on Reagan for his glasnost with Gorbachev and missile reductions. Contrary to the unilateralist neocons, Reagan worked closely with allies and was prepared to reverse course if he made a mistake (i.e. Lebanon). The authors wish the current Bush administration really was "neo-Reaganite" in deed as well as word. They should copy Reagan not just repeat his name as a mantra.

Reagan had some neo-conservatives and uber-hawks in his administration but they were on tap, not on top. He was prepared to listen to his foreign allies, not just demand their fealty. It was a two way street. When he determined, after being persuaded by Maggie Thatcher, that he could work with Gorbachev, Reagan, a long time cold warrior, was able to reverse course.

The authors highlight these differences but for my money I think they miss the real difference. The differences between Reagan and Bush, are not so much ideological as stylistic and personal. Like it or not, the big guy on top sets the tone for a whole administration. The personal and personality element colours whole administrations and their public and global reception. Reagan was certainly a better speaker and media performer than Bush, and he did seem to write credible material in his own hand. But there is more to it than that.

Reagan was an optimist by disposition, and a gambler. He was prepared to take risks, like funding Solidarity in Poland or providing Stinger anti-aircraft missiles to the Afghan rebels. Both bets that paid off. Few US leaders since Truman were prepared to play on the red side of the cold war fence. These were critical events in the ultimate undermining of the Iron Curtain. Reagan took some risks, like El Salvador and Lebanon, that didn't pay off. But in the case of Lebanon at least, he was prepared to reverse track on a bad hand and cut his losses. A good gambler knows when to quit. Maybe had the young George W Bush spent more time gambling and less time drinking fewer people would be dead in Iraq.

"America Alone", written by two traditional conservatives, is a good examination of the origins, ideology and influence of the neoconservative cabal which directs American foreign policy under George W. Bush and which was principally responsible for instigating the Iraq War in 2003. The authors lament the neocons' role in subverting the traditional Republican/conservative understanding of foreign policy as being based on American national interest, and point out how un-conservative, un-American and utterly radical the neocons' ideology actually is.

The book offers no startling new revelations for anyone who has been following the neocon story these past few years in such publications and websites as the American Conservative, Counterpunch.com, antiwar.com, etc. We are told about the neocons' origin as Trotskyite true-believers, their Manichean world-view, their worship of military force, their unscrupulousness, hypocrisy, arrogance, their obsession with Israel and their utter rejection of any facts which conflict with their preconceived notions. The authors show how an "intellectual persuasion" which was widely discredited at the beginning of the 1990s built bridges with right-wing media, wealthy contributors, the Christian Right and mainstream conservative figures to become by subterfuge the dominant force in the Republican Party and thus the U.S. government today. We are told how the neocons had been pushing for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein for years before 9/11 and how, when they finally achieved power, they basically lied us into war.

Since all of the authors' assertions are indisputably true, one is rankled by the pussilanimous moderation which is proclaimed at several points throughout the book. Even though the authors expose the neocons as war-mongering liars who have hijacked American foreign policy and damaged American interests, they seem at pains to distance themselves from any sort of controversial conclusions or even sharp words against their neocon brothers. On page 231 they make the ridiculous statement, "A slew of administration opponents have used strong, harsh words about the administration's arguments in favor of going to war. This is not the camp from which we come". God forbid we should use strong, harsh words to describe _traitors_, a term that would probably make Messrs Halper and Clarke swoon like Victorian ladies!

Indeed, these people are traitors, as their life's work has been to use the American government to further the interests of a foreign power. The authors acknowledge Israel's central and dominating role in neoconservative thought, but in keeping with their avoidance of controversy, deny (pg 58) that has anything to do with the ethnic/religious identity of neoconservatism's main figures. Perhaps it's just a coincidence that neoconservatives only ever agitate for war against the enemies of Israel! Even though the neoconservative label does encompasses people from many different backgrounds, the fact is that the leading spirits of neoconservatism share a common ethnic/religious heritage and a common primary loyalty to the State of Israel, and that unquestioning support for Israel is one of the main tenets-if not the main one- of neoconservatism. In support of their amazing assertion that that is irrelevant, the authors conveniently omit any reference to the instances when leading neocon figures like Perle or Feith have actually been caught passing classified secrets to Israeli agents. I suppose the authors are nervous that they might get lumped in with Buchananite "nativists" and other unfashionable folk if they too strongly condemn people who betray our country.

Because the authors shrink from naming these people for the traitors they are, their final thoughts on the neoconservatives are consequently lame. They apparently assume that the neocons' errors are so self-evident to the country that they will soon leave the scene in shame and surrender control of foreign policy to the old conservatives who have steered the ship of state so responsibly in the past. It was sadly amusing reading those sentiments at the moment we are planning an attack on Iran because Israel feels threatened by its nuclear power program. Neoconservatism is dangerous to Americans. These people need to be exposed for treasonous dogs, expelled from all positions of power immediately and, God willing, imprisoned or expelled from our country. Dry, congenial disagreements and/or witty reproaches are not appropriately commensurate responses to neoconservative crimes. However, "America Alone" does give a pretty good (not great) overview of neoconservatism for the uninformed citizen. (The last third of the book can be skimmed though, as the authors go off on wild digressions about the history of anti-Americanism, terrorism through the ages, privacy rights and other topics that only peripherally touch on neoconservatism.)

YOUR mind will never see major world events past or present the same. This books put the all the powers that be into perspective and I will make you angry...

Very informative.

Very enlightening.

Very Scary.

THIS BOOK MADE ME SEE THINGS IN A DIFFERENT WAY. I NOW HAVE A NEW WAY OF THINKING. THERE YOU WILL FIND THE LOST PIECE OF THE WORLD'S PUZZLE. THANK YOU SO MUCH ANTONY REST IN PEACE AND MAY THE GOD BE WITH YOU.

ALL THE PEOPLE IN THE WORLD LISTEN TO ME

YOU HAVE TO READ THIS BOOK!!!

You know in recent years they've re-classified alcoholism as a disease. I'm beginning to believe that conspiracy paranoia will soon follow.

The lengths you spooks seem willing to go to are endless; using some of the most obtuse "clues" to fabricate fear and suspicion. Any rational person would notice that these same clues could also apply to the Boy Scouts, Kiwanis, and my own little 4th grade club of the Mystic Skull (by Mattel).

You guys ought to start a club of your own. But please....keep it secret.

Okay so its a tangled web thats been woven over a long period of time. How does the Skull & Bone group fit in with the Freemason theories about who's running the show? The book has some really great pointers. Will definitely make you think. Mental stimulation is why I read and this is what I got with this book. Yes, original. What I believe or disbelieve from this book is not important. I feel as tho my virginity has been taken away (again). I won't look at the world in the same way.

_America's Secret Establishment: An Introduction to the Order of Skull & Bones_, published in 1983 by Liberty House Press, by researcher and economist Antony C. Sutton is a fascinating examination of the secret fraternity known as the Order of Skull & Bones (or simply "The Order") at Yale University which Sutton will argue influences political events. Antony Sutton (1925 - 2002) was a British born economist, writer, and researcher who for some time was involved with the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. In previous research, Sutton had discovered a disturbing fact involving technology transfer between the United States and the Soviet Union showing that the West had helped build the Soviet state. Further, Sutton discovered links between Wall Street and the Soviet state and the Nazis. However, it was not until he came across a membership list of an American secret society ("the Order") that he came to understand the full extent of power in America. As such, Sutton explains in his preface that he will explain "why the West built the Soviets and Hitler; why we go to war, to lose; why Wall Street loves Marxists and Nazis; why the kids can't read; why the Churches have become propaganda founts; why historical facts are suppressed, why politicians lie and a hundred other whys." The author maintains that the Order secretly directs the government of the United States and as such proposes a conspiracy theory to explain current events. While I believe that Sutton may have over-estimated the influence of this group (seeing it as more a recruiting ground for bigger activities later in life), I feel that this book offers a useful examination of this secret society which exists as a college fraternity at Yale University. Sutton contends that this book constitutes his magnum opus and as such it is certainly interesting and informative. In light of the fact that many of the presidential candidates including the current president George W. Bush have been members of this fraternity, it certainly deserves some examination.

This book begins with an "Author's Preface" where Sutton explains his beliefs about the Order and its role in manipulating history. The book is divided into four volumes, the first of which is entitled "An Introduction to the Order". In the first memorandum entitled "Is there a conspiracy explanation for recent history?", the author lays out his method for interpreting history often dismissed by establishment historians as "the devil theory of history". The author shows how organizations such as the Council on Foreign Relations are not secret societies but that within and behind such organizations lies the work of the Order which is a secret society. The second memorandum is entitled "The Order - What it is and how it began". This section explains how the Order of the Skull & Bones has been known for 150 years as a "senior society" at Yale University and was imported to this country as Chapter 322 of a German secret society founded in 1833 at Yale University. The author also details the original members of the Order of 1833. The third memorandum is entitled "How much is known about the Order?" and explains how knowledge has been obtained about the order through such documents as an issue of _The Iconoclast_ which blasts the Order for favoritism among Yale men. The fourth memorandum is entitled "Who is in this secret society?" and explains the prevalence of old line Anglophile Eastern seaboard WASPs within the Order as well as noting a possible British connection with "the Group". The fifth memorandum is entitled "What organizations has the Order penetrated?" and explains the Order's role in various organizations and government institutions. The sixth memorandum is entitled "Operations of the Order" and explains how the Order operates according to the Hegelian dialectic (the essential philosophical root of Marxianism) in which the State is absolute by prompting both sides against each other. The seventh memorandum is entitled "How the Order relates to the Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission and Similar Organizations" and explains the role of the Order behind such organizations. The eighth memorandum is entitled "The Chain of Influence" explaining the vertical chain of influence behind members of the Order. The ninth memorandum is entitled "The Bundy Operation" explaining the Order's role towards "ambitious activism towards a New World Order" through the Bundy family. The tenth memorandum is entitled "Keeping the lid on the pot" and explains how the Order controls the establishment version of history but how members of the Order face difficulties due to their inter-breeding and close-connectedness. The second volume is entitled "How the Order Controls Education". The first memorandum is entitled "It all began at Yale" and discusses how the Order came to control Yale University. The second memorandum is entitled "The Look-Say Reading Scam" and discusses the Order's role in promoting a detrimental reading educational system. The third memorandum is entitled "The Illuminati Connection" and discusses an alleged and theoretical connection of the Order to the original Germanic secret society of Adam Weishaupt's Bavarian Illuminati. The fourth memorandum is entitled "The Leipzig Connection" and discusses the Order's influence on psychology through the German psychologist Wilhelm Wundt. The fifth memorandum is entitled "The Baltimore Scheme" and discusses the role of John Hopkins and the Order's influence on education. The sixth memorandum is entitled "The Troika Spreads Its Wings" and the seventh memorandum is entitled "The Order's Objectives for Education", both explaining the role of the Order in cementing America's educational establishment. The eighth memorandum is entitled "Summary" and the ninth memorandum is entitled "Conclusions and recommendations". The third volume of this book is entitled "How the Order Creates War and Revolution". The first memorandum is entitled "Created Conflict and the Dialectic Process" explaining how the Order manipulates both left and right in accordance with the Hegelian dialectic - thesis-antithesis-synthesis. The second memorandum is entitled "Operational Vehicles for Conflict Creation" explaining the role of bankers and Wall Street in creating wars. The third memorandum is entitled "Thesis: The Order Creates the Soviet Union" followed by the fourth memorandum "Antithesis: Financing the Nazis". Together this supposedly leads to a New World Order and new conflict as discussed in the fifth memorandum "Angola and China - the New Dialectic". The fourth volume of this book is entitled "The Secret Cult of the Order". This volume includes memoranda entitled "Introduction to the Cult of the Order", "Organization of the Order", "Ritual of the Order", "Satanic Aspects of the Order", and "Is The Order also Illuminati?" detailing the cult-like aspects of the Order and showing the influence of the Order on certain churches and the New Age movement. The book ends with four reprints of rare materials on the Order including: "Skull & Bones" by Anonymous, "The Fall of Skull & Bones" by Anonymous, "_The Iconoclast_", and from _Four Years at Yale_ the chapter on "Senior Societies" by Lyman H. Bagg.

This book offers a fascinating examination of the secret fraternity known as the Order of the Skull & Bones. The influence of this fraternity on world affairs is certainly debatable but it is certainly no coincidence that important individuals in government and finance turn out to be members. Sutton proposes as an alternative to such elitist schemes the binding power of the United States Constitution and a return to "Jeffersonian democracy". As such, his book offers much interesting material even if one cannot go all the way with him in regard to its conclusions.

The author of this book has a definite perspective regarding religion and while I don't agree with his view 100%, I still found his writing to be very interesting and enjoyable. I learned things I definately didn't know prior to reading this book. It opened my eyes on a number of world issues and specific US occurences. This is a book worth reading. Great overview of the subject (NWO, CFR, TC, Bilderbergers, etc.).

Still's New World Order: The ancient plan of secret societies will make a great reading for the curious and brave mind that's willing to explore and learn the facts about the evolution of the elitist societies. Many of these secret societies have gone through a major metamorphosis that has led them to become legitimate entities and organizations. These organizations have been ruling every aspect of our lives for many years. Just like in organized crime, these powerful families even tend to intermarry among each other to strengthen the bond of power and wealth among themselves. They are the invisible rulers of the world that make the policies which in return bring them more money and power. You will learn in this book how it all started and why it will never end. This is not a book about evil, or about a doomsday scenario, but it is a book about man's desperate quest, obsession, and addiction to power, control, and aspiration to become god. The one world order (globalization is another benign name for it) has already happened and no one can stop it. The elites have facilitated the wedding of the global corporations to the political world, thereby creating a conquering hybrid machine which has tremendously succeeded in subjugating every corner of the globe economically and militarily if needed. This book will provide the reader with enlightening concepts that might be so shocking to believe. Still's research is disturbing and unsettling but very well documented and mostly accurate.

The author writes this book from a fundamentalist biblical perspective, which makes it like trying to argue the bible with someone who continuously quotes it out of context. The antique references show the author's bias. On reading the second chapter descriptions of "secret societies" a person who knows Egyptian history and religion cannot help but feel a twinge of pain at the outright falsity of almost everything he writes there. The same goes for the brief blurb on Gnosticism as well as most of the rest of it. Find a book that has a more balanced view of history and religious ideas and skip this one. If you consider your time of any value at all then reading this book definitely wastes it.

William Still starts his interesting work with the sensational premise that, during the latter days of the Nixon administration, there was a move afoot to carry off a military coup d'etat of the government of the United States. He follows this startling premise with a really worthwhile, though not comprehensive, rendition of conspiratorial history. This part of well written, but is missing much that is extremely relevant to the overall issue. Still then concludes, returning the original sensational premise, and relating, inexplicably, that it may or may not have been true. Despite this serious flaw, the book is generally well written and useful.

This book is wickedly entertaining, and seems to make a lot of sense, although, giving a few months of time to think about the material made me realize that it was little more than good entertainment. Conspiracy theories are good fun and can make you snap out of boredom and skirt the boundary of paranoia, which is a testament to how dull our lives can be. This book may have you looking at everyone you see in a funny way for a while, but in the end it should be viewed as mere entertainment. Some of this junk may be true, and there are abundant cross references to the material, but this guy's whole mission of sending an alarm seems to be just a vice for his own self-aggrandizement. Good fun, but there is better material on this subject out there.

This book defeats itself. Its description of America's imperial stretch is extremely tame. His analysis is overly deceitful. Twice in this book, Mr. Newhouse has claimed that the Iraqi liberation has ended. I suppose your thoughts can be scuttled when you rely heavily on what Chalmers Johnson considers the "establishment press- the Washington post, the new York times, or the los angeles times."
Although the book is a botched attempt at capturing historical fact, his brief interlude into North Korea's talks with president Clinton toward HEU reduction, and missile disarmament is interesting, nothing in this book is thought provoking in the manner in which it is intended.
Who decided to print this book? Mr. Newhouse, don't read your daily paper. It will only infect your mind with trivial matters that are not newsworthy at all.

This book catalogues the foreign policy actions and inactions by the first administration of George W. Bush that have angered foreigners and foreign governments. The author examines the administration's logic behind these actions, and lists alternatives to them. The facts presented by this author are correct, but the argument of the book must be placed into perspective, both with foreign policy actions unmentioned in this book, and actions by previous presidents. First, the former. One unmentioned foreign policy action by the Bush administration is the crackdown on sexual slavery and the sex trade. Though unsung and unmentioned in the popular press, this fight against smugglers, pimps and kidnappers often saves the lives of innocent women and children. Another unsung policy by the Bush administration is its apathy towards border control. Specifically, many in the Republican Party want to stop illegal immigration and kick out illegals currently in the country. The Bush administration, through their actions and inactions, have made it clear they would rather legalize those already here and keep our borders open. Illegal immigration of Hispanics to America is probably the most important foreign policy issue with regards to Latin America.

For the latter point, previous presidents have made policy as audicious as the Bush's administration stances in the War on Terror. A good example is the Monroe Doctrine, in which the US basically told all of Europe to stay out of the Western Hemisphere. In general, this book is alright, though not great.

John Newhouse calls Bush II and his colleagues radicals, members of the Republican party's hard right (its dominant wing). He illustrates it by evaluating the US foreign policy and more sporadically national legislation.

Ignoring internatinal institutions and against the will of some of its allies, the Bush II governmemt went on a lonely and for the author, catastrophic ride. It acts as if time is on its side. But, it isn't so.
The Iraq war was (and is) foolish and self-injurious. It is fought within the framework of the long-standing point of view that no regional power can be allowed to control the oil in the Middle East. But, it was inspired by Israel's Likud government.
For North-Korea, Bush II cut off the promising Clinton negotiations.
In Iran, he reinforced the interests of the hard-line mullahs against the secular reformers.

Apparently, the Bush II goverment needs (and creates) enemies in order to justify its massive and highly profitable military budget. For the author, the redundancy of the defense investments 'exceeds realistic threat assessments'.

Nationally, the author sees a jingoist security policy, mammoth deficits and biased massive tax cuts; e.g., 42 % of the profits of the elimination of dividend taxation go to the top 1 percent tax payers.
Under Bush II the US became the biggest debtor in the world, needing constant cash inflows from its main rival, China. A suicidal long-term policy.

John Newhouse's book gives an excellent analysis of historical facts (ex. the Halloween massacre), but, all in all, it lacks the broader vision of W.G. Tarpley, W. Bello, M. Chossudovsky, N.M. Ahmed or W. Engdahl.

A worth-while read.

No surprise that only nine of us have bothered so far to comment about this book. It's old news; word bytes from the various news/cable media; we've heard it before. A tedious read, the writing style is "word salad" at best, and it is hard to find the real tomatoes and cucumbers in there. Must have had a tight deadline to get this out to strike while the opportunities presented (sort of like the recent Clark book), and before the bytes became stale. Though the title and content is what the post Clintonian partisans seem to want. But it is very skimpy on real facts to support the book title and the author's global views and assertions. In some sections he even seems to contradict the book title premises. Anyway, what could we reasonably expect from recent authors whose government service was in the last two years of the Clinton administration?

If you are compelled to read this book, buy a used one for $1.95....difficult to justify even at that lofty price, I think. I was lucky to receive it free, from a friend in the news business who received it as a promo. copy, but who knew what it was about without even opening it. On the shelf, fiction section, next to the Clark book it goes.

Given the title of this book (IMPERIAL AMERICA: THE BUSH ASSAULT ON THE WORLD ORDER) one might be forgiven for assuming that this is a standard left-wing screed laying all the evils of the world at the feet of George W(MD) Bush. However, in this case, the cover isn't a great indicator of what lies beneath. There's blame for the Bush Administration aplenty, but the information is covered in a calm, rational narrative voice, and the author (John Newhouse, senior fellow at the Center for Defense Information) is more interested in detail than in rhetoric.

Newhouse's basic premise is that Bush failed in the aftermath of 9/11/01. After the terrorist attack, the outpouring of support given to America was without precedent. A French newspaper proclaimed, "We are all Americans." A moment of silence for the victims was held at an Iranian soccer match. But instead of seizing upon this moment to, for example, push for significant reform in Iran or demanding that Russia pay more attention to its dangerously unguarded stockpiles of nuclear weapons, the Bush Administration let these opportunities slip away.

Newhouse spends time focusing on one specific area of the world at a time. He describes many of the local problems, and details how those conflicts affect America and American interests. He then describes what position the Bush Administration found itself in, and then he offers possible solutions or diplomatic routes that the Administration could have followed. He compares these possible directions to where Bush actually went, and in most cases it's: "Bush decided to ignore the problem and instead focused on Iraq" (but we knew that already). Newhouse carefully shows how the absurd attention given to Saddam Hussein's (strangely absent) Weapons of Mass Destruction has actually weakened the global fight against terrorist extremists. It's interesting to note that this book came out well before Richard Clarke's testimony before the 9/11 committee, yet contains a lot of echoes and concerns about an Administration focusing exactly on the wrong areas.

IMPERIAL AMERICA doesn't cover a lot of new ground; a lot of what is contained here has already been reported on in the press (though much of it has been buried underneath the latest Michael Jackson scandal, or whatever your media of choice has decided to waste time reporting). However, Newhouse conducted many interviews with government officials, so there is a little bit of insider information scattered here and there. My favorite tidbit of gossip was the official who likened a pre-9/11 Donald Rumsfeld to a cranky old man sending annoying, whining internal memos that interested no one.

I was frankly surprised by how much I enjoyed this book. Again, I was expecting something more along the lines of a Michael Moore-like screed, but what I got was a thoughtful, detailed and well-researched document. It certainly educated me to a lot of what is going on in the world outside of the Hot Spot Of The Week, and has given me a great start into more reading on these subjects. Recommend for anyone looking for a detailed, reasonable critique of the current Administration's rather glaring missteps.

Unless your a "true believer" (aka insane), don't bother reading any of Jones' books. But for sheer freak entertainment value, check out his dvd called "Path to 9/11," or something like that. Obviously the only people who will appreciate his brand of "documentary" filmmaking are delusional true believers of everything conspiratorial, but if you can stomach over two hours of his growling, used car salesman voice, the movie has its entertaining moments. For example, he "disrupts" a lone news reporter's coverage of a staged chemical spill with a bull horn, screaming "Fake staged event! Fake staged event!" The bewildered reporter finishes her report, then gives a classic "What the %&*@! was that?" look into the camera. Then the camera pans over to reveal a very proud looking Jones, who obviously thinks he's just exposed a major truth. It's classic!
But don't waste your money (or help line Jones' pockets) by actually purchasing any of his drivel. Just call up your friendly, neighborhood "9/11 Truther" and he or she will be more than happy to give you a copy (along with at least an hour long speech on how Bush is Satan, skull and bones, Bohemian Grove, blah, blah, blah...)

"9/11 the Descent into Tyranny" is an exceptional book that is vital to the inside job argument. The inquiry raised in this book begs to differ from the mainstream media's opposition to the obvious fact, and that fact is terrorist acts were inflicted upon the American people in the last two decades, and rogue elements in our government sponsored these sanguineous acts? Of course, after reading this book you'll start to speculate that this is indeed the case.

After all, all of the question (Radio talk show host/documentary filmmaker) Alex Jones raises are legitimate and need to be answered, but I won't list them all, you'll have to read the book and gather the details. But, here is a taste of what you'll encroach upon.

1:Was Timothy McVeigh set up, and were there Arab agents working for the FBI when the Murrah building came crashing down? The answer is probably yes based on the overwhelming evidence!

2: Did George W. Bush sign executive order W199I, which halted the FBI's investigation of Al'Qaeda? The document (W199I) that BBC reporter Greg Palast uncovered supports that Bush committed treason, while having foreknowledge about the upcoming 9/11 attack and Bush managed to block the investigation before and after the crime of the century transpired.

3:Will the globalists plan to implant microchips to track our every move? More evidence particularly from mainstream news source supports this thesis/fact.

4:Will we lose our sovereignty, and end up forced to adhere to a one-world government in the auspices of the North American Union, and have to live in a cashless society controlled by the Bilderberg Group, and the Money Trust?

5: Will the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) be activated, and will we be under permanent marshal law? It's obvious that this out come is most likely when you consider House Resolution H.R 4079.

Overall, Alex Jones gathers credible documentation and eyewitnesses to support his thesis. Everyone must read Alex's book it is imperative that this information reaches the masses.

At this point in my review, I'll have to ask you to be mindful that Alex's book falls in lines with his documentary film "9/11 the Road to Tyranny" and much of this book is just a reprinted transcript of the film. However, this book is chalked full of extras. Alex interviews Greg Palast about the 2002 stock market fraud, which the mainstream media acquiesced to covered up.
Alex also exposes that the environmental movement is really a United Nations cover to confiscate land from the American people, placing much of the United States under UN jurisdiction, and, last, but certainly not least; an exposé of the Bohemian Grove and the Cremation of Care ceremony, which is an eye-opener.
However, not all of what's in this book is melancholic. There is light at the end of the tunnel. Alex ends his diatribe from a quixotic angle by reprinting the "Bill of Rights" and the "Declaration of Independence," which every household should possess a copy of.
"9/11 Descent into Tyranny" is a must read that will give you a lot to ponder upon.

9/11 was an inside job and the New World Orders plans must not be realized!
"Power to the People!"

I agree with those that suggest that the author goes over the top sometimes, but I will also be quite explicit in saying that I think Alex Jones is a very important part of the patriotic truth movement, and all that he does is in my view at least 80% vital to improving public intelligence in the public interest.

This book plays out a theme that relates the bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma with 9-11, and I read through it at the same time that I was watching the DVD "Painful Questions" which actually had news clips about additional unexploded bombs being found in the Federal Building after the fact.

I am increasingly frustrated as I read so many of these books, each with vital tid-bits, many of which I can see correlating with one another, but yet no one anywhere has cut the spines off all these great books, digitized them, and