Current-order Books

What is contained in this fascinating book is a view of American history that has been deliberatly surpressed so that we American's don't realize who our real enemies are.

Since the birth of America - up to right now, the British empire has sought to eliminate our influence. We have been, historically, the only real threat to the imperial out look of using free-trade to enslave the people of the world.

It is time for us to learn our amazing true history. I would also reccomend "How the Nation was Won" by Grahm Lowrey

www.larouchepac.com

When you read this book you will join a small fraternity of folks who are armed with a fresh point of view, one far different from what is taught in America's schools and universities. The material presented comes from the public record, but here it is excavated and arranged to reveal a pattern of treachery lurking beneath the surface of familiar historical events.

The author does not know what he's talking about when it comes to religion that includes the subject of predestination, on the other subjects he is mostly right however.

Columbus discovered the americas in 1492. Twenty one years later Balboa discovered the Pacific ocean. As simplistic as these statements may seem, two facts are just as obvious. One, American history begins with these statements. Secondly these statements are only true from a European perspective. The book Treason in America: From Aaron Burr to Averell Harriman demonstrates to the reader the simple premise that American history has been written largely from a European point of view. The author explains in detail how British financial institutions, funded an American aristocracy in the early 1800's. This British-American aristocracy along with European intelligence services did what the British military could not: return America to the British-European circle of influence. In passing the book discusses some of the American presidents (a total of six by my count) that were either murdered or died under highly suspicious circumstances while in office ( a seventh president, Ronald Reagan, was semi-assassinated). During this same time span how many English, French or German heads of state have met the same fate? In this respect sitting American presidents have been treated no better than any other colonial puppet! Is this a conspiracy book? Absolutely not. This book is all about a European ruling elite that has never abandoned the feudal way of life. The enslavement of the many by the few, politically and economically, is not a new age concept. It is quite old and quite real. This book does not try to paint a broad picture. Rather it carefully examines some of the trees that make up the forest. It has been said that history is written by the winners. The author records the names of some of the people who would rather remain hidden and out of sight.

This IS a collection of articles published by Lyndon LaRouche but not authored by him. Mr Chaitkin clearly has an agenda because his father was personally involved in a lawsuit against Harriman in the 1920s attempting to stop his support of the germans illegially. And I personally am not a LaRouche fan - I question his national ecconomic policies.
However there is great merit in this book. It truely ranks as a history book and not fiction. It is backed up with numerous refernces to original works and publications. It reads farily well for something as far reaching and encompasing as it is.
This book traces the links between the oligarchical families of 17th century Europe to its effects and agents here in America. It connects dots I never knew existed. Spanning secret societies, indian wars, opium and slave traders, yellow journalistic hits, intrigues, and financial swindles, this history is a real eye openner.
I don't doubt it is biased, but the bias is clear. It clearly says in the introduction that it is associated with LaRouche and if you read it you will find why the author was motivated to write it - not for a paycheck from LaRouche.
I think this work serves a very useful purpose in informing anyone interested in history, ecconomics or political intrigue. It does deserve a few good readings. I wish most americans at least knew about this view of history.

A great book and a very interesting read. I had trouble putting this one down. Henry exposes feminism for the stupidity that it is and provides the basics of the healthy heterosexual relationship. If your confused about relationships, getting a raw deal from the opposite sex or just plain sick of the BS this is the book for you. I saw someone write "Henry is like the dad I never had". In this book is valuable advice on how a healthy relationship works.

The book Cruel Hoax is a bold book that basically brings forward most of the things that are corrupt in this world. Dr. Makow has a gift to bring forward the truth with clear and interesting writing. He has a special insight that detects such disturbing agendas of the elite such as homosexuality, feminism, communism, social engineering and much more. We are very much engineered to believe everything that we see, however, after reading this book I will tell you that my eyes opened up. Just read the book you'll gain a lot of knowledge that you were not taught in schools and universities. A courageous, strong and able author; thank you Dr. Makow.

This book literally, with accurate description, describes the overall problem that is affecting western society today: the destruction of positive male-female relations along with the mass acceptence of "alternative" sexuality which is truly just an inversion of natural male-female dynamics. If only this book was more available on a mass scale. If only one could walk into a bookstore and see it on the front row shelves. Then there would be hope. But, that would be bad for the elite powers that be, so it will never happen. So, everyone who understands this book should recommend it to EVERYONE they know. Spread the word! The truth will set you free!

I started reading Makow after 9/11. He explained how that attack and feminism were part of a larger assault on us. In 2001, I was in disbelief. It took me a few years to see that I was a feminist and didn't even know it. Cruel Hoax is simply "transformative." It will allow others to experience rapidly the "about face" that took me six years. And it will relieve you of a lot of needless guilt in the process.

This man provides no legitimate evidence to back up his incredibly stupid ideas. No, I'm sorry to burst your bubble but the world isn't that interesting and full of "conspiracy".

If you are unhappy about press coverage for a Presidential candidate you are supporting, you will love this book. The author offers detailed examples from both daily press coverage and scholarly articles and books as to how the media is harming American democracy by trivializing the campaigns and obscuring the messages the candidates are trying to get out. He thinks all major party candidates are poorly covered, and he unhappily blames the media for Ross Perot's strong 1992 showing.

The author blames the McGovern-Fraser Commission of 1969-1970 for empowering the press to play a major political role under the guise of opening up the system to the voters and taking control away from party bosses. He believes the party bosses produced far better candidates and Presidents--Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, John Kennedy, and Lyndon Johnson--than did the voters. This reviewer certainly agrees that the boldness of Presidential leadership has become greatly attenuated in the modern era.

The author blames the media for relentless negative coverage which demeans government and the Presidency in the eyes of the people, and thus makes governing effectively extremely difficult. The greater the exposure to media coverage, the more negative toward the candidates the voters feel.

The media, he says, is a "miscast institution" in the Presidential primary process. They are concerned with what is new and newsworthy, and not what is significant over the long run. The voters are much more concerned with issues of long-range significance than the media is, he argues. A position paper on a major issue will perhaps get a day's worth of coverage, while a gaffe by the candidate can last for a week or two or more.

The media, he finds, is more about game than governing. The initiatives of candidates to build a broad coalition capable of leading our country is reduced to game elements. We learn of day by day strategical considerations, but do not learn of consistently pursued goals over the length of the candidate's career. The candidate is left with having who he or she is personified by strategical campaign decisions, since the candidate's record and plans for the future are essentially only on the table on those rare occasions--often in new media--where the candidate can get his or her message across without having it distorted by media interpretation.

The images of the campaign are all important. Media coverage can create a bandwagon effect, where candidates are backed by voters largely because other voters are backing them. He quotes the Markle Commission analysis of the 1988 Presidential campaign: "Viewers and readers are implicitly invited to assume that the strategic political game is a worthy and possibly a sufficent test of suitablity for office, and that the shrewdest candidate with the most effective campaign both wins and deserves the Presidency for that reason alone."

The author's conclusion about campaign imagery states that "The voters, as V.O. Key noted, 'are not fools.' But their decisions can be foolish when they are forced to choice without adequate guidance. They depend on the press for information about the candidates. Much of the information they receive is useful, but much of it consists of fanciful imagery."

There is a major difference, the author writes, between reporter' issues and voters' issues. Reporters want to know what a candidate thinks about what a rival did last night, while voters want to know what the candidate will do that affects their lives if he or she is elected President. The voter issues are gnerally far more relevant to the actual conduct of the Presidency than are the media issues.

The author quotes Walter Lippman, a keen Washington observer from the administration of Woodrow Wilson to that of Lyndon Johnson, many times, including the Lippman quote that "News and truth are not the same thing, and must be clearly distinguished." News, Lippman says, is found in particular events rather than in the underlying forces that create them. News is a small and unrepresentative manifestation of a vastly more intricate reality. It is what is new and out of the ordinary and thus atypical and a weak base for judging trends that are powerful and lasting.

The author further blames the media for its fascination with early winners and electability, and says that these foci "fails to distribute power evenly across the electorate." He sees the media as especially strong in primaries, where "Voters are not anchored by party loyalties, and most of them are feebly motivated and poorly informed. In these circumstances, the press' interpretations of wht is happening in the race, and the glare of its spotlight, can significantly influence the vote."

He calls the voter's process of decision the "whimsical vote" and says it is analagous to Herbert Krugman's "learning without involvement" in which "attitudes and motiavations are weak, but people do absorb some information. People 'learn ' the message, and since they are 'uninvolved' do not resist it." This contrasts with a "situation where people have strong attitudes" and "information is tested against existing beliefs, and affected by these beliefs....In this case, the individual is largely in control. Wheras, in the case of 'learning without involvement,' power rests primarily with the communicator."

The way to fix the campaign, the author concludes, is to shorten it. He envisions primaries right before the national conventions. What is actually happening, of course, is that the nomination process is being shortened to end in February, but the campaign is being lengthened, with a long period of two virtual nominees facing each other.

It is difficult for any review to do this book justice. The arguments the author makes are so filled with facts and cogent analysis that they are not easy to adequately summarize. Few sentences are wasted. Few references to scholarly texts can be dismissed as being pedantic, and few references to actual media coverage can be dismissed as anecdotal irrelevance.

With a scope of coverage from the election of John Kennedy in 1960 to the election of Bill Clinton in 1992, as well as prior historical references, this book may well be the most thorough and analytical treatment of the modern Presidential nominating process ever written. No reporter should attempt to cover a Presidential campaign without it. No candidate or campaign manager should attempt to win the Presidency without studying it closely.

This book is a must-read for any student of the media or politics. Thomas Patterson writes a terrific critique of the role the media has played in corrupting politics - particularly the political election process - arguing persuasively that things are now "out of order." Patterson provides numerous examples of how the media has negatively impacted elections. Some of these are:

1. Articles about campaigns focus on the "horse race," or the constant jockeying between candidates and their campaigns, rather than on the actual platforms of the candidates or the important issues being discussed.

2. Great emphasis is placed on poll results, and on candidates' rise and fall in the polls, rather than on their stated goals or positions on various issues.

3. Reporters travel around with a candidate for months on end (as the candidate travels around the country or state to meet with voters) and as a result start focusing more on internal problems within the campaign (campaign staffers disagreeing with each other, for example) than on the substance of the candidates' speeches. Minor gaffes, such as a candidate tripping, or a candidate's spouse saying something odd, take on much greater importance in the media than they should.

4. Media "talking heads" become celebrities in their own right and dominate news casts. They may show 30 seconds of a candidate's speech and then spend 5 minutes talking about their spin on the speech. This hardly gives the candidate much opportunity to communicate directly with the voter.

We've gotten to the point now where a substantial portion of articles about campaigns tell you everything about the campaigns *except* for the candidates' stances on actual issues. Patterson proposes a number of remedies for this: shorten the nominating primary season to 6 weeks, and make it so that candidates all have the opportunity to communicate with the electorate in some sort of national broadcast. Patterson believes that this will help reduce the impact of the media on the election and give the candidates a more direct communication vehicle with voters.

This is a fascinating read, and it has greatly influenced my understanding of the media and how it affects politics. I highly recommend it.

My jerk, hippy, liberally biased professor made Out of Order a required reading. So I went into it expecting to cringe with disagreement. A nice surprise to me, what Patterson had to say was well thought out and really made a lot of good points about the media and its role in elections. It was a bit repetitive at times but I don't even care because it was the only book that I didn't loathe reading in my government class.

This book was required reading for a seminar and I found it very beneficial in understanding the strained relationship between two groups with conflicting goals: the media and elected officials.

I especially enjoyed his analysis on reporters making news with their interpretation of the facts.

I'm very excited to add that I will be meeting Tom Patterson and hope he will expand upon his books results as they relate to our current political situation. I welcome any questions you would like me to submit.

Thomas Patterson's sweeping indictment of the media is especially relevant this election year. The press is once again fulfilling Patterson's worst predictions of its behavior and making it easy to agree with his thesis that the media is failing its duties and harming our political process.

Patterson makes many points, but his central ones are below, and it's easy to find supporting examples from the 2000 campaign cycle:

1. The press sees the election as a game, not a democratic process. Its news stories are focused on the candidates' strategy, not their views, and makes the candidates look shallow and pandering as a result.

2. The tone of the news is generally negative. Candidates are relentlessly criticized and negative stories are much more frequent than positive ones.

3. The press focuses far too much on gaffes and trivialities. In the 2000 campaign, Bush's RATS ad and Gore's simple misstatements have resulted in feeding frenzies portraying both candidates as untrustworthy.

4. Journalists have become the center of the news. Much of the news has reporters' own interpretations as the main story (In an attempt to bolster his support among elderly voters, Bush/Gore ...), instead of quoting the candidates at length.

The inescapable conclusion is that the media is failing to inform the public of the important issues in a presidential campaign and contributes greatly to our general lack of faith in our political system.

The book reads factual, and a tad dry. The truth is when you want to know about something as such you have to live it. I have been to this part of the world, there is so much more Peter could have researched out by actually being a part of this life. I strongly recommend reading SB 1 or God By Karl Mark Maddox.

Recommended SB 1 or God

I found this book to be more "textbookish" than the other books I have read recently about the Taliban. It has a more dry academic style than the other two books that I'd recommend about the subject: The New Jackals: Ramsi Yousef, Osama bin Laden, and the Future of Terrorism, by Simon Reeve, and Taliban, Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia, by Ahmed Rashid. However, I felt that this book was still valuable. It has a more indepth discussion of the history of Afghanistan than the other two, and much more detail about the Northern Alliance, and makes it clear how difficult it will be to unite the Afghan people even after the Taliban are gone. As I read about the various factions there, I began to feel that I needed to write out a cast of characters, just to keep track of them all, and I also gained a sense that none of the various factions involved are particularly savory. Since it is several years old, recent events such as destruction of Bamiyan Buddhas, and of course, the WTC, are not discussed, but the book still presents a valuable overview of the backgrounds of the war we are facing now.

Reading this book made me wish I had read it before I read Ahmed Rashid's book, Taliban. It puts many issues in focus, giving the reader a basic starting point for further research, but that is all it really does. His bibliography was limited to 13 book resources and the text is scattered with clips from Taliban radio but it doesn't really "break out the box" per se, giving no real indepth viewpoints any more than a school textbook. And it is much related to a school textbook because those book sources seem mostly to be secondary sources. He mentions Osama Bin Laden in only one paragraph and never at all speaks of Al Qaeda forces.
But in the conclusion he mentions the purpose of his book being to rid people of stereotypes about Islamic movements and to show the conflict in communication between Islam and the West. In the case of the former, he pretty much succeeds. In the later, I'd read Rashid for a better anwer than Marsden.

I just read Peter Marsden's book _The Taliban: War, Religion, and the New Order in Afghanistan_. It's a short, well-reasoned introduction to the Taliban.

Chapters on The Mujahaddin illuminate the Afghan-Soviet War, and the Islamic Resistance. Marsden comes to tell how several specific factions within Afghanistan were recognized by the government of Pakistan...then, American weaponry was channeled through Pakistan to those groups. After the Soviet-Afghan war, those groups fought among themselves for power in Afghanistan. Years later, out of the chaos sprang the Taliban.

There are other good chapters on the history of Afghanistan in general, The Taliban creed, earlier movements in Afghanistan, Taliban's relationship with the rest of the world, esp. humanitarian agencies in Afghanistan, and the gender policies of the Taliban.

Marsden's angle is definitely one of cultural relativism. He repeatedly asserts that the Taliban are operating out of a totally different value system than the "liberal" or "Western" world. Humanitarian agencies are serving in a country where women cannot vote, work as they wish, drive, or walk uncovered in public. Indeed, women have been beaten for violating the strict public dress code. However, Marsden states, common ground must be found, if there is to be any humanitarian aid at all. The author also reminds us that our view of Islam and The Taliban is colored by our place in the world, our "Western" biases, et cetera.

All in all, this is a good introduction to the Taliban. I'm not sure if I can agree with the author's assessment of how many Afghans actually support the Taliban, but generally this is a good introductory book on the subject. The book is short and to the point. There is a helpful chronology in the front, and a short bibliography and index are in the back.

If you're only going to read one book on The Taliban, you could do worse.

Ken32

Written in 1998 this book will seem dated to those who have become CNN junkies over the past weeks. Good coverage of the rise and roots of the Taliban but, Ahmed Rashid's Taliban:Militant Islam,Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia is more up to date and detailed.(also cheaper...)

Good coverage of NGO and UN relations with the Taliban that you will not find covered as well elsewhere.

The book in question was written by Mr Paxton as a thesis for his PHD at Harvard in 1963 and was later published in 1966 by Princeton University.
The infamous Vichy regime rightfully denounced by Mr Paxton enjoyed the offcial embassy of Admiral Leahy helped by the friend and personal representative of President Roosevelt, Robert Murphy [despite the existence of the Free French government in London]. The fact that France is a member of the security counsel of the United Nations results from the fact that the Free French supplied the biggest contingent of men after the launching of Torch [landing in north Africa) and stayed alongside their American allies in the Japanese war.
You should check that, at Yorktown, Washington was actually defeated by the English when the French army and the French fleet captured the British army and fleet... before offering this victory to Washington. There was no lend-lease for the French support to the young American republic and you never heard a French regretting it. It's a matter of style.
You should also check that only the down payment of the Louisianna deal was actually paid because Napoleon got ultimately defeated by the British. France never made a territorial claim for that.
You should learn that despite the infamous Vichy regime which came to power by a coup and not by a democratic vote, the Jewish community of France is the one who survived the most of all the occupied countries (don't believe me check with Raul Hilberg's book), again despite this truly infamous regime.
Of the two friendly country which one should be criticized for its support is a truely open debate.
You should check that the grand father of president Bush was sentenced under the "Trading with the ennnemy act" for his partnership with nazis in mining investments in Upper Silesia, that President Kennedy's father was recalled from his position as Embassador in London for his openly expressed nazi sympathy...
You should however learn that, to this very day, Americans showing their American passports in most of the restaurants of Normandy don't have to pay for their bills because the French are still grateful to the American people.
You should know that the French population, even when they politically disagree with the American government, keep their friendship for the American people intact and their sympathy for young American soldiers on the front. There are many dark periods in American history as well (ask the Japanese Americans for exampple, or the Eastern Europeans offered to Stalin at Yalta for American control over western European economies: cf Churchill's memoirs).
The French do not resent Robert Paxton for his studying of a dark period in French history, but you should also read the cynical view of President Roosevelt toward the dismantling of the French empire reported in "The way he saw it" by his son Elliott.
The French keep saluting the American men and women, for they risked or lost their lives in France, or their blood or just a part of their youth to combat Hitlerite tyrany in what Pressident Roosevelt, after the Tehran conference didn't call "freeing France" ... but "Invasion of France".
Every American is wellcome to France no matter what! Our friendship pre-dates English friendship.
The book of Mr Baxton is an excellent book but it must be completed by "our Vichy Gamble" by William Langer and other readings like Raoul Aglion's "Roosevelt & deGaulle Allies in conflict" to understand France in the second world war.
It is not so clear to know which one of these two friendly countries has a greater work to do for cleaning its own doorstep. It takes more courage and intelligence to listen to one another points, than to spit hate for recently frustrated foreign policy. Leadership is not dominance, friendship is not obedient slavery and patriotism is not narcissic craving for military power.
For avoiding any readers'possible prejudice or misconception, it must be stated that the present reviewer's father, born catholic, spent years in the worst concentration camps for resisting the nazi policy towards Jewish people [he had already been arrested, tortured and deported when America did land in North Africa].
Among the four liberties presented by President Roosevelt were the liberty of speech, the liberty of opinion and the liberty from fear.
Let's drink to Robert Paxton having the liberty to fearfully express, with talent and personality, his political vision on an infamous French regime, and the French having the right of criticizing without fear the foreign policy of their American friends.

Robert Paxton is the supreme authority on the Vichy regime. This, his seminal work, was originally published in the 1970s and has been updated with a new preface. Despite the availability of additional data, the book stands with very few qualifications as originally written. Vichy, despite the claims of it's many apologists, neither protected nor served France and the French, with the exception of various professional elites, who seamlessly transitioned from Petain's regime to the Fourth Republic and, in some instances, to the Fifth. Petain and his confreres met little, if any, indigenous resistance because virtually all Frenchmen were disgusted with the Third Republic and craved a more ordered and traditional form of government, an authoritarian one, in a word. Petain was happy to oblige, basing the regime on the assumptions that the war would be short, Germany would be victorious, the (despised) British holdouts would soon be defeated and, most importantly, domestic revolution would be avoided. This last point cannot be overestimated in the conservative, Catholic society of mid-century France. The leftist riots of February 6, 1934 left an indelible impression which Vichy could and did use to telling effect. It should be recalled that de Gaulle stood virtually alone. Most Frenchmen, especially those in military and government service chose to support the regime, even to the point of fighting the British in North Africa, not only in relatively well-known engagements at Mers el Kabir, but also in Syria and domestically in Dieppe. Vichy mostly hoped to achieve parity with Nazi allies in a German-dominated post-war Europe, also hoping to retain their colonial empire under exclusive French administration. Paxton recalls all these details and plenty more, along with a welter of statistical detail which somewhat slows the narrative. Even so, the work is exceptional and a classic of the historian's art.

This book represented a revolution in the historiorgraphy when it first came out thirty years ago and its lasting importance is shown by the fact that it is still seen as one of the key texts on the period. It played a vital role, alongside studies by people like Jackel and Hoffman and the film the Sorrow and the Pity, in changing the way people thought about the Vichy regime. This change was based on two things. Firstly the recognition that Vichy had actively sought collaboration with the Nazis rather than having it imposed on them. Secondly by highlighting that Vichy's political programme, including its anti-semitism, was home-grown and not just a Nazi import. The regime's anti-semitism was further developed in Paxton's follow-up book, Vichy France and the Jews.

Vichy France, Old Guard and New Order remains very useful today, particularly in highlighting that Petain's regime was not a homogenous block but rather made up of diverse currents. Paxton is very, very good at explaining these currents. Where the book seems dated is in its under-estimation of French Resistance and it's very negative assessments of public opinion. Few historians working today would take Paxton at face value on those two elements. But this remains nevertheless a very worthwhile book and a must for anyone hoping to understand the Vichy regime.

While « Anatomy of Fascism » is a well balanced and very interesting book, « France's Vichy » ignores the context of France in 1940. The book is unfair to France and eventually very wrong.

- First of all, one must remember that France desperately attempted to establish PEACE in Europe after WWI. France had been alone to stop Germany in 1914, the English not yet in the war, and in 1920 it was exhausted. The only thing France wanted was PEACE. (Aristide Briand received the NOBEL Price). It begged the US and UK to guaranty its borders against Germany. But the US walked away from the committment Wilson had made to France in 1919... In fact what happened is that both the US and UK supported Hitler's Germany in the thirties against France to the extent that Churchill was the lonely voice warning of the "awful danger" of "perpetually asking the French to weaken themselves". It can be said that the Anglo-Saxons' Francophobia was a defining factor in letting Hitler establish power. Not only it was a disaster for France, the world but also the Jews.

- Secondly to accuse France of rampant antisemitism is just not true. There was antisemitism, especially among the elite, but it was not expressed in the laws. France was the only country in the world to keep its borders open to all the refugees from Germany and Eastern Europe. They all came to France. And the Prime Minister of France in 1936 was Leon Blum, a very remarkable Jew. When is America going to vote for a Jewish President? So before 1939, France's behavior towards the Jews was one of the most friendly in the world. The US closed their borders and showed no pity. America had the land and more to welcome the Jews. In fact, a coordinated effort by the Anglo-Saxon world - US, UK, Canada & Australia - plus France, would have saved the Jews from Hitler !

- Thirdly, France was badly defeated in 1940. How could it be otherwise? France was not strong enough to resist Germany alone. And France was alone, the US having run away after leaving a mess in Europe in 1919, plus forcing France to weaken itself, and the UK, as usual, had no army and also very quickly run away... Dunkirk!

When France was badly defeated, and it was, everybody trying to escape from the German advance, documents show that Laval "forced" parliament to give all the powers to PETAIN. It was "a coup", not something which happened in normal circumstances. And PETAIN was an antisemite, the people around him also. In time of a major upheaval/disaster, a senile man and bad people took power. The French never voted for them. But again, the French disaster was the result of American policies in the thirties.

It is in this context that the Jews in France suddenly faced an hostile administration. Nobody in France can be proud of what happened. People who had come to France trusting the French tradition of hospitality, were betrayed. There is little excuse for such letdown though many French people did their best to help.

Quite rightly Paxton is critical of the French elite. No quarrel with that but it was a worldwide phenomenon. Just to give a personal example: my father, after the war, went to America on a business trip. He was a guest of a fancy Oyster Bay Golf Club and he invited Miss Rothschild, a first class French golfer to join him. The third time he took her there he was told that he was welcome but not the Jewish woman... and this happened after the war!

A lot more can be said. In the last fifty years, America kept alive its love for dictators with appaling results : Chiang Kai-Shek, Pahlevi, Marcos, Pinochet and above all Stalin to whom Roosevelt gave Eastern Europe....

Etc... I am not an historian. But I would like to see the rightful and arrogant America apologize to the Jews, as Chirac and France did. May be, to achieve this result, Mr. Paxton needs to write a book : "American anti-semitism in the 20th century and its consequences". France is the wrong fight, America is a better one, the real one is the top of the Catholic church: the pope.

I used this book as the main source for a term paper I recently wrote on Vichy France. Although it is now a bit dated-it was originally published in 1972-it was a groundbreaking work when it was first published. With this work, Mr. Paxton destroyed the myth of the massive French Resistance to the Germans that was propagated for many years after the war, mostly by the French themselves. He thoroughly describes how it was France, not Germany, who sought greater collaboration between the two countries, and that many more Frenchmen than would like to admit wholeheartedly embraced the new fascist policies. And while of course there was a genuine resistance movement, Paxton sees the post-war witch hunt of "collaborationists" as basically a persecution of the guilty by the guilty. To this day, Vichy is still a touchy subject for Frenchmen and Paxton brilliantly exposes exactly why that is. This is an extremely well-written and comprehensive work on Vichy France and I recommend it wholeheartedly.

The authors are remarkable. Fred invented a more efficient wood stove that cut pollution considerably. This book was another thoughtful innovation Fred and Peg have given to mankind. I had the honour of knowing them and wrote about their cleverness in my book at marketing.
Here is the excerpt from Book Marketing DeMystified: Enjoy Discovering the Optimal Way to Sell Your Self-Published Book, Practical advice from the inventor of print-on-demand (POD) publishing...

Why write down an honest statement of your PURPOSE? Because
knowing `why' will guide your decisions in the rest of the marketing
mix.
Here's an example. In 1994, Fred and Peg Francis wrote Democratic
Rules of Order: The Complete Official Parliamentary Authority for Meetings
of Any Size [isbn 096992604] not to make money
but to have a beneficial impact on society.
Democratic Rules of Order is the one parliamentary
standard that fully protects every member's right
to equal participation in orderly meetings. It does this
with concise, common sense rules without jargon or
unnecessary protocol.
Fred wrote this on their website at www.democratic-rules.com: "This
book has been a very satisfying project for Fred and Peg who see the urgent
need for more justice and stronger democracies in our world. For a
democracy to work successfully the populace itself must understand and
want to obey the democratic principles. Citizens need practice in making
the individual rights of each member and the rights of the majority work
together. People using this book are practicing and learning these laws at
the grass-roots level."
This very concise book (27 pages of rules, a 14-page sample meeting
plus questions-and-answers) explains meeting rules that are fair and easy
for everyone to master - a far cry from the 600-plus pages of Robert's
Rules of Order! With Roberts, a knowledgeable chair can manipulate
meetings to have his or her own opinions prevail. With Democratic, everyone
knows the rules and is on equal footing.
For Fred and Peg, a marketing plan had to reflect their mission, so
they hired an editor to polish the text, making the book as understandable
and credible as possible. They felt that this was really worthwhile, even
though editing cost $30 per hour.
Next, they decided to start a word-of-mouth phenomenon by donating
about 2,000 individual promotional copies to leaders of church
groups, associations of government agencies, schools and public libraries.
This helped them secure free book reviews in religious newsletters
and in magazines that go out to politicians and bureaucrats. The front
pages of the book explain clearly how to order more copies, and the generous
discounts for ordering larger quantities.
Fred was a mathematician who could master their marketing mix
puzzle about allocating scarce resources: they refined their product by
using a professional editor over many editions, sent out samples (a form
of sales promotion) to targeted groups (their public), allowed bulk discounts (pricing), and sought publicity through newsletter and magazine
reviews.
Fred and Peg's plan has worked very well - the book is now in its 7th
edition and has sold over 14,000 copies, sometimes purchased in batches
of over a hundred by a single congregation or agency. Copies are being
used in some high schools to teach parliamentary procedures in social
studies courses. Buyers often reorder and refer others to this handy book,
creating a chain reaction that is steadily spreading to people all around
the world who are now able to have more effective meetings.

Good easy to read book on rules governing meetings. Reading about parlimentary procedure can be a real bore. This book gives one the quick important things to know. A good guide on a topic that one is not too interested until it come time to call a meeting to order.

The book is thin and exposes a limited set of rules without which anarchy becomes the hard rule.
Usefull for small meetings but first of all very didactic for those who think that one have from time to time to refresh one's mind about the basics of the democratic exercise.

I would like these Rules be translated and published in French.

Thank you Fred and Peg.

Fred and Peg Francis have done an amazing job. Their book is absolutely indispensable for anyone who conducts meetings or participates in democratic discussion at any level from the parliamentary right down to school boards, environmental protection groups, churches, even book clubs or social gatherings. What the Francis' have admirably succeeded in doing is cutting through the forbidding complexities of running a meeting and reducing them to a simple set of common-sense rules which anyone can follow. With this handy guide, the frustrations which accompany many meetings can be sharply reduced and democratic participation improved. Anyone who has conducted or participated in meetings and struggled with the daunting complexities of Roberts or other rule books will be thrilled at how this little book--you can read it in an hour--will smooth out the rough edges of meetings and greatly improve the harmony and satisfaction of attendees. Over the years I have presided or attended hundreds of meetings at the governmental, business, church and social levels and have often been frustrated by the difficulties of properly chairing such meetings so that all can be heard, everyone can understand the process, and the will of the majority can be formulated and prevail. Much of the difficulty arises from the fact that few have the time or inclination to study the old-style rule books, and are therefore easily intimidated, even tyrannized sometimes, by the very few who know "Roberts" Equally distressing are meetings where the Chair is ill-informed or makes dubious rulings or is swamped by Points or Order or confusion over what are acceptable motions and amendments, when to call for a vote, and so on. By clarifying these points, the Francis' book makes an important contribution to democracy. It can be readily adopted by any group, club, church or corporation and will be of lasting benefit. Speaking personally, I have sat through years of parliamentary debate and appreciate the value, and necessity, or achieving consensus in a democratic proceeding by having rules and following them. Up until now, the rules have been exceedingly complex, often confusing, and finally unsatisfactory at many levels. From here on in, those groups who adopt Democratic Rules of Order will find significant improvement in both the tenor of their meetings and the validity of the results. (Signed) Douglas Leiterman (former parliamentary correspondent)

I do NOT like the Democratic Rules of Order. They are so simple that if your group can get by with these rules, your group may have no need for parliamentary procedure. Instead, do everything based on majority vote and require that folks be polite to each other.

This book (7th edition) is 72 pages long, and that counts from the very first title page to the page facing the inside back cover. That page count includes two title pages, the copyright notice page, the table of contents, a page outlining each part, an FAQs section, a sample meeting, calenders 1997 to 2099, a summary of the rules and index and information regarding the authors. The book appears to be self-published and if a good editor has been involved, it would be even shorter. The book offers common sense advice that simply takes up space. An example are the 4 pages titled "Keeping Meetings Flowing."

Under these rules, "The agenda should be made known to members beforehand and can be changed by the members any time during the meeting except when a motion is on the floor." This one rule could cause havoc with a meeting. Under these rules, a decision can also be immediately rescinded by a majority vote.

Robert's Rules is complicated, but Robert's Rules are also thorough. Under Robert's Rules there are times when the member with the best knowledge of Robert's Rules has an advantage. But there is procedure and order to a meeting run under Robert's Rules. The solution is to understand Robert's Rules, not resort to some overly simple set of rules which offer little guidance or structure. Under these rules, it is democracy all the way. Immediately undoing decisions and allowing the agenda to be hi-jacked mid-stream do not seem productive to orderly business.

There are other options out there in between Robert's Rules and the Democratic Rules. If you do not want to use Robert's Rules, consider something in between Robert's Rules and the Democratic Rules.

The author uses a lot of references from David Icke, Jeff Rense, and Alex Jones--whom I gather are the leaders in the alternative news 'wars.' For an introduction into the real business behind the business, this book is a terrific survey.

I only give it three stars for the sometimes irritating 'cut and paste' editing.

This is a great book, its alot of information and its very simple to read, its almost addicting when you are reading it. The problem that I had with this book is near the end of it where the author go's off and call all of this corporatism a product of communism and that the united states is in reality communist. This is false information. If one knows the principles of communism they would instantly recognize that America is NOT communist in any bit. America is about "free trade" and private property. America is capitalist, and capitalism is a unjust system in which its slogan is profit before people. A system that does not in reality care for its people but cares only for money. This is a great book like I said, but his conclusion is not correct, he needs to look at the real problem which is capitalism, its because of capitalism that America has been in some kind of war or conflict since before the 1950s non stop. Some like to call it War Corporatism, which is a new form of fascism created that's creating the world into an enslaved global market.

This book is a needed wake up call for everyone. I could not recommend this book enough. You must read this with the most open mind possible and set aside a lot of things that you believe to be true. It is not leftist, or conservative, are Marxist or any of the usual. It is cold hard fact, scientific analysis and common sense that cuts through vast illusion and disinformation about what is truly happening in the world today. I have been studying these subjects for years and have never seen such a comprehensive and simple to understand approach. This world is more evil and cruel than a lot of things that I can even come up with in my imagination. Luckily we the people far outnumber this evil force, we only need to realize as a whole, as one, and say enough is enough. And maybe even achieve a higher state of consciousness along the way. People are waking up all over the world to what is really going on, inform yourself and spread the information, love, hope and do not ever be afraid. Do what you know to be right without fear of the consequences. Fear of the consequences only manifests the consequences.

This book covers absolutely everything about the real forces of the world. Much of this information is not found anywhere else, I think. There is so much in this book. It's a big book, like a textbook, but you just cannot put it down, and everyone I loan it to says once they start reading they cannot put the d@#$ thing down! This book has over 820 footnotes backing up the claims, which are not just ideas, but stuff we can SEE. The book basically shows that certain big business fat-cats go a lot further than most of us would ever imagine in trying to control everyone, down to our deepest thoughts. The book also shows the way this hurts people, and what this secretive group has planned for the future--not pretty, scary stuff. This book does remind me of some of the things I read about with the global agenda in David Icke's books (especially the first few chapters of the INFINITE LOVE book), but without the reptoids--but I can't really compare this book to any others, it is just too unique. The best chapter, I asy, is the chapter on vaccines. The book has lots of charts and makes connections I never saw before. I have read a lot in this areea (PJ Watson, Tarpley, Thorn, others), and this book is by far the meatiest, and cuts to the real issues better than any others I know of. I feel I really understand how things work in the worrld after this book. This book is not for those who want to spalsh perfume on themselves and think that we need to just focus on Congress or the courts if we want to save ourselves. It goes much further than that, and shows that virtually all areas of society are controlled by this one secret group, but it shows this much more clearly than Icke does. You might think you are saving the world if you join the Peace Corps or vote for Kucinich, but Prof. Grupp shows in this book that, well, it's all part of the secret government. We are all like the people in that movie THE ISLAND!

Can all this be true? It could take years to explore all the information eclosed in these pages. Thier is the problem of where to look to confirm or reject the claims set out.

I have heard many of the same claims from other reliable sources. Could the U.S. Gorverment possibly be corrupt? Could they have something more than the best interest of the american public at heart. One thing is for sure the answers are to unfold in the years to come. We as a nation can do more to change our own destiny. The day to day actions we take can turn this around if we try.

This is a brave attempt to enlighten the nation in much the same way as Howard Zinn did to filled in the blanks of our history books.

While there are certainly sources that better engage the meat of social and political philosophy, this is a good introduction. First-year debaters should start here, and use this as a springboard for more in-depth readings on specific issues or by specific theorists.

This is an excellent first guide. My copy is well-worn and much-loved.

High school debate students who are just starting out would be well served to pick up a copy of this book. It is a terrific background source for a wide variety of philosophical concepts that are often used in competitive Lincoln-Douglas debate. It is important not to use this book as a primary source of evidence, but merely as a text to gain understanding of the philosophy in the vernacular. In conjunction with Scott Robinson's "L-D Road Guide", this book is a terrific tool for novice debaters.

Simon and Bowie do provide a basic sketch of philosophy which is particularly relevant to LD debate. what they do not do is provide the most up to date, ardent, or quotable defense of any of them. I would reccommend Grady's Dictionary of Philosophical Quotations or Singer's overview of ethics much more highly for any debater who aspires to more than mere mediocrity. In the world of debate, this is the huge survey lecture course taught by a barely qualified TA. Those with intellect and motivation can do much better and needn't waste their money and confine their minds. Besides, LD is outgrowing this outmoded paradigm anyway--just read the LD-L if you wont take the word of a national circuit debater.

If you are in LD debate - this is a must buy.

If you want to get deep in your knowledge of philosophy, get this book. I bought it for my high school students.

Volume 3 of Law, Legislation, and Liberty is in part an attempt at identifying the reasons why, in Hayek's opinion, the principles of liberty he articulated in The Constitution of Liberty do not find greater subscription. Majoritarian democracy is not inherently just, since it is based on interests rather than justice. The majoritarian democratic system consists of people each pursuing their own interests: citizens want spending programs with others paying for them, elected officials generally want to be reelected, government workers prefer large over small government in order to enhance job security. The result is an aggregation of special interests, and not even the general, or common interest, let alone justice. The laws that end up being enacted are intended to serve specific administrative purposes rather than general principles.

With a system of progressive taxation, the aggregate tax burden is no longer felt by the entire population. People end up exerting political pressure for expenditures for which they believe others will pay. In such a system, any normal type of cost-benefit analysis of government programs disappears. The inevitable result is an ever-growing government sector.

The basis of the book is straight public choice theory (pp. 13-17 would make a splendid concise introduction to the field). Even a legislature elected by a democratic majority needs to have constitutional restrictions placed upon it, lest it become a form of tyranny. Hayek proposes "a model constitution" that attempts to rectify some of the shortcomings inherent in the existing democratic system. Laws should be general not specific. They should be about principles rather than benefits, i.e. they should protect citizens' life, safeguard their liberty, and help create an environment in which they are free to engage in the pursuit of happiness. Laws should not discriminate between different individuals or groups, not even based on their wealth or income. Laws passed must apply to everyone, including those who pass the laws, i.e. the legislature. This also goes for taxation: the burden of taxation is to be felt by all who benefit from the existence of government.

Law, Legislation, and Liberty was intended as a sequel to The Constitution of Liberty, in that Hayek wrote it to "fill in the gaps" that he felt existed in his argument in that earlier work. He wrote and published Law, Legislation, and Liberty on and off over a time-span of approximately 15 years (early-mid 1960 to mid-late 1970s), which were in part interrupted by ill health. Hayek admits that the result is at times repetitive and lacking in organization. The reason why he did not go through the effort of redoing the entire work upon completion is because he thought he might at that rate never finish it (he was 80 years old by the time volume 3 was published).

There are still plenty of great insights, which Hayek argues persuasively and in doing so manages to portray as common sense. There are also plenty of flashes of that true rhetorical brilliance characteristic of Hayek that can make his writings such a feast to the ear and mind. On the downside, however, these rhetorical gems are hidden in a large volume of pages that at times do indeed seem tedious, repetitive, and unorganized, unlike with The Constitution of Liberty, where they literally seem to jump off the page at you. All in all, read The Constitution of Liberty first, as Hayek himself suggests. And if you're not up for reading the approximately 500 pages that make up the complete Law, Legislation, and Liberty, two chapters (30 pages total) in the book The Essence of Hayek make for a comprehensive summary exposition of the ideas in the entire trilogy ("Principles of a Liberal Social Order", ch. 20 in The Essence of Hayek, covers vols. 1-2, and "Whither Democracy?", ch. 19, covers vol. 3).

In this third and final volume of Law, Liberty, and Legislation Hayek makes his case for a classical liberal constitutional order. True liberalism is the philosophy of free trade and association, and limited government. The modern corrupted version of liberalism stems from a host of fallacies and misconceptions. The Law Liberty and Legislation trilogy was intended to complete the case that Hayek made for classical liberalism in The Constitution of Liberty. This trilogy combines with the Constitution of Liberty to make a powerful case for strictly limited government and free enterprise. You should read The Constitution of Liberty before starting this trilogy, but be sure to read both.

I first became familiar with the ideas in this book in James Buchanan's class on Constitutional Political Economy. This was one of the more intruiging sections of this class. While this book has its critics, it derives from sound reasoning and plausible arguments. While the Law, Liberty, and Legislation trilogy is important in its own right, these books do not stand alone well. Welfare state liberals will find it naïve, even utopian. Hayek makes his case for the legal order of free markets without really explaining why free markets are superior to state controlled systems. Skeptics must refer to Hayek's "Individualism and Economic Order" to get a more detailed explanation of why free markets outperform government regulated systems. Better still, read "Human Action" by von Mises, if you can find the time to wade through it.

The Hayekian intellectual revolution is brewing and it is just a matter of time before it explodes into the mainstream. What many refer to as Austrian economics, in other words, the proper understanding of the market process and how it creates the social order.... and evolutionary psychology, are finally being recognized as simply being manifastations of the single simple theory which explains both biological and social orders. Natural selection. Hayek understood how natural selection works at the level of societies, groups... To this day most evolutionary biologists are too focused in their tiny micro world of genes and they completely overlook natural selection working at a more macro level(I hate using the words micro and macro.. it makes it seem like there is some point where a difference exists while there is none) . I can't say I've read that many books, but I have read many great books from Mises, Rothbard, obviously Hayek, Hazlitt... ie.. the REAL economists... and plenty from the evolutionary psychology camp like Dawkins, Ridley, Pinker, etc... The epilogue to this book, page for page(24 of them) might very well be the most insightful and farseeing piece of writing published in the 20th century. This was the last work in a trilogy that tried to explain in more depth concepts discussed in hayek's "constitution of liberty" and the epologue is a great summary of Hayek's ideas.... He concludes with

"Man is not and never will be the master of his fate: his very reason always progresses by leading him into the unknown and unforeseen where he learns new things.

In concluding this epilogue I am becoming increasingly aware that it ought not to be that but rather a new beginning. But I hardly dare hope that for me it can be so"

Fortunately Hayek lived long enough to work on his final work "The Fatal Conceit".

A lot of people... unfortunatly many current and well respected Austrian economists whom I have learned much from and really like, dismiss hayek or like to label him as some kind of "statist". I understand that Hayek has written some very statist sounding things.. but I belive that much of this has been taken out of context. And even if he has made some mistakes there, it is a MONUMENTAL mistake to dismiss his body of work, which in my opinion, happens to be the single greatest contribution to the proper understanding of how the world works by a single human being. This mistake was unfortunately made by none other than the great Murray N. Rothbard who basically only credits hayek with a few clarifications or additions here and there to Mises business cycle theory, and sticking with mises while the world was being swept by keynes and his inflationary communism.. which is true. No disagreement here that Mises was the greatest economist of the 20th century. But to ignore and dismiss hayek's contributions via his "sensory order" and work on cultural evolution and the evolutionary processes that shape the social order, "spontaneous order", religion and its evolution and importance and many other things... is, again, a MONUMENTAL mistake, especially when such dismisal comes from other great minds... But anyways... eventually the right ideas are naturally selected in a free environment.... They grow and spread through amazon.com reviews and many others.... It is just a matter of time...





I can't say I've read much in my short years, but thus far, the Epilogue to this book is page for page the most in

Neoliberalism was born on September 11, 1973, when a US-backed military coup murdered the democratically elected President of Chile and ushered in the tyranny of General Pinochet who murdered and tortured thousands, closed parliament, and outlawed political parties and trade unions. If that doesn't give you pause about the compatibility of neoliberalism and democracy, read this book.

In Hayek's model of an ideal constitution each citizen is given one vote per lifetime when they reach the age of 45 (page 113). Then, Hayek decides that's probably too generous, and calls for an "indirect method of election" where the legislature would appoint regional delegates who would appoint new legislators, without any popular vote at all (page 114).

Neoliberals hate democracy, in both theory and practice, and are much more comfortable with an oligarchy.

¿Por qué esta obra es tan importante y el autor, uno de los más serios de este siglo? Porque se trata de una comprension cabal del funcionamiento de nuestra civilización occidental. El libro (los tres volúmenes)es una desmitificación de ciertos conceptos harto conocidos, de clara tendencia socialista, a través de los cuales se ha pretendido transformar sociedades enteras. El concepto de justicia social es uno de ellos, en virtud del cuál se han encarado acciones políticas con resultados conocidos por todos. Esta obra de Hayek es la obra de alguien que ha entendido profundamente al ser humano y su sociedad, y que ha comprendido que es un estado de libertad su ámbito natural. La teoría de la Evolución, parece confirmarle esto al autor. De todos modos, uno se encontrará con grandes argumentos y exposiciones a partir de los cuáles, si es que todavía no se ha convencido de las bondades del liberalismo; tendrá un gran motivo para empezar a hacerlo.

This is a collection of some of Chomsky's recent essays rather than a single argument (to accuse an essay collection of incoherence etc is therefore wide of the mark). What is valuable here - as elsewhere - in Chomsky is the ability to think outside the received terms in which politics and economics are discussed. MOreover, Chonsky shows conclusively that such received terms are to be understood as ideology rather than knowledge. If you really look at the world and you find its terrible injustices, its inequality and endemic poverty and immiseration pleasing or a matter of indifference then Chomsky will be of no interest to you. (Having said that, it is curious how Chomsky exercises a strange fascination for certainservants of the ruling class, who seem to resent his mastery of several different disciplines, and who get themselves very excited listening to their own garrulous invective.)

Noam Chomky's books are very important, scientifically, politically, economically and morally. The 8 essays in this volume are a proof of the depth of his analyses as well as of his moral integrity.

As committed anarchist, his `Goals and Visions' are actually to defend some state institutions (!) against the massive assaults on democracy, human rights and even markets. At the same time, he would open those institutions to more meaningful public participation and ultimately, in a much more free society dismantle them.
In (`Democracy and Markets in the New World Order') he unveils clearly the fear and hatred of democracy in elite circles, who (try to) impose nationally and internationally James Madison's policies of `protecting the minority of the opulent against the majority' and for whom `the rights of property have priority on the rights of persons.'

One of the means to bring more freedom, justice and a better world is to give better information to the many. In `Writers and Intellectual Responsibility', Chomsky sets the minimum standard for journalism as follows: `It is a moral imperative to find out and tell the truth as best as one can about matters of human significance to an audience that can do something about them.'
But, the media are kept from the public domain and handed over to a few huge private corporations (`private tyranny equals freedom'). Journalism is turned into mere servility and cowardice. Journalist are gagged and silenced (e.g. the genocides in East Timor and Indonesia, see `The Great Powers and Human Rights: the Case of East Timor' and `East Timor and World Order') or fundamentally biased (`The Middle East Settlement').
For Chomsky, the moral culpability of those who ignore the crimes that matter by moral standards is greater to the extent that the society is free and open.

Economically, he points out that the US has been `the mother country and bastion of modern protectionism', imposing now free trade on the Third World.

His scientific work is ground-breaking (`Language and Thought' and `Language and Nature'). He proved that language is a biological process. To question `innate' knowledge is the same as to suppose that the growth of an embryo to a chicken rather than a giraffe is determined by nutritional inputs.
Behavior and texts are of no more intrinsic interest than observations of electrical activities of the brain. A computer program that beats a grandmaster in chess is about as interesting as a bulldozer that wins the Olympic weight-lifting competition.
The only thing that we can say about language is `that we use it for expressing or clarifying our thoughts, inducing others whose language resembles ours to do likewise.
Language doesn't represent the world (Frege) and the content of expressions and of thought is not fixed by properties of the world and society (Putnam).

This is a book written by a formidable free mind.
A must read for all those interested in the future of mankind.

The book comprises of musings on diverse items in the popular press, but what stands out in this book is its sophisticated, although easily misinterpreted scholarly research.
Where Chomsky asserts: "After four straight years of double-digit profit growth, profits - now at a 45-year high - are expected to continue their 'stunning' growth, while real wages and benefits are expected to continue their steady decline." Chomsky might be misunderstood as saying that profits were rising by at least 10% a year. Obviously profits themselves are at an all-time high, what Chomsky is describing the increase of the officially measured profit growth, which at the time of writing was indeed at a 45-year high.

Powers & Prospects is based on various talks MIT linguist and political activist Noam Chomsky gave in Australia over the course of a week in January 1995. This occasional origin is evident in the text, which is a collection of essays on language and politics. The essays retain much of the character of the spoken public lectures from which they are derived, and share no over-arching thematic structure. In his brief preface, Chomsky offers a minor point of continuity. "These are hardly happy times for most of the world, apart from a privileged few in narrowing sectors. But it should also be a time of hope and even optimism. That extends from the topics of the opening essays, which discuss some prospects, which I think are real, for considerably deeper understanding about at least some aspects of essential human nature and powers, to those of the final chapters" (p. xi-xii). Suggesting that his essays are bound together by their optimism, Chomsky here also implies an intrinsic, albeit prospective, continuity in this passage. His hope is that the human sciences, considered in the first two chapters on language, can identify elements of a human nature capable of serving as a foundation for the political concerns he examines in the remaining six chapters on various political issues. However, as is suggested by his qualification-"which I think are real"-he acknowledges that this is as yet an unrequited hope.
One can identify an over-arching theme in Powers & Prospects if one sets aside Chomsky-the-linguist to consider Chomsky-the-activist. In chapters three through eight, Chomsky makes the case for intellectual activism, and can be seen in the act-the talks on which these essays are based were given to a cumulative audience of 16,000 or more people (on the estimate of the author of the foreword). In the third chapter, Chomsky gives the question of "Writers and Intellectual Responsibility" a simple answ