Politics Books

The complex domain of US - Cuban relations is changing every day, with new developments on both sides in terms of policy, which in turn affect the Cuban economy, society in Cuba, perspectives for future change, etc. Nevertheless, this book already back in 1997, managed to set an excellent framework on the theme of US - Cuban relations on the long term. Contrary to what one might expect, the fact that five years have now elapsed, has not made this book outdated. On the contrary, we can see indeed that some of the author's predictions became reality. Altogether, even today this remains a great book as a starting point to approach and study this fascinating and ever-changing topic. For sure, a new edition could add some interesting information to this study. Yet, for the purposes it sets itself, this book is still very very up-to-date and topical, and will likely remain so even after Castro is gone. While being an academic book in the field of political sciences and international relations more specifically, this is also a book about history, and as such will be invaluable for scholars of Cuban history at any time.

In such a short book, with indeed only three chapters besides the introduction and conclusions, the author has managed to put together, in a concise and excellently presented way, the facts and data of which the reader must be made aware, the various possible interpretations of these facts, as well as the author's own interpretations and analysis. The book is an excellent review of existing material on the subject (a great amount of research and critique has obviously gone into it), as well as a wonderful analysis of this material, with the addition of original material from the Cuban media and interviews, and the author's own points of view, which are always presented against any possible counter-arguments. All in all, a great start for anyone who would like to explore the exciting subject of US
- Cuban relations.

In this brief yet dense academic study, the author manages not only to expose data and propose his views on the issue, but also to capture the reader's analysis in a way that few very academic books can. While it tells of the intricate relation between the US embargo against Cuba and what happens in the island, the book also tells a lot on the repression of Castro's regime over. With crystal clarity and even some razor-sharp sarcasm, the author manages to identify some crucial features which make Cuban society unique, which can in fact be traced back to the horrible effects of US policy on the Cuban people, ensued by Castro's manipulation of this. All in all, Cuban policy can often be regarded as a big farce. While we condemn Castro's dictatorship or / and the US embargo, and in either case we share the suffering of the Cuban people, this book helps us see all this in a thrilling new light, filled with some witty humour and a good deal of sarcasm, making the book wonderful reading altogether.

Es díficil encontrar estudios objetivos sobre el complejo tema de las relaciones entre Cuba y EE.UU. Y cuando se encuentran, muchas veces no resultan ser más que una agregación de unos pocos argumentos ya conocidos, que llevan años en los medios académicos sin haber demostrado tener ninguna validez - mismo vino en la mismas botellas. Sin querer predecir el futuro, este autor en cambio logra llenar las páginas de su breve ensayo con argumentos audaces y perspicaces, creando un denso conjunto de material que nos ayuda comprender la relación entre los cambios en la isla comunista (o falta de ellos) y el embargo de EE.UU. Un tema excelentemente investigado, y excelentemente expuesto sin demasiada pretensión. Se lo aconsejaría a todos quienes quisieran acercarse al tema, sean 'dilectantes', o expertos que quieran ponerse al día sobre las diferentes posibles enterpretaciones y visiones sobre el tema.

In this book, a variety of issues are approached thoroughfully and rigorously, yet in the most concise possible way. For those approaching this subject for the first time, and for experts alike, this book is an invaluable source of information, insights, and analysis. It is filled with sound arguments and interpretations, always accompanied by counter-arguments and alternative views. The author has done a great job in expressing with such fairness and impartiality his views on the Cuba - US conflict, views which are indeed an 'average' of those held by most foreign academics and world governments. Its third chapter, on the impact of the US embargo on Cuba's relations with third countries, is especially interesting and contains a lot of original material. By all means, this book is necessary reading for all those working on the subject.

This book is extremely well written, which is to be expected, I suppose, since Fonzi is, by trade, a journalist. This book does not focus on the JFK assassination per se, but rather on the mid-1970s congressional investigations of it. To that extent, his story is a fascinating one, and one that is a first-hand account. In addition, the main focus here is US intelligence agencies' involvement in the JFK assassination- one touchy (and important) subject. And while it certainly seems clear that David Phillips lied to Fonzi regarding the identity of Maurice Bishop (an alias that Phillips used), just because Bishop/Phillips was seen in a Dallas lobby talking with Oswald a month before the assassination, it doesn't necessarily mean that Phillips had a hand in the assassination. In fact, in Ultimate Sacrifice, we are led to believe that Phillips was setting Oswald up to be a patsy for an assassination of Castro. (The same could be said of Morales' quote, "We got those little...(expletive)"...referring to JFK and then RFK. The use of 'we' does not establish direct involvement in an assassination. In short, while I sympathize with those working on uncovering a JFK (or RFK) conspiracy, the fact remains that there's very little here that demonstrates direct involvement in the planning and/or carrying out (or covering up) of the JFK assassination (at the end of the book, Fonzi writes that Oswald and Phillips had to be up to something connected with the planning of the JFK assassination because if they weren't, then why would Phillips later lie to him about it? Well...? I can think of a few good reasons...). Garrison's "On the Trail of the Assassins" is far more eye-popping in this important respect. The Last Investigation is, I agree, an important contribution. But, in the end, it's too far removed from the events surrounding November 22nd, 1963 to be considered the smoking gun that conspiracy theorist minded folks like myself yearn for.

What most attracted me about this book was the fact that its author, Gaeton Fonzi, is an investigator who can write not based on other researchers' data and conclusions, but on the evidence he himself gathered during the House Committee on Assassinations lifetime.
In this book you will learn about how the CIA planted a fake "communist" Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City in order to put the blame on Communists, specifically Fidel Castro. Fonzi greatly reinforced my conviction that the CIA was behind this coup d'etat.

America owes a debt of gratitude to Gaeton Fonzi, former House Select Commitee on Assassinations investigator.
The HSCA was formed to give we the people the truth about the Asassination Conspiracy of President John F Kennedy, but instead, tons of HSCA documents are sealed away for decades to come!
What the HSCA didnt want to make too public, and what the media has totally hidden, is that the HSCA investigation proves once and for all that Lee Oswald was being framed for the assassination MONTHS before it happened!
Gaeton Fonzi is one of the few investigators for the HSCA who has gone against the grain, and who has come out to tell the American People the truth. He did so by writing this book.
One of the main points of Fonzi's book, is that CIA man "Maurice Bishop", was an alias used by David Atlee Phillips, former head of the CIA's Western Hemisphere division!
The identity of "Bishop" has long kept JFK assassination researchers interested because "Bishop" was seen with Lee Oswald in Dallas not long before the assassination, proving that the CIA had a link with Oswald, even though they said they didnt.
Couple this with the fact that Philips ("Bishop") did work for the CIA in Mexico City WHERE AN OSWALD IMPERSONATOR FRAMED HIM (Oswald) BEFORE THE ASSASSINATION, and the JFK murder mystery becomes much clearer.

Another good companion volume to Ultimate Sacrifice
Former Senate investigator Gaeton Fonzi, of whom I have corresponded with, is to be commended for writing an excellent book about the HSCA, Cuba, and the JFK assassination. It is scholarly works like this that give the research community a good name. Get this!
Vince Palamara
Secret Service expert, author of 2 books, in over 32 other author's books, History Channel,etc.

I highly recommend former HSCA investigator Gaeton Fonzi's book, as it is a great companion volume to Ultimate Sacrifice. Fonzi's book is very well written and put together. You can't go wrong with this one. Get it!
vince palamara

Isaiah Berlin is one of the most important philosophers of liberty and freedom in the 20th century.

He is a liberal in the old sense of the word (the 19th century sense). His views on liberty and freedom have shaped many thinkers especially those that came out of the Chicago school. His writings were against "totalitarian" systems in which he had some experience with. He surveys the theoretical meanings of what "liberty" is and provides his own constructs.

He discusses positive and negative senses of liberty.

His views have been cited by Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer in Breyer's most recent book, Active Liberty: Interpreting Our Democratic Constitution. It is not clear whether Berlin would support Justice Breyer's extension of his views, but I believe Justice Breyer was seeking to define his own "Active Liberty" concept by using the positive aspect of liberty discussed by Berlin.

Isaiah Berlin is a very important 20th century philosopher (a political philosopher or political scientist as well) and this is a very important book consisting of his essays. I highly recommend it.

Liberty is a very precious and rare quality of a living condition.
As I. Berlin states, `The periods and societies in which civil liberties were respected, and variety of opinion and faith tolerated, have been very few and far between, oases in the desert of human uniformity, intolerance and oppression.'

I. Berlin explains clearly that liberty has two faces: a positive and a negative one.
Positive liberty is the answer to the question: who controls? Am I my own master?
Negative liberty circumscribes the area wherein a third person can prevent anybody to make a free choice.
On these bases, a free society can be organized, with 1) absolute rights (not absolute powers) and 2) frontiers, defined in terms of rules, within which men should be inviolable.
For the author, freedom is not an end, but a means to create `room for personal ends', for happiness. He rightly criticizes E. Fromm: freedom is the opportunity to act, not action itself.

Philosophically, freedom has been ferociously contested by the determinists, the defenders of `historical inevitability' (Hegel, Marx, Bacon, Fourier, Comte). The author remarks judiciously that if the world is ruled by determinism, nobody is responsible: there is no free will, no morality, and no justice. Individual choice is an illusion. Determinism represents the world as a prison.
A more brutal kind of determinism is presented by those who believe that there is a final answer, a unique goal, a central principle that governs our life. This principle and its executioners provoked barbarous consequences.

Isaiah Berlin's reflections on liberty are profound and still very actual.
Not to be missed.

Berlin's considerable reputation rests largely on his essays. In his chosen areas of political philosophy and intellectual history, he produced no major systematic works. His essays, particularly those in the history of ideas, are long, insightful, and informed by impressive breadth of knowledge and a humane temperament. He was a consistently excellent and sometimes elegant writer. Of all his essays, he felt his most substantial work was the writings on Liberty collected in this volume. The core of this book is the Four Essays on Liberty, which appeared originally as a book of that title about 40 years ago.
How good are these essays? They were written originally in the late 1940s through late 1950s and were directed, at least in part, at issues that preoccupied British intellectuals of that period. The backdrop was the Cold War, and debates about the justification of socialist ideals and the nature of socialism. Most of these essays have not worn well. I don't think there is much original or profound in either the first or last essays of the four; Political Ideas in the 20th Century, and John Stuart Mill and the Ends of Life. I suspect most critical readers will find the essay entitled Historical Inevitability to be fairly pedestrian. This leaves the most celebrated of these essays, Two Concepts of Liberty. It is on this essay and some of his best historical studies that Berlin's reputation rests.
In Two Concepts, Berlin developed his famous distinction between "negative" and "positive" concepts of liberty. He particularly focused on how a certain rationalist conception of "positive" liberty can become, though often via a tortuous route, a justification for attacks on "negative" liberty and assault basic human rights. Berlin argues that this conception of "positive" liberty leads to the great crimes of the 20th century. This leads to an eloquent plea for some form of pluralism in regard to ultimate human goals. Berlin develops this argument brilliantly and with a self-assured writing style that is a pleasure to read.
But how good is his argument? As he himself points out, there are circumstances underwhich the distinction between "negative" and "positive" liberty can be cloudy, casting doubt on the utility and reality of this distinction. He is incorrect in assigning blame for all the terrible crimes of the 20th century to the rationalist view of "positive" liberty. This is certainly a fair criticism with respect to Marxism and the great crimes of Marxist states. But does it apply to Fascism and violent nationalism? These movements were marked by wholesale rejection of rationalism and exaltation of emotion, quite different from what he describes as the rationalist wellspring of all the crimes of the 20th century.
Berlin is an interesting and thought provoking essayist but not a major figure in political thought or intellectual history.

I read this book for a graduate class in Philosophy. Berlin in the book is talking about different understandings on liberty. How do liberals think about liberty? Not only liberals think about liberty, many isms do, there are many different ways to think about liberty. Berlin makes a few distinctions on liberty. In "Two Concepts of Liberty," he distinguishes between political liberty and individual Liberty. Political Liberty, democratic liberty having a vote and participating, like in Greek city-state. No limit on power of the government over any aspect of citizen's life, but a citizen has some control over government through his vote. Not all are citizens, women, slaves, etc. Liberals are interested in individual liberty; choose the activities they want to do. A tension between Political Liberty and Individual Liberty. Political Liberty implies that there is majority rule through the vote. Maybe a majority won't impose on people, but that can change through the majority vote. If you have a system that you set up to insure certain individual rights like the U.S. does you protect certain liberties like the 1st amendment to free speech. These rights are taken away from voting on by the majority and to change them you need a super majority. This takes away Political Liberty, so there is that antagonism between both liberties. Unless you are an anarchist, there are certain functions and liberties that must be given up to the government. The more individual freedoms you keep from government the less value Political Liberty has to citizens the fewer things we get to decide.

The famous concepts Berlin distinguishes between are Positive Liberty and Negative Liberty. 1. Positive Liberty means self-control over your own life. 2. Negative liberty means you are free from interference from other people. Other people can't force you to do something. Positive liberty is self-mastery, self-control. Negative liberty means you are free from interference from other people. Others can't compel you to act in a way you don't want to act. At first these sound like two sides of the same coin. What Berlin points out historically is that people who believe in Positive Liberty have taken it in a very different direction than those that believe in Negative Liberty. What they (Positive Liberty adherents) have done is to infer that from each person you can distinguish between what he or she thinks he or she wants, and what his or her better self or true self would want. Therefore, there is this idea that we all might have certain desires that we want but that they are not expressive of our real essence. An obvious case is an addict who has some part of them that really don't want the drug. Even though they put all their time and energy in getting the drug it might be tempting to think that they really don't want the drug. Once they got the distinction between ordinary desires that you are aware of and the desires that you truly want, then the Positive Liberty people are tempted to say that for someone to really have charge of their life to really have liberty than we have to make sure that they are doing what their true self wants to do, not the self that they are consciously aware of, not the self not the desires that seem to them to be strongest. But what the angels of their better nature want, that's real freedom. Even when the person is protesting that that isn't what they want, if you are making them do what their true self wants really then you are making them do good. Kant would be a supporter of this view.

We have two aspects of human nature. The numeral self and nominal self. The numeral self is our true self and is the basis of morality this is why we are morally obligated to do things because our true self accepts a certain kind of law and imposes it on us. We are obligated to obey it because it is a law our true self chooses even though we may not be consciously aware of it, we may have all kinds of desires pulling us in different directions. We are obligated to do it because it is what our true self chooses. Rousseau is very much in this tradition. He says people can be forced to be free. Historically, this is the direction that many people who believe in Positive Liberty go in.

The Negative liberty people tend to say that other people don't tell them what to do. They could have gone the same route thinking about two kinds of selves, and they could say negative liberty is when your lower self doesn't tell your higher self what to do, but that historically hasn't happened. That is not the kind of liberty they have been thinking about. Liberals generally belong to this kind of negative liberty position. The kind of liberty liberals tend to care about is freedom from other individuals or the government. Free to the extent no one tells you what to do, none of this true self-stuff. You are free if other people can't stop you from doing what you want to do. All the different liberals are going to believe that people should have a significant amount of this kind of (negative), liberty. All the critics of liberalism are not all going to want to take all this kind of liberty away, but they are going to definitely say that liberty is not as important as the liberals think it is and that it ought to be restricted in some significant ways.

Berlin says, once you see how the Positive Liberty idea was developed, it turns out not to have the same kind of tension with Political Liberty that Negative Liberty does. Since, you could always have the view what peoples true selves want can be discovered by a kind of democratic process, so that what the majority votes for is what everyone wants, even the minority, they just didn't really know what they wanted. We all really want what is best for our community, as Rousseau would say.

Recommended reading for anyone interested in philosophy, political science, and history.

Henry Hardy the devoted student and editor of the work of Isaiah Berlin has reedited and expanded Berlin's on Liberty. These essays are at the heart of Berlin's liberal political philsophy. And their most well- known conception is the distinction between 'negative and positive liberty'.
This is the way Wikipedia makes the distinction.

"He defined negative liberty as the absence of constraints on, or interference with, agents' possible action. I am more "negatively free" to the extent that fewer opportunities for possible action are foreclosed or interfered with. Positive liberty he associated with the idea of self-mastery, or the capacity to determine oneself, to be in control of one's destiny. While Berlin granted that both concepts of liberty represent valid human ideals, he believed that as a matter of history, the positive concept of liberty has proven more susceptible to political abuse. He argued that under the influence of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Immanuel Kant and G.W.F. Hegel (all committed to the positive concept of liberty), European political thinkers were frequently tempted to equate liberty with forms of political discipline or constraint. This became politically dangerous when the relevant ideals of positive liberty were, in the course of the 19th century, used to defend ideals of national self-determination, imperatives of democratic self-government, and the communist notion of humanity collectively asserting rational control over its own destiny. In this way of thinking, Berlin contended, demands for freedom paradoxically become demands for forms of collective control and discipline - those deemed necessary for the "self-mastery" or self-determination of nations, classes, democratic communities, and perhaps of humanity as a whole. There is thus an elective affinity, for Berlin, between positive liberty and political totalitarianism."

Another of Berlin's major essays in this work deals with the conception of 'Historical Inevitability'. Here he is most fierce in his critique of Marxism with its posited inevitable stages of history. Something of a great man himself, Berlin was a strong champion of the idea that great individuals shape human events, and introduce novel transformations of reality.

A third center of Berlin's thought has to do with his 'pluralism' his sense of the differing ideals and values different societies have. His pluralism however is what he called an 'objective pluralism' as he thought that there are certain values such as 'individual liberty' which should prevail in all societies.

Ultimately though he claimed that both for the individual and for society 'ideal ends' often conflict, and that perfect realization in action, is therefore impossible. Life for Berlin moral decision for Berlin thus has a tragic element of incompleteness and contradiction.
In this sense of our limitation deriving from our own ideal ends and actions, Berlin 's thought ultimately corresponds to arguments concerning the limitations of Mind which have been made in modern thought regard to a wide variety of other areas of human inquiry, from theology to mathematics.

I came to "Life 102" a bit late in the game, I guess, and via an unorthodox trajectory. I knew of McWilliams not from his ahead-of-the-curve computer books in the 1980s (distinctly before my time), nor from his bestselling self-help books "co-authored" with MSIA guru John-Roger (essentially before my time), but instead from his "Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do." That brilliant, rambling, flawed and insightful manifesto for the social libertarian movement contained in its original edition an attack on the Cult Awareness Network, an attack I thought meshed uncomfortably with the freethought positions otherwise advocated by the author. Thankfully, McWilliams clarified this discontinuity in the paperback edition of "Business," noting that he had been so emphatically anti-cult because...well, he was *in* one at the time. And for more information...

Most of my generation has, in all likelihood, never heard of the MSIA and its guru John-Roger, which are McWilliams's targets (and his targeters, given the unfortunate after-story of this book and its current copyright status) in this entertaining semi-narrative, semi-confession, semi-exposé. New Religious Movements have long since been absorbed into the catch-all of the "new age;" separate organizations like MSIA, TM, the Hare Krishnas, and so on almost seem anarchronistic in this light. The relative obscurity of MSIA actually works to McWilliams's advantage, as he can demonstrate in a "bias vacuum" (something not possible with flashpoint topics like the Unification Church of Scientology) how nobody-NOBODY-is immune to reprogramming.

I'm getting ahead of myself, however. As I mentioned before, "Life 102" is a combination of a confession, biography, narrative, and exposé. McWilliams writes at one point that it represents a catharsis, a way of organizing his thoughts as his legal battles with MSIA loomed. Unsurprisingly, then, "Life 102" is a very roaming narrative. McWilliams constructs a very loose historical framework--the book roughly chronicles the whys, hows, whats, whos, and whens--and feels free to digress when needed, whether to explain, pontificate, or delve further into the "sociopathic" personality of MSIA's founder.

And while McWilliams is clearly bitter, he never lets his bitterness overshadow his core principles. The spirit of "Ain't Nobody's Business" looms over this text. McWilliams claims that he isn't out to show that MSIA is a scam, its principles fraudulent, and its techniques worthless; he maintains to the end that people are free to believe whatever they want, no matter how absurd. Knowing that the testimony of an apostate, and especially an apostate engaged in a legal battle, does not represent the most trustworthy source of information, he ingeniously allows the MSIA and its founder to hang themselves, by liberally quoting MSIA scripture, personal correspondence, and other damning evidence. On one hand, this is likely what led to the withdrawal of "Life 102" from the marketplace; on the other, if even 75% of these transcripts are accurate...

To draw a parallel, it's one thing for opponents of Scientology to claim that L. Ron Hubbard was scientifically ignorant; it's another thing entirely to hear Hubbard's own voice extolling the benefits of cigarette smoking (it cures cancer).

At its core, though, "Life 102" is a cautionary confession, and as other reviewers have noted, it's in this capacity that the book truly shines. Anybody who's ever shaken his head at a bizarre belief system, or wondered how people could *fall* for something so transparent...well, here's your answer. McWilliams may be far from everyman, but he's still an intelligent, funny, perceptive guy who fell under the spell of a movement whose theology (when presented in a detached manner) seems reasonably below the giggle-test cut off. McWilliams maintains that abusive relationships with "cults" are really no different from abusive relationships with people, food, television, spouses, or anything else; reprogramming, he emphasizes, can happen to anybody, at anytime, anyplace, and indeed goes on all the time. He stresses that the stereotype of a "cult member" as a zombiefied, unrecognizable person couldn't be further from the truth. In MSIA, Peter McWilliams was still Peter McWilliams, but used his intelligence, cleverness, and perception to further his activities in the movement. MSIA became a framework, and inside of that framework everything was A-OK. McWilliams may not convince those who believe that they are above the reach of reprogramming, but he at the very least provides a compelling testimony.

The book itself is a delightful read; as one prior reviewer noted, Williams is hardly Tolstoy (except perhaps in volume!), yet his relaxed, conversational style perfectly meshes with the form and function of the book. McWilliams's approach isn't really in the scholarly tradition, yet he knows to present examples and cite evidence to lend weight to even the most bizarre anecdotes. Even the chapters of less universal consequence, like the oh-so-dishy (but still friendly) chapter on Arianna Huffington circa 1994, are fabulously entertaining, especially in hindsight (one aside about Arianna's unsuitability for "anonymous phone voices" is particularly giggle-worthy). The only real time bitterness and hurt come to the surface are in the chapters on John-Roger, and in between the self-deprecating "why was I so naïve?" lamentations, one senses the true source of McWilliams discord. He had done TM, been a Catholic, and so on, and while he no longer adhered to those doctrines, he had walked away with no more than cursory scars. His asides about the Maharishi, while not universally flattering, have no malice to them. John-Roger, though, is different: John-Roger actively sought to manipulate Peter's fears and insecurities for his own ends, and it is *that* regret that drives McWilliam's resentment.

Verdict: "Life 102," while no scholarly treatise, is one of the most informative books on manipulation and personally cults I've ever had the privilege of reading. Its tragic historical context-in the events that inspired the book, in its immediate aftermath, and in McWilliams's horrific and untimely death-lends it all the more power.

How do I know it's true? I used to be a member of this cult and I know most of the people he talks about. Even when he doesn't mention them by name, I know who he means because of their circumstances. So I wondered if it was my former involvement that made the book such an incredible page-turner for me. But I've since let others read it -- people who never heard of MSIA before -- and they felt the same way. It's non-fiction but reads like the most compelling of novels, all the while enlightening readers to the ways we are all prone to mental programming...from cults, religions, governments, advertisers... ..any person or institution that might seek to benefit from controlling the way we think. If you only read one book about mind control, READ THIS BOOK! It's worth every penny, no matter how much the used copies are selling for. You might be surprised to learn that your mind is not as free as you thought...

Life 102 is something of a specialist's text. The average reader in search of juicy scandal might be overloaded with the level of detail in Mc Williams' book.

Contrasted with Steven Pressman's expose of John Rosenberg who became Jack Frost who became Kurt Wilhelm Von Savage who became Werner Hans Erhard in the book _Outrageous Betrayal, The Dark Journey Of Werner Erhard From EST to Exile_, McWilliams' treatement of his subject is far more personal, nuanced, and interior.

Both Pressman, a reporter who sought to unravel an objective fact pattern that existed behind the "Werner" persona, and McWilliams, a self help author, describe on an identifiable psychological type, the Narcisstic Charismatic.

Sinclair Lewis' fictional creation, the preacher Elmer Gantry,
is in all probability the best extended meditation on the Narcisstic Charismatic. Life 102 often reads like a surreal retelling of Elmer Gantry with a dollop of Flannery O'Conner's _Wise Blood_, a goodly helping of Madame Blavatsky, some fringe science fiction, and a shot of daytime television game shows seen under the influence of mind altering substances.

A very useful and compact work, _Hypnotic Leadership_ by Micha Popper, will be necessary reading for those who wish to have a better psychodynamic grasp of this subject.

McWilliams appears to be in the last throes of ambivalence with Life 102, as he has neither Pressman's journalistic ability to tightly edit his thoughts, nor Popper's academic clarity, nor Sinclair Lewis' gifts as a storyteller.

He does, however, offer an exceptionally detailed study of the thought processes which animate the Leader figure as well as those of the Followers. McWilliams has found himself in the unique position of being able to look both ways, how does the Leader impose his will on his group, and how the group enables and empowers the Leader. One soon detects the outline of a dialectical process of the Leader and the Follower creating and shaping one another in a stable, hermetic "reality maintenance contract".

The major task before this field is that of shifting from the idea of the Leader as an alien force that captures unsuspecting souls in his tractor beams to that of appreciating that the Leader is more a creation of his Followers (who then willingly transfer their inner authority over to him) than the Followers are a creation of the Leader.

The Narcissistic Charismatic appears to be a disturbed personality type who might otherwise be marginalized or ridiculed, but under certain social circumstances discovers the perfect fertile soil for his "gift" to bear fruit.

Peter McWilliams has done an excellent (thorough to the point of tedium) job of capturing many salient details that other writers have glossed over as mere noise or simple too much effort to belabor. However, in paying close attention to these datails, much like examining a good specimen under a microscope, one can indeed fill out one's mental portrait of the Narcisstic Charismatic personality type, his tactics of "thought judo", his obsession with loyalty and betrayal, the gradual hardening of the personality, the wish to invent a parallel reality in which one is a deity or a superbeing, the gross discrepancies between the way the Followers perceive the Leader (his hygeine, his idiosyncracies, the meaning of his behavior and utterances) and a more objective, indifferent observer would.

For these reasons Life 102 is highly recommended for all students of the Narcisstic Charismatic personality, not as great literature, but as a highly detailed blueprint of this style and how it operates.

This book is a fantastic story about the "cult" personality, and the types of people and behavior that surround such people. It's a valuable story for everyone, as these kinds of people and groups can be anywhere. It isn't just one nutjob in Santa Monica.

It is also incredible to see the afterlife of this book, with Peter's tragic illness, and the subsequent sale of the copyright to said nutjob.

God bless you, Peter McWilliams.

This is a very entertaining, cautionary tale about a cult leader and his former devotee. Excellent reading, even if a bit too long. Poor McWilliams certainly got his share of bad Karma! This is the first book of his that I've read and it was worth every penny. Now I'm going to have to buy at least one more (must make sure it doesn't have J-R's name on it!).

If I had told friends I was reading about alleged disease in sheep they would have missed the true significance of this book. It's about big government intervention against the rights of citizens. It's about a Vermont family's creativity and dedication and how all of that was trampled by the USDA run amok. It's also about what happens when special interests and lobbyists overwhelm a government agency.

It really was a page turner.

This book is about a small family with a few imported sheep, who became embroiled in a whirlwind of government conspiracy regarding the big beef industry, international trade, manipulated scientific data, and the irresponsible panic of one powerful government agent regarding Mad Cow disease. The result was the terrorizing of a family, murder of healthy sheep, and the disillusionment of anyone interested in healthy eating or in the ability of their government to protect their right eat safely.

If you have any suspicions that the USDA is not monitoring agriculture and food safety the way they should, this book is a must-read. It tells the story of a family farm destroyed by the government agency designed to protect food safety. Mixed messages, lies, secrets, big business pressures, international trade, spies, good science and poor science--they're all in here, interspersed with the very personal details of a mother who watched her children's hearts broken as they were betrayed by their government.

I find it ironic that this book brought to mind the works of the "muckrakers" of the early 20th century. After Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" revealed the horrific conditions of the meat packing industry in the US, the government responded by creating the USDA. It is that very agency which is at the heart of Linda Faillace's fight with her government and with the USDA's highly questionable science and politics. Theodore Roosevelt gave a speech in 1906 about the "muckrakers" (who were really just the first investigative journalists.) In his speech he said:

"There are, in the body politic, economic and social, many and grave evils, and there is urgent necessity for the sternest war upon them. There should be relentless exposure of and attack upon every evil man whether politician or business man, every evil practice, whether in politics, in business, or in social life. I hail as a benefactor every writer or speaker, every man who, on the platform, or in book, magazine, or newspaper, with merciless severity makes such attack, provided always that he in his turn remembers that the attack is of use only if it is absolutely truthful."

Even if Linda Faillace's story is colored by righteous anger and bitterness, the truth is in the details. She and her husband are well educated scientists, and back up their side of the story very clearly and persuasively.

That seems to be the biggest question one has to ask by the end of this very sad story. It was sad on so many levels. It was sad because the Faillace's lost an opportunity to begin a new agricultural venture for a state that badly needs sustainable small agriculture. It was sad because they lost animals they dearly cared for. They had to send house raised bottle lambs on a trailer with sheep they weren't used to. To have perfectly healthy animals seized by a government for no good reason was devastating. It was sad because the Faillace's and their children were failed by the duly elected representatives, both Senator Leahy and Governor Dean waffled back and forth and never really did back them up to the degree they should have (and these were DEMOCRATS not corporate hugging Republicans). It was amazing that Howard Dean, a medical doctor, said the science was too complicated for him (I wonder how he ever got through medical school!). It was sad because once again it was demonstrated that our government cannot be trusted to do what is best for the little guy, that, in point of fact, the little guy is at the mercy of the wishes of bigger guys.

One question that occurred to me at the end of the book is this. After the tainted beef (BSE tainted that is) was sold and consumed did anyone think about putting an immediate freeze on organ donations from any person who might have eaten ground beef in the states that received the tainted beef? I seriously doubt it. Yet people who lived in England during the time of the BSE outbreak are not allowed to be organ donors. I know this because my sister died a couple of years ago from natural causes (not CJ disease), at the time of her death the hospital was informed that she spent 6 months in England during the BSE outbreak. Her corneas, etc. were declined because of that.

It's amazing how much energy went into making the Faillace's look like dangerous people in the mind of the public. It's amazing how quickly the actual exposure of consumers to BSE tainted meat was hushed up. It's not amazing, given the information in this book, that organic farmers of all types don't trust the government. It's amazing, given the information in this book, that consumers do.

In 2001 after months of surveillance and harassment armed federal agents seized a flock of some 100 organically-raised dairy sheep. One might think this an isolated incident, but MAD SHEEP: THE TRUE STORY BEHIND THE USDA'S WAR ON A FAMILY FARM holds implications for farming and food distribution channels as a whole. USDA chief Linda Detweiler claimed the imported sheep had been exposed to a disease, but the flock's owners - here, the authors - weren't about to let the judgement pass silently: they weren't just farmers but scientists, and demonstrated the impossibility of their sheep being infected. And then the fight really begins - documented here in eye-opening pages of detail.

Diane C. Donovan
California Bookwatch

We tend to forget that this country was founded on agricultural principles. With the industrialization of food, farmers have come under scrutiny by various agencies of the government because of the multi-national business arrangements they, particularly the USDA, have. Mad Sheep is a perfect example of what is happening on family farms in the United States. Driven by greed and fueled by fear of being condemned in the global market, USDA makes up a scenario that could absolutely not happen, that being BSE in sheep, and ruins the dreams of another law abiding family.

I read this book in just 24 hours. It has been a long time since a book just wouldn't let me put it down. Perhaps it is because I too am a homesteader and have sheep every year. When the USDA came to take the Falliace's sheep, my tears started to flow, hard.

Mr and Mrs Consumer who know nothing about farming, know nothing about where your food really comes from, know nothing about the encroachment of the government into our personal lives, you need to read this book to get a glimpse of what life will be like for you once an agency of the government decides they want something that you have.

In the dangerous post 9/11 world we live in today, Giandomenico Picco's "Man without a Gun" should be a primer for anyone wanting to understand the complex intricacies of Middle East politics. "Man without a Gun" is an unique firsthand account of Mr. Picco's diplomatic experiences at the UN during the 1980s and early 1990s. The setting of "Man without a Gun" takes place in some of the most volatile areas of the world: Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon and Israel.

It is fascinating to read Mr. Picco's first hand account from someone who successfully negotiated some of the most intractable crisis of the late 20th century including: Afghanistan/ Soviet-Russia war, Iran/ Iraq war and the Lebanon hostage crisis. Very interesting for US readers is that Mr Picco as an Italian and a UN diplomat, provides an important outside the Beltway perspective that Americans need to hear. Too often the US views the world as black and white, this simplistic world view has been the cause of many misguided US policies, not the least was our myopic view of communism. Mr. Picco refers to this US narrow world view when he describes how the US continued to provide arms to the Afghanistan Mujahideen in violation of the peace treaty signed with Soviet Union in 1988. Ultimately, the US arms hasten the fall of the Afghanistan government in 1992 that led to more fighting and ultimately led to the notorious anti Western Taliban regime.

The highlight of the "Man without a Gun" is Mr. Picco's successful efforts to free the Western hostages based in Lebanon. Its a fascinating to learn about the behind the scenes intrigue and the Herculean efforts pursued by Mr Picco in the Middle East and beyond to free the hostages. At a great personal risk, Mr Picco describes how he made secret rendezvous with the hostage takers and gradually over time earned their trust that formed the basis of the successful negotiations to release the hostages.

Unlike so much of the disturbing news coming today from the Middle East tinderbox, during Mr. Picco's tenure at the UN there was a streak of successfully negotiations with this part of the world and there seemed to be genuine hope for deceleration of tension in the Mid East. "Man without a Gun" provides insightful lessons on how the West can co-exist with the Middle East regimes. It is a shame that Mr. Picco's book is currently out of print, "Man without a Gun" should be re-issued so that more readers can have access to Mr. Picco's vast experience and excellent analysis.

I recently happened on to this book and bought one used from Amazon. I found it to be an interesting and very personal account of dealing with Iran behind the scenes. I think it is helpful and very applicable to the current situation with Iran. I found it to also be a quick and easy read that kept my attention throughout. You will like it - enjoy!

Picco's vivid description of his courageous efforts to win the freedom of all persons (not just the Western hostages) who became involuntary pawns in the politics of Lebanon's civil war is fascinating indeed. The most remarkable aspect of Picco's work was his ability to gain and keep the trust of the kidnappers, despite the actions of the U.S. and Israeli governments which often undermined his efforts.

Picco is to be commended for risking his life on multiple occassions to save the lives of people whom he had never met. He did it because it was the right thing to do. Picco is a remarkable diplomat who simultaneously juggled the conflicting interests of the kidnappers, Iran, Israel, Syria and the United States.

This was definitely a story that needed to be told. I'd recommend this book to anyone who wants to learn more about the now largely forgotten hostage crisis in Lebanon.

Thanks for enriching and inspiring us again with your views on the true art of diplomacy. This book represents the materialization of something we were all waiting for after your unforgettable lessons in Gorizia. Credibility's once again is what will ultimately make us succeed in achieving results, a notion that may go, as it is masterfully explained in this great book, as far as saving human lives. Ancora grazie!

I found this book to be absolutely fascinating. I went into it with a limited memory of what I had heard through the news of the time of the hostages and the Iran-Iraq war, but came out with a much deeper understanding - not only of the times, but also of the people, the real players. I have come to appreciate the work of the brave Mr. Picco and those who worked along with him, and I am grateful for their service to those who could not serve themselves.

Mark Danner's short book, The Massacre at El Mozote, is an extremely powerful depiction of not only what can go wrong with US foreign policy, but of the lengths politicians will go through to convince us that what they are doing is, in fact, right. The thoroughness and integrity of Danner's investigation cannot be disputed; on top of that, he is very adept at leaving readers to draw their own conclusions. The book may be the Hiroshima of our times.

While I agree with earlier reviewers, especially the point that what appears to be propaganda should not be immediately dismissed as such, I think the real lesson of the book is that the US, as a leader in world affairs, needs to choose its "friends" very carefully. Danner's book made me realize that while the US likes to shape Latin American policy, in point of fact the powerful "Good Neighbor" to the north is often manipulated by the very regimes it seeks to control. And as citizens of this great country, we have a hard time imagining such a thing.

The butchers of the El Salvador government, trained and financed by the US, knew that they could commit whatever atrocities they wished so long as they opposed the socialist rebels. Consequently, in December 1981, they murdered 767 people at El Mozote and in surrounding villages with impunity because they understood that the political stakes were much higher in Washington once the Reagan administration had committed itself to supporting the status quo. In its frantic attempts to dispute or to ignore the details of the massacre, the Reagan administration-which liked to portray itself as hard-line-really appears as the spineless weakling in this whole affair. Truly, the "tail wagged the dog."

This is an important lesson to bear in mind as the US conducts a new war on terrorism (the Communists having been vanquished years ago). Is our country going to find itself supporting human rights abusers once again because our leaders are afraid of political fallout, by appearing to be weak on combating terrorism or inept at finding WMDs? Human rights--and especially the right to life itself--should be the criteria our government considers when it decides to throw its support behind a foreign government.

I read this book for a college course I am taking that focuses on the struggle between colonizing nations and those nations that are colonized. Looking through this perspective, Danner writes a meaningful account of the massacre at El Mozote, El Salvador that captures enough emotion but still maintains some distance to avoid a blatant bias (towards the guerillas, namely).

This read is not for the weak stomached, as Danner does go into detail as to how many of the townspeople of El Mozote and the surrounding areas were killed. In order to emphasize the brutality that the government allowed, he does recount the slaughter of babies and young children. However, he does later make up for these descriptions through the dealings with the military and its leaders, the relationships of the US and El Salvador, and globally speaking, a fight (perhaps) between the US and the USSR.

This book is well written and easy to follow. Danner does a good job of getting everything said succinctly and it gives an interesting perspective in the minds of many of those involved with the happenings of El Salvador at the time, mainly major leaders from both the guerilla side and the military side. His interviews with these significant people help Danner depict a scene that goes beyond the scope of this one massacre that happens in the small town of El Mozote. He broadens the scope to include the implications this event would later have on the future.

This is probably one of the best books I've read in a while. I had to read it for a history class at Furman University, but it's one I definitley would have read on my own as well. It tells a heart-wrenching story, but gives the facts as they are. Not necessarily an easy story to hear, but one that I feel everyone should know about. It's fairly easy to read and isn't too history-like (a lot of facts, no emotion, confusing to follow). I recommend this book for anyone willing to learn about Latin America, and especially the part that the US plays in allowing things like this to happen.

Mark Danner has written a marvelously researched and page-turning account of one of the larger attrocities in Central America committed by U.S. trained, supervised and funded armies. After the American War in Vietnam, the U.S. made a strategic decision to pay the locals to do our fighting. In other words, a proxy war. Lieutenant Colonel Domingo Monterrosa, the crafty, spirited and charismatic officer who commanded the Salvadoran forces at El Mozote, trained in Panama at the U.S. training installation later moved to Ft. Benning, Georgia and named the School of the Americas. Graduates of the SOA have been implicated in the murders of thousands of civilians, Archbishop Romero and American nuns and priests.

What I found most interesting, contrary to my previous opinion, is that the Ambassador and at least several American officials in San Salvador believed something terrible had happened in El Mozote. Without access to the site - it had been recaptured by the FMLN rebels - they could prove nothing. Nevertheless, they attempted to communicate their fears to Washington. Washington decided not to believe. Instead, the New York Times recalled one of the reporters who had been to the site at FMLN invitation and had seen the bodies. The story seemed unbelievable.

The story was, of course, Communist propaganda and therefore not to be believed. Well, yes, the FMLN did broadcast the story with the intent of influencing Salvadorans and Americans. It was propaganda. It was also true.

There is a parallel in U.S. history. (There may be more than one.) During the 1920's and 30's and even later, the American and European press was rife with reports of mass murders in the Soviet Union. The press reporting these attrocities had for years been reporting and editorializing against the Soviet threat and Communist revolution, many times exaggerating or being more than a little creative. They had also supported the American-British-French invasion of the Soviet Union after WWI. Liberals regarded these sources as unreliable and untrustworthy, and continued to defend Stalin. The liberals were right, of course, just as the Reagan Administration was right: the reports were propaganda. The reports were also true.

Sometimes the enemy is right. We should take care to listen.

I read The Massacre at El Mozote immediately after finishing Mark Bowden's Killing Pablo (I was clearly in the mood, at the time, for books revolving around U.S. military/political affairs in Latin America). I absolutely loved Bowden's book but only liked Danner's. I found the prose in El Mozote to be rather dense and fleshy, especially in the first 30 or so pages of the book. Danner's overuse of comma-offset clauses tends to muddle his sentences. But once he cut to the chase, it was much easier to follow along and really get into the action. Overall, it was an eye-opening read, well researched and presented. I really do think that reading Killing Pablo immediately prior to picking up El Mozote colored my opinion tremendously, since I literally was enthralled by Bowden's fast-paced, detailed, page-turning prose and thus somewhat put off by Danner's paragraphs-long sentences.

Randy Shilts's intricately researched biography of one of the greatest gay activists of all time, Harvey Milk, is not only a political biography, but a chronology of an entire political movement.
This is the second book I've read by Randy Shilts, the first being And the Band Played On. While there are certainly some differences between the two, Shilts's imaginative narrative writing is the same. The Mayor of Castro Street is proof positive that he [the author] can turn even the most mundane of political machinations into high drama.
Starting out when Harvey Milk was growing up in Woodmere, New York, the book traces his life from there. From his high school athletic career, to his college years, his time with the Navy, and his Manhattan years. When Harvey makes the move from New York to San Francisco, the book changes pace, and a gay political hero is born. The book is filled with snippets of his speeches, and in the back appendices, the eloquent words of Harvey Milk come alive, as some of his more famous speeches are reprinted there.
At a solid 380 pages (including appendices and sources) the book never drags. Everything appears to be cause and effect, which makes for some white-knuckle reading even if the reader is already familiar with the budding gay movement, Harvey Milk's participation in it, and the untimely tragic assassination of he and Mayor George Moscone by a homophobic zealot.
I must admit, there were certain parts of this book that gave me chills: Harvey Milk's beautiful speeches, the candlelight vigils, the many marches, and the White Night Riots. The sheer epic proportions of it all can overwhelming.
However, epic or not, this remains the simple story of a man and his dream, vision, and hope for his gay brothers and sisters, and all of humanity.

Beyond the frank and up front story of the life of Harvey Milk, this book is an incredible source of information and understanding of the gay rights movement from before its beginning to after the death of Supervisor Milk. Easy to read, albeit long, it's definitely worth the effort. No matter your sexual orientation, this brings new light to an often misunderstood movement.

I read a lot of biographies and, while I love the genre, I'm often disappointed with the writing. This book, by the late Randy Shilts, is an exception. Shilts was a great writer, able to take a variety of facts and put them into readable passages (his "And the Band Played On" is another good example of this). Harvey Milk and the San Francisco of the 1970s come to life in this book. The tragedy of Milk's assassination and its aftermath are rendered in gripping detail.

In The Mayor of Castro Street, the late Randy Shilts paints a vivid picture, not only of the life of gay politician Harvey Milk, but of the fight for gay rights in 1970's San Francisco and the nation as a whole. After a description of the events immediately following Milk's death, Shilts begins the book with Milk's youth in New York City. He briefly describes Milk's years in New York, and spends the vast majority of the book on Milk's last five years in San Francisco. It was during his San Francisco years that Milk made his critical contributions to gay history, including encouraging the development of the Castro into a gay Mecca, and running for, and finally winning, elected office as an openly gay man in a time when most thought such things simply couldn't happen.

Shilts is a meticulous reporter. In his section on source material he details how he extensively interviewed Milk's former lovers, including Scott Smith and Joe Campbell. Many of the dialogues for the biography come directly from the personal diary of Michael Wong, a longtime Milk supporter. According to Shilts, dialogues with others who knew Milk virtually always corroborated those in Wong's diary. Shilts's history of the Castro area came from over one hundred interviews he conducted with area residents.

One of the best qualities of the biography is its astonishingly objective posture. Achieving something like objectivity is a tremendous challenge for the author of any modern-day history, and nowhere is this more true than in histories of the gay liberation movement. The living participants in that history inevitably portray it in a range of ways and often fight vigorously for placement of credit where they feel credit is due. Shilts allows those participants to speak for themselves, and focuses on telling the details of the story, rather than interpreting that story for the reader. It is this author's unique degree of commitment to researching and conveying all the details that allows him to present such an apparently unbiased account.

It is also Shilts's attention to detail that makes the book so tough to put down. It reads more like a novel than a history, and each segment leads into the next with a sense of a tremendous plot unfolding. In a style that would come to characterize his later books, such as And The Band Played On, as well as Conduct Unbecoming, Shilts manages to draw the reader into multiple stories of individuals that end in cliffhangers, only to be picked up again in a later chapter. It is these stories that make up the fabric of gay history in San Francisco and a portion of that larger tapestry called gay liberation.

Randy Shilts has taken great pains to present the man honestly, exploring his political and personal lives. The result is an illimunitating portrait of the Gay Rights champion, documenting his triumphs and ideals alongside his personal ambiguities and foibles. Milk's rise to power, as well as the city's rich gay history, are depicted with candor and clarity.

The assassinations are reported in graphic detail, as is the reaction of the people. Intial shock and grief turn to righteous indignation when, on May 21, 1979 White is convicted on two counts of "valuntary manslaughter" with a maximum sentence of seven years, eight months. The city explodes. Justice is thwarted. A martyr is born. Milk's murder galvanizes the Gay Community to stand up and take their rightful place in society. A great book.

First, Kropotkin discusses mutual aid among animals. His first point is that Darwin had nothing to do with Social Darwinianism. In fact, he quotes Darwin as saying, "Those communities which included the greatest number of the sympathetic members would flourish best, and rear the greatest number of offspring."

He gives numerous examples. One of his examples is about the crested screamer, a bird species which holds massive song recitals. Would Lorenz agree that those birds are chirping merrily? Or would he insist that they are marking their territory?

Next, he discusses mutual aid among savages. Note that he uses a word which is scientifically unacceptable today.

Since K. cannot travel back in time, he surmises how our earliest ancestors lived by observing how isolated tribes today live--which is in clans. Although such tribes are still called "primitive," there is some question of whether or not these tribes live like our prehistoric ancestors did.

Since isolated tribes tend to live in clans, Kropotkin claims that the marital bond is not as strong as in the nuclear family system. In the appendix, he debates Westermarck on this matter.

Next, he discusses mutual aid among barbarians--another taboo word. According to K., there was a wave of migrations in ancient Europe, in which "races were mixing with races." The social institutions seemed to be wrecked as a result, but K. assures us that they instead "underwent the modification which was required by the new conditions of life."

Next, he discusses mutual aid in the medieval city. Now we are up to the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries. Our next institution, then, is the professional guild.

Finally, he discusses mutual aid among ourselves. He sees a faint vestige of mutual aid today. K. sees the union as the successor of the clan, the village, and the guild, so he calls for more and better unions. K. also speaks highly of organizations with special interests, such as garden clubs and glee clubs.

However, K. cautions us against the "reckless individualism," or "the war of each against all," which he sees as prevailing today.

Kropotkin's discussion, persuasive as it is, can be counterbalanced with arguments in favor of individualism and competition. I wonder how Kropotkin would respond to the famous anecdote about the Jamestown colonists.

One can also question Kropotkin's claim that only the most sociable animal species prosper. The feline order is renowned for the aloofness of its members, and the lion has been dubbed "the king of the beasts."

I would like to close this report with an ad hominem attack against Kropotkin himself: If individualism is so reprehensible, what is he doing writing a book by himself and claiming credit for it by himself?

Anarchist classic, rooted in observation of natural phenomena and history. Challenges the conception that capitalism is a natural progression of Darwinism at work in the wild. The author cites numerous examples of compassion and innate goodness at work outside the bounds of a structured power-based society. The study covers cooperation among animals, instances of non-hierachical interactions from primitive tribes to mediaeval cities, and on to his contemporary labor unions. It has been some years since I read it and I plan to revisit this title soon.

This book, which appears to be about the only surviving scientific text from Kropotkin's work, is very interesting and insightful. The first two chapters which deal with animals I found most interesting, because they address the roots of the falsehood of social-darwinism. Kropotkin then proceeds to move through the different stages of human society and describes the mutual aid a compassion fetures therein. It is a fantastic book and I highly recommend it. It is a scientific text, but it has major political implications and is very accessible.

Este libro es uno de los pilares fundamentales de la teoria del anarco comunismo tan desvirtuada por el imperialismo, y nos da la esencia que el anarquismo, lejos de lo que se cree comunmente es una doctrina que se basa en el amor y la ayuda mutua, quitando las barreras de desigualdad entre las personas y haciendo un recuento de cómo la ayuda mutua es un factor de evolución hcia una sociedad más justa.

Peter Kropotkin is one of the most noteworthy anarchist thinkers over the last two centuries. As with other political thinkers, so, too, with Kropotkin--his analy¬sis of human nature is critical for understanding his overall philosophical position. For his view of human nature, "Mutual Aid" is a key for understanding his views. His work is a harbinger of more recent studies of sociobiology, many of which explore the roots of altruism--human and otherwise.

Much of his thinking on the nature of society was formed when he was observing the behavior of animals in Siberia. While assigned to a Siberian regiment of the Russian military, Kropotkin did innovative original work on geography and geology as well as the study of animal behavior. His observation of animals led him to respond to Huxley's assertion that natural selection was based on keen com¬petition among animals with the following statement: ". . .wherever I saw animal life in abundance, as, for instance, on the lakes where scores of species and millions of individuals came together to rear their progeny; in the colonies of rodents; in the migration of birds which took place at that time on a truly American scale along the Usuri; and especially in a migration of fallow-deer which I witnessed on the Amur, and during which scores of thousands of these animals came together from an immense territory, flying before the coming snow, in order to cross the Amur where it is narrowest--in all these scenes of animal life which passed before my eyes, I saw Mutual Aid and Mutual Support carried on to an extent which made me suspect in it a feature of the greatest importance for the maintenance of life, the preservation of each species, and its further evolution."

He synthesized his observations of animals within a species cooperating with one another and concluded that, in the struggle for life, cooperation was at least as important as competition. Kropotkin did not argue that competition was unimportant in the natural selection process. However, he did emphasize that mutual aid was a factor that many Darwinists (although, as Kropotkin made clear, not Darwin himself) ignored. The data that Kropotkin utilized came from many different animal species.

Kropotkin goes on to speculate about the survival value of cooperative behavior. He states that: "Life in societies enables the feeblest insects, the feeblest birds, and the feeblest mammals to resist, or to protect themselves from, the most terrible birds and beasts of prey; it permits longevity; in enables the species to rear its progeny with the least waste of energy and to maintain its progeny with the least waste of energy and to maintain its numbers albeit a very slow birth rate; it enables the gregarious animals to migrate in search of new abodes. Furthermore, cooperation facilitates the development of intelligence, since that quality is so important for social life among animals."

Kropotkin is not content to rest his case at this point. He subsequently indicates the likely course of human evolution and the role played by cooperation. He adopts the method of using existing societies at differing levels of socio-cultural complexity to speculate about the course of human socio-cultural evolution. Kropotkin argues that, at each stage, mutual aid is apparent and important for humans. Even in the period dominated by the great states, the present for Kropotkin, mutual aid institutions still flourished despite the state's intimidating presence.

Thus, Kropotkin's view of human nature is, ultimately, that it is inherently good, i.e. cooperative toward his or her fellow. What of this assertion? Is Kropotkin's view of human nature completely inaccurate and confounded by the available evidence? That is where each reader must evaluate his or her view of humanity's nature and render a judgment on "the anarchist prince."

This book is extremely well written and doesnt dwell a lot on numbers and stats except when needed to enforce a point of view. If you are interested in a second amendment viewpoint others than facts and figures this book will do the job.

I bought this book quite a while back and it sat around for probably 5 years. I am one of those spur of the moment buyers and have quite a collection of books I have not read. I guess after reading this one, maybe I should start reading more.

A Nation of Cowards makes your brain work. After having just read "The Law" by Frederic Bastiat a week earlier and then reading this, it just all clicks.
My rights are MY RIGHTS. My life is mine and anyone who tries to take away my ability to defend myself is at war with me and my family. I don't know what it is going to take to wake up enough folks to shake off this I have a gun to hunt or target shoot mentality. I have a gun too...but it is big black and ugly and has one purpose...to DEFEND myself against unlawful attack, be it by ANY criminal.

Personally, after studing 9/11 (= inside job) to no end and realizing that "they" have declared war against "us" and maybe it is time to start thinking hard about the reason behind the 2nd amendment. And no...it isn't to be able to shoot Bambi.

This brilliant book offers a new perspective on freedom and responsibility. Although gun-control laws are used as a recurrent symbol of the erosion of our liberty they are incidental in the authors main point in that statistics and "studies" of the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of gun- control laws are irrelevant. Should I feel compelled to explain to the government or to any other entity the reasons why I exercise my personal freedoms and whether or not they are for the "greater good" of society? Snyder challenges the reader to examine the "BIG " picture on the attacks on our personal freedoms and warns against obsessing over statistics to justify them. I highly recommend this book.

Jeff Snyder has produced an historic book. One with insight and far reaching political goals. It examines in detail the continued decline in our (America's) moral self being. The era of blame is here and Jeff dissects its story with incredible ease. The tort cases, feminization of the american male, loss of self respect and most importantly, the loss of our resolve to stand for what we believe in.
This should be on every high school students must read list, and I recommend it as gifts to friends and foe alike.

More than a collection of essays on gun control, J. Snyder's "Nation of Cowards" dares one to examine the current condition of our society. He exposes some uncomfortable truths, including the willingness of some of the citizenry of our great country to simply let others take responsibility for their safety and welfare in general. If the reader is willing (and able) to think logically, without emotion, about Mr. Snyder's comments, he cannot remain aloof about his own responsibilities.

The essays are clearly written, well thought out, and concise. I highly recommend this book to everyone who truly considers themselves a Citizen of the U.S.A.