Since the last time I posted over twelve months ago I've largely limited my intake of physical books to political history - with special emphasis on contemporary American. My best guess puts the number at about sixty or seventy - mostly left of centre, but with a sprinkling of traditional American liberal and even the odd establishment title.
Particularly memorable are:
Jerry Freisa's
"Toward an American Revolution: Exposing the Constitution and Other Illusions" - sadly now out of print but available second hand. Fascinating that a convincingly and conspicuously patriotic nation of people can paradoxically seem far more conversant with the tenets of their democracy than most folk in Britain demonstrate toward theirs - and yet their faith couldn't be more hopelessly misplaced. Freisa delivers the most powerful argument against the traditional call to "return to the Constitution" in times of political and social strife. Less a response of sensible conservatism - it is in fact the root cause.
Andrew Scott Cooper's
"The Oil Kings: How the US, Iran, and Saudi Arabia Changed the Balance of Power in the Middle East" - compiled as a result of recently declassified state files which prove the Iranian Revolution and the subsequent strife it caused right up to the present day can largely be pinned on the renegade actions of two men - Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger - who conspired together (without informing anyone in any American state department regardless of rank) to sell more arms to the Shah than he could possibly afford - despite countless warnings that such would ultimately result in an economic catastrophe and massive social unrest. Sans their highly illegal actions - Saudi Arabia would today be unable to destabilise the entire region.
"The War Conspiracy" - by Peter Dale Scott. Scott's former Berkeley colleague and good friend, Noam Chomsky, gets all the plaudits (most of which he deserves) - but the limitations of his thinking on global politics and imperialism very quickly become apparent soon into Scott. Indeed, moving from one to the other is like shifting up a dimension of thinking. If there is a more perceptive, intellectually honest and exhaustively rigorous researcher in this field I've yet to find him. WC is one of those rare texts which can completely transform your thinking on issues you had thought were steel-reinforced truths. Once finished it becomes impossible to take seriously the media's oft-blathered assertion that the President of the United States wields unparalleled power. In case study after case study covering over fifty years Scott shows each occupant of the Oval Office fighting vainly to exercise some semblance of control over both the intelligence services and the military whose methods and motivations are hidden even from the "World's most powerful man". A good example being the CIA who despite strict instructions to desist continued running a clandestine counterinsurgency war and assassination program in Laos for two years. Shedding light on a question which historians have never answered satisfactorily - Scott shows this was one of the primary reasons behind Lyndon Johnson's flat refusal to run for a second term despite being the clear favourite to win.
"Destiny Betrayed" by Jim DeEugenio - I could have picked several recent scholarly works on the JFK assassination - but perhaps this is the current gold standard. Despite the mainstream media's assertion that the "Case is closed" - anyone familiar with the current state of scholarly research (you know, by people who provide
citations and references at the back of their books) knows the opposite was all but proven once people began wading through the glut of declassified documents which Oliver Stone's "JFK" forced congress to release in the mid-90s. We might not know the names of the shooters - but we DO now know Lee Harvey Oswald wasn't the lone assassin. Indeed, it's now fairly certain he was either part of the US's highly-secret false defector program - or he was led to believe he was by his CIA handlers. Odd that the media never mentions the intense interest shown in Oswald by just about every facet of the US intelligence community in the run up to Dallas. Similarly odd that no one wishes to talk about the obvious conclusions that must be drawn when one discovers Oswald was being impersonated in Mexico City despite the fact that only the spooks had the ability to do so in a highly sensitive location. Perhaps the media's reticence to break ranks and claim the obvious is understandable given that they have repeatedly ridiculed contrary views for decades - even though convincing evidence absolving Oswald emerged at the very beginning. To change now would undoubtedly cause people to question their credibility. But surely the more pertinent question must be:
if they can unashamedly lie and lie and lie on a matter as big as this - what else might they be lying about?To be honest I haven't read anything fluffy and fiction up till last month (notwithstanding several audiobooks) but right now I'm working through Frederick Forsyth's canon (not Fourth Protocol - which I read as a teen) and I'm pleasantly surprised.
True, his writing style is little more than functional. But his political thrillers are surprisingly well researched, convincingly paced and enjoyable. If he does have a weakness it is in testing the bounds of credulity. Thankfully he intuitively understands that such extravagances are tolerable provided they aren't shoved down your throat with the regularity of sushi on a conveyor. Contrast the like with contemporary authors drawing "inspiration" from the morse code of absurdities 24 (subsequently beaten to the bottom by "The Black List") foist upon us. Goodness knows how much time must be wasted by real intelligence agencies untangling reality from fantasy among recruits.
