Opinions on "Economic Hit Man" by John Perkins?

[underpants]

I just started reading this book and for some reason thought I should go out into the internets tube's to see the criticism or reviews on it.

It seems to be dependent on whether you want to believe what Spencer says or not. The first Amazon review link below has some long reviews by readers mostly saying that this book is unsubstatiated but not all see it that way. The last link is completely dismissive.

I can understand a bit of the criticism of the writing style but when he started with his early childhood I thought "Oh great I have to go through his whole LIFE to get to the subject matter?" no he deals with everything in short order and includes only the points that seem relevant to his recruitment.

I don't know the particulars of what Perkins writes about but the simplicity of it gives it credibility in my eyes-if you were going to do this hiding in plain sight would be a great strategy the name EHM itself is said, by Perkins, to be a joke that makes the theory easily laughed off.

I don't see where anyone ever came after him though. Does that cast doubt onto his story or is it more likely that they don't care as Perkin's story has predictably been almost completely ignored by the media.

So anyone have an opinion on this book? I see some other recommendations on the review sites but I was more interested in opinions on Perkins and this book.

http://www.amazon.com/Confessions-an-Economic-Hit-Man/dp/1576753018

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Confessions-Economic-Hit-Man-Shocking/dp/0091909104

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bgoodsel/post911/2005/06/contortions-of-economic-hit-man.htm

Contortions of an Economic Hit Man
I just finished reading Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins. I read the first 120 or so pages because I had gotten several recommendations through e-mail or on other blogs. I read the last 100 pages only because I wanted to write a scathing review, and didn't want to do it on incomplete information. Now that I've finished it, I can write the scathing review without qualms.

Shorter scathing review: This book sucks. The only useful information comes in the first couple of chapters, where he describes the globalist agenda and his role in it. I can summarize it much more concisely than he did.

[Richardo]

1. I liked it.

And the last chapters pretty much say: "Watch your oil-laden ass, Hugo, Venezuela's next."

[underpants]

2. I added to the original post while you were posting

Thanks for the response though.

It is very interesting and I have to say that I can completely see this as being true-maybe I need to be more skeptical but I went into reading it not really knowing anything about the book or the author and may senses told me that this was real.

:shrug:

[peacebird]

3. my hubby said it's a must read, I've just started it.

[GliderGuider]

4. I had an interesting encounter

I was finishing the book standing on a bus earlier this summer, when I felt someone staring at me. I looked up and a dark-skinned woman's eyes were drilling into mine over the book. I lowered the book and she said, "I read that book a weeek ago. I'm from Honduras. During the '70s I worked in the Honduran public service and for a television station there. I've seen everything he talks about happen there. It's all true."

Personally, I believe that the attitudes and behaviour Perkins describes is commonplace in international development. However, I am left with a couple of open questions. The first is that Perkins' personality doesn't seem the type to stay involved in shenanigans like that for as long as he did. I know he explains why in the book, but the apparent strength of his current convicions would seem to have been nurtured much earlier in life. The other open question is why, if what he says about "them" is true, they backed off and let him publish. People who would assassinate a couple of foreign leaders don't seem like they kind to lose sleep over the permanent thwarting of a pissant analyst. That aside, the story rings true to me.

[acmejack]

5. Because they are so strong we can't stop them from doing what they wish?

I always wondered myself...

[underpants]

6. Thanks. I wondered that myself

but the counter to that could be that they might not want to risk an operative on a pissant analyst who the MSM wouldn't dare mention.

I dunno.