Remarks onThe Shock Doctrine: Part 3

The events of which Naomi writes are well researched and she takes the position of an advocate, not of a journalist. I kept getting the impression of a work by a committee. True, she tends to take peoples writings and the events themselves out of context, but one might argue that since any written work or indeed any event is a whole any elision places the remainder out of context. I can't recommend that argument, but one must admit that it has some plausibility.

Our Naomi Klein tries to show in a variety of ways that a variety of military, economic and other programs were inspired by experiments in shock therapy done in Canada. She does this by a variety of conclusory statements.

Or perhaps that is not fair. We can argue in her defense that although a horrible occurrence does not imply some cause, neither does the lack of that cause.

Her training as a "journalist" plays her quite false in her set task. The six serving men which serve so well for events in the small would drown us in a mountain of text which no one would read. She should employ them anyway.

Goodness!