Mere Christianity
From Library Journal
The late Lewis, Oxford professor, scholar, author, and Christian apologist, presents the listener with a case for orthodox Christianity. This is definitely not the shouting, stomping, sweating, spitting televangelist fare so often parodied; Lewis employs logical arguments that are eloquently expressed. He describes those doctrines that the four major denominations in Britain (Anglican, Methodist, Presbyterian, and Roman Catholic) would have in common, e.g., original sin, the transcendent Creator God, and the divinity of Jesus as well as his atonement and bodily resurrection. Geoffrey Howard reads both works, and his performance is superb; he is clear and unhurried, giving just the right emphasis and/or inflection. The volume on the Blackstone edition is recorded at a higher level than HarperAudio's. Otherwise there were no perceived differences in the recordings. If your institution can afford it, the Blackstone production would be preferred because of its sturdy case and the announcement of side changes. Whether or not one agrees with Lewis's arguments, it is a pleasure to hear such a skillful reading of an eloquent work. Public libraries as well as institutions that teach religion/theology or speech should consider. Michael T. Fein, Central Virginia Community Coll., Lynchburg
Copyright 2001 Reed Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to the Audio Cassette edition.
From AudioFile
Considered a significant twentieth-century book by Christians of various traditions of faith, MERE CHRISTIANITY is well-suited to being read because the book is a revised version of some addresses given by Lewis, an Oxford literature professor, on the BBC in the early 1940s. Thus, the text, which makes an argument for Christianity, was written in an informal, conversational style. With his tenor voice, Howard sounds like a friendly academic and reads with appropriate pauses and emphasis. His subdued Oxbridge (the English accent of Oxford and Cambridge) accent is inviting and pleasant, showing none of the pretention one might expect from an Oxford don. M.L.C. © AudioFile 2001, Portland, Maine-- Copyright © AudioFile, Portland, Maine --This text refers to the Audio Cassette edition.
John Updike
"I read Lewis for comfort and pleasure many years ago, and a glance into the books revives my old admiration."
Anthony Burgess, New York Times Book Review
"C.S. Lewis is the ideal persuader for the half-convinced, for the good man who...finds his intellect getting in the way."
Books & Culture
"As we witness Lewis develop we find that these volumes are working as a kind of unconscious autobiography."
Anthony Burgess, The New York Times Book Review
"C. S. Lewis is the ideal persuader for the half-convinced, for the good man who...finds his intellect getting in the way." --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.
Harper's
"Lewis...makes you sure, whatever you believe, that religion accepted or rejected means something extremely serious..." --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.
Los Angeles Times
"Lewis...forced those who listened to him and read his works to come to terms with their own philosophical presuppositions." --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.
Books & Culture
"As we witness Lewis develop we find that these volumes are working as a kind of unconscious autobiography." --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.
Product Description
A forceful and accessible discussion of Christian belief that has become one of the most popular introductions to Christianity and one of the most popular of Lewis's books. Uncovers common ground upon which all Christians can stand together.
From the Back Cover
Mere Christianity if the most popular of C. S. Lewiss works of nonfiction, with several million copies sold worldwide. Heard first as radio addresses and then published as three separate books The Case for Christianity, Christian Behavior, and Beyond Personality this book brings together Lewiss legendary broadcast talks of the war years, talks in which he set out simply to explain and defend the belief that has been common to nearly all Christians at all times.
It is a collection of scintillating brilliance which remains strikingly fresh for the modern reader, and which confirms C. S. Lewiss reputation as one of the leading Christian writers and thinkers of our age.
About the Author
Clive Staples Lewis (1898-1963) was one of the intellectual giants of the twentieth century and arguably the most influential Christian writer of his day. He was a Fellow and Tutor in English literature at Oxford University until 1954, when he was unanimously elected to the Chair of Medieval and Renaissance English at Cambridge University, a position he held until his retirement. His major contributions in literary criticism, children's literature, fantasy literature, and popular theology brought him international renown and acclaim.
He wrote more than thirty books, allowing him to reach a vast audience, and his works continue to attract thousands of new readers every year. His most distinguished and popular accomplishments include, The Chronicles of Narnia, Out of the Silent Planet, The Four Loves, The Screwtape Letters, and Mere Christianity.
Clive Staples Lewis (1898-1963) fue uno de los intelectuales mÁs importantes del siglo veinte y podrÍa decirse que fue el escritor cristiano mÁs influyente de su tiempo. Fue profesor particular de literatura inglesa y miembro de la junta de gobierno en la Universidad Oxford hasta 1954, cuando fue nombrado profesor de literatura medieval y renacentista en la Universidad Cambridge, cargo que desempeÑÓ hasta que se jubilÓ. Sus contribuciones a la crÍtica literaria, literatura infantil, literatura fantÁstica y teologÍa popular le trajeron fama y aclamaciÓn a nivel internacional. C. S. Lewis escribiÓ mÁs de treinta libros, lo cual le permitiÓ alcanzar una enorme audiencia, y sus obras aÚn atraen a miles de nuevos lectores cada aÑo. Sus mÁs distinguidas y populares obras incluyen Las CrÓnicas de Narnia, Los Cuatro Amores, Cartas del Diablo a Su Sobrino y Mero Cristianismo.
The 48 Laws of Power
Amazon.com
"Learning the game of power requires a certain way of looking at the world, a shifting of perspective," writes Robert Greene. Mastery of one's emotions and the arts of deception and indirection are, he goes on to assert, essential. The 48 laws outlined in this book "have a simple premise: certain actions always increase one's power ... while others decrease it and even ruin us."
The laws cull their principles from many great schemers--and scheming instructors--throughout history, from Sun-Tzu to Talleyrand, from Casanova to con man Yellow Kid Weil. They are straightforward in their amoral simplicity: "Get others to do the work for you, but always take the credit," or "Discover each man's thumbscrew." Each chapter provides examples of the consequences of observance or transgression of the law, along with "keys to power," potential "reversals" (where the converse of the law might also be useful), and a single paragraph cleverly laid out to suggest an image (such as the aforementioned thumbscrew); the margins are filled with illustrative quotations. Practitioners of one-upmanship have been given a new, comprehensive training manual, as up-to-date as it is timeless. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.
From Publishers Weekly
Greene and Elffers have created an heir to Machiavelli's Prince, espousing principles such as, everyone wants more power; emotions, including love, are detrimental; deceit and manipulation are life's paramount tools. Anyone striving for psychological health will be put off at the start, but the authors counter, saying "honesty is indeed a power strategy," and "genuinely innocent people may still be playing for power." Amoral or immoral, this compendium aims to guide those who embrace power as a ruthless game, and will entertain the rest. Elffers's layout (he is identified as the co-conceiver and designer in the press release) is stylish, with short epigrams set in red at the margins. Each law, with such allusive titles as "Pose as a Friend, Work as a Spy," "Get Others to Do the Work for You, But Always Take the Credit," "Conceal Your Intentions," is demonstrated in four ways?using it correctly, failing to use it, key aspects of the law and when not to use it. Illustrations are drawn from the courts of modern and ancient Europe, Africa and Asia, and devious strategies culled from well-known personae: Machiavelli, Talleyrand, Bismarck, Catherine the Great, Mao, Kissinger, Haile Selassie, Lola Montes and various con artists of our century. These historical escapades make enjoyable reading, yet by the book's conclusion, some protagonists have appeared too many times and seem drained. Although gentler souls will find this book frightening, those whose moral compass is oriented solely to power will have a perfect vade mecum. BOMC and Money Book Club alternates. Author tour.
Copyright 1998 Reed Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.
From Library Journal
Niccolo Machiavelli wrote The Prince (1513) as an amoral guide to practicing power in a dangerous world. Author Greene (formerly at Esquire) and collaborator Joost, the packager of many books for Penguin Studios, including best sellers like The Secret Language of Birthdays, give us an updated version for obtaining and using power today. The book is arranged into 48 laws concentrating on interaction among individuals. Readers are advised not to outshine the boss, not to trust friends too much, to court attention, keep people dependent on you, use selective honesty, distrust the free lunch, and crush enemies. Examples from classical, European, Chinese, and Japanese history illustrate these points, as do hints from American con men like Joseph "Yellow Kid" Weil. Further illustrations are taken from Henry Kissinger, Napoleon, and Haile Selassie. The book's ideas apply to politics, the workplace, and human relationships as a whole. Moral purists will be appalled by it; amoral survivors will like its frank nature. Schools might want to consider this new interpretation for ethics classes. Recommended for all libraries. [For another interpretation of Machiavelli, see Alistair McAlpine's The New Machiavelli: The Art of Politics in Business, reviewed on p. 90?Ed.]?Stephen L. Hupp, Univ. of Pittsburgh at Johnstown Lib., P.
-?Stephen L. Hupp, Univ. of Pittsburgh at Johnstown Lib., PA
Copyright 1998 Reed Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.
From AudioFile
If youre one of those people who gets sand kicked in your face even when youre not at the beach, you may find the 48 laws in this book helpful, particularly Law 15, Crush Your Enemies Totally. Bob Greene has built a career as the Machiavellian Dale Carnegie, and his latest offering is more of the same. This time he sums up all the cunning and ruthless principles weve come to associate with reality game show winners. If Pose as a Friend, Work as a Spy (Law 14), Play a Sucker to Catch a Sucker (Law 21), and Strike the Shepherd and the Sheep Will Scatter (Law 42) all seem like sound advice to you, you may enjoy Don Leslies confident reading of Greenes work. R.W.S. © AudioFile 2007, Portland, Maine-- Copyright © AudioFile, Portland, Maine --This text refers to the Audio CD edition.
From Booklist
Greene is a screenwriter, playwright, and professional researcher. Elffers "packages" books; among his "products" are a book on fruit carving called Play with Your Food (1997) and a book of "personology" profiles called The Secret Language of Birthdays (1994). Greene spent two years compiling and synthesizing this collection of prescriptions for obtaining and wielding power. Besides the obvious inclusion of Machiavelli, Sun-Tzu, and von Clausewitz, there are observations from P. T. Barnum, "Swifty" Lazar, and Clifton Fadiman. In all, hundreds of quotes from 3,000 years of history and lore are included. Each "law" is summarized and a demonstration of its application is provided, supported by the quotes Greene unearthed. The index and bibliography that will come with final publication will make this a usable reference work in addition to one that provides fascinating entertainment. David Rouse --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.
From Kirkus Reviews
of the ways and means of power. Everyone wants power and everyone is in a constant duplicitous game to gain more power at the expense of others, according to Greene, a screenwriter and former editor at Esquire (Elffers, a book packager, designed the volume, with its attractive marginalia). We live today as courtiers once did in royal courts: we must appear civil while attempting to crush all those around us. This power game can be played well or poorly, and in these 48 laws culled from the history and wisdom of the world's greatest power players are the rules that must be followed to win. These laws boil down to being as ruthless, selfish, manipulative, and deceitful as possible. Each law, however, gets its own chapter: ``Conceal Your Intentions,'' ``Always Say Less Than Necessary,'' ``Pose as a Friend, Work as a Spy,'' and so on. Each chapter is conveniently broken down into sections on what happened to those who transgressed or observed the particular law, the key elements in this law, and ways to defensively reverse this law when it's used against you. Quotations in the margins amplify the lesson being taught. While compelling in the way an auto accident might be, the book is simply nonsense. Rules often contradict each other. We are told, for instance, to ``be conspicuous at all cost,'' then told to ``behave like others.'' More seriously, Greene never really defines ``power,'' and he merely asserts, rather than offers evidence for, the Hobbesian world of all against all in which he insists we live. The world may be like this at times, but often it isn't. To ask why this is so would be a far more useful project. If the authors are serious, this is a silly, distasteful book. If they are not, it's a brilliant satire. (Author tour) -- Copyright ©1998, Kirkus Associates, LP. All rights reserved. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.
New York magazine
It's The Rules for suits.... Machiavelli has a new rival. And Sun-tzu better watch his back.
People
Beguiling... literate... fascinating... a wry primer for people who desperately want to be on top.
Book Description
Amoral, cunning, ruthless, and instructive, this piercing work distills three thousand years of the history of power in to forty-eight well explicated laws. As attention--grabbing in its design as it is in its content, this bold volume outlines the laws of power in their unvarnished essence, synthesizing the philosophies of Machiavelli, Sun-tzu, Carl von Clausewitz, and other great thinkers. Some laws teach the need for prudence ("Law 1: Never Outshine the Master"), the virtue of stealth ("Law 3: Conceal Your Intentions"), and many demand the total absence of mercy ("Law 15: Crush Your Enemy Totally"), but like it or not, all have applications in real life. Illustrated through the tactics of Queen Elizabeth I, Henry Kissinger, P. T. Barnum, and other famous figures who have wielded--or been victimized by--power, these laws will fascinate any reader interested in gaining, observing, or defending against ultimate control.
Book Info
(Joost Elffers) Outlines the laws of power from the synthesized work of Machiavelli, Suntzu, Carl von Clausewitz, and other great thinkers. These laws show the reader how to gain power, to observe it, or to defend themselves against it. Softcover.
About the Author
Robert Greene has a degree in classical studies. He is also a playwright.
Joost Elffers is the producer of Viking Studio's bestselling The Secret Language of Birthdays, The Secret Language of Relationships, and Play with Your Food.
Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning
From Publishers Weekly
In this provocative and well-researched book, Goldberg probes modern liberalism's spooky origins in early 20th-century fascist politics. With chapter titles such as Adolf Hitler: Man of the Left and Brave New Village: Hillary Clinton and the Meaning of Liberal Fascism—Goldberg argues that fascism has always been a phenomenon of the left. This is Goldberg's first book, and he wisely curbs his wry National Review style. Goldberg's study of the conceptual overlap between fascism and ideas emanating from the environmental movement, Hollywood, the Democratic Party and what he calls other left-wing organs is shocking and hilarious. He lays low such lights of liberal history as Margaret Sanger, apparently a radical eugenicist, and JFK, whose cult of personality, according to Goldberg, reeks of fascist political theater. Much of this will be music to conservatives' ears, but other readers may be stopped cold by the parallels Goldberg draws between Nazi Germany and the New Deal. The book's tone suffers as it oscillates between revisionist historical analyses and the application of fascist themes to American popular culture; nonetheless, the controversial arc Goldberg draws from Mussolini to The Matrix is well-researched, seriously argued—and funny. (Jan. 8)
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
From The Washington Post's Book World/washingtonpost.com
Reviewed by Michael Mann
National Review editor Jonah Goldberg says he is fed up with liberals calling him a fascist. Who can blame him? Hurling the calumny "fascist!" at American conservatives is not fair. But Goldberg's response is no better. He lobs the f-word back at liberals, though after each of his many attacks he is at pains to say that they are not "evil" fascists, they just share a family resemblance. It's family because American liberals are descendants of the early 20th-century Progressives, who in turn shared intellectual roots with fascists. He adds that both fascists and liberals seek to use the state to solve the problems of modern society.
Scholars would support Goldberg in certain respects. He is correct that many fascists, including Mussolini (but not Hitler) started as socialists -- though almost none started as liberals, who stood for representative government and mild reformism. Moreover, fascism's combination of nationalism, statism, discipline and a promise to "transcend" class conflict was initially popular in many countries. Though fascism was always less popular in democracies such as the United States, some American intellectuals did flirt with its ideas. Goldberg quotes progressives and liberals who did, but he does not quote the conservatives who also did. He is right to note that fascist party programs contained active social welfare policies to be implemented through a corporatist state, so there were indeed overlaps with Progressives and with New Dealers. But so, too, were there overlaps with the world's Social Democrats and Christian Democrats, as well as with the British Conservative Party from Harold Macmillan in the 1930s to Prime Minister Ted Heath in the 1970s, and even with the Eisenhower and Nixon administrations. Are they all to earn the f-word?
The only thing these links prove is that fascism contained elements that were in the mainstream of 20th-century politics. Following Goldberg's logic, I could rewrite this book and berate American liberals not for being closet fascists but for being closet conservatives or closet Christian Democrats. But that would puzzle Americans, not shock them. Shock, it seems, sells books.
What really distinguished fascists from other mainstream movements of the time were proud, "principled" -- as they saw it -- violence and authoritarianism. Fascists took their model of governance from their experience as soldiers and officers in World War I. They believed that disciplined violence, military comradeship and obedience to leaders could solve society's problems. Goldberg finds similarities between fascism's so-called "third way" -- neither capitalism nor socialism -- and liberals who use the same phrase today to signify an attempt to compromise between business and labor. But there is a fundamental difference. The fascist solution was not brokered compromise but forcibly knocking heads together. Italian fascists formed a paramilitary, not a political, party. The Nazis did have a separate party, but alongside two paramilitaries, the SA and the SS, whose first mission was to attack and, if necessary, to kill socialists, communists and liberals. In reality, the fascists knocked labor's head, not capital's. The Nazis practiced on the left for their later killing of Jews, gypsies and others. And all fascists proudly proclaimed the "leadership principle," hailing dictatorship and totalitarianism.
It is hard to find American counterparts, especially among liberals. Father Coughlin and Huey Long (discussed by Goldberg) were tempted by a proto-fascist authoritarian populism in the 1930s. Some white Southerners (not discussed) embraced violence and authoritarianism, as did the Weathermen and the Black Panthers (discussed) and rightist militias (not discussed). Neocons (not discussed) today endorse militarism. Liberals have rarely supported violence, militarism or authoritarianism, because they are doves and wimps -- or at least that is what both conservatives and socialists usually say. To assert that the Social Security Act or Medicare shows a leaning toward totalitarianism is ridiculous. The United States, along with the rest of the Anglo-Saxon and Northwestern European world, has been protected from significant fascist influences by the shared commitment of liberals, conservatives and social democrats to democracy. Fascism is not an American, British, Dutch, Scandinavian, Canadian, Australian or New Zealand vice. It only spread significantly in one-half of Europe, with some lesser influence in China, Japan, South America and South Africa. Today it is alive in very few places.
A few of Goldberg's assaults make some minimal sense; others are baffling. He culminates with an attack on Hillary Clinton. He quotes from a 1993 college commencement address of hers: "We need a new politics of meaning. We need a new ethos of individual responsibility and caring. We need a new definition of civil society which answers the unanswerable questions posed by both the market forces and the governmental ones, as to how we can have a society that fills us up again and makes us feel that we are part of something bigger than ourselves." Such vacuous politician-speak could come from any centrist, whether Republican or Democrat. But Goldberg bizarrely says it embodies "the most thoroughly totalitarian conception of politics offered by a leading American political figure in the last half century." Is he serious? He then quotes briefly from her book It Takes A Village. "The village," she wrote, "can no longer be defined as a place on the map, or a list of people or organizations, but its essence remains the same: it is the network of values and relationships that support and affect our lives." One may question whether that is a profound definition or a banal one, but does it deserve Goldberg's comment that here "the concept of civil society is grotesquely deformed"? Whatever Sen. Clinton's weaknesses, she is neither a totalitarian nor an enemy of civil society.
In an apparent attempt at balance, Goldberg indulges in very mild and brief criticism of conservatives who are tempted by compassionate (i.e., social) conservatism, though here he uniquely refrains from using the f-word. In the book's final pages, he reveals his neo-liberalism (though he does not use the term). Since neo-liberalism, with its insistence on unfettered global trade and minimal government regulation of economic and social life, merely restates 19th-century laissez-faire, it is in fact the only contemporary political philosophy that significantly pre-dates both socialism and fascism. Unlike modern liberalism or modern conservatism, it shares not even a remote family resemblance with them. That is the only sense I can make of his overall argument.
But a final word of advice. If you want to denigrate the Democrats' health care plans or Al Gore's environmental activism, try the word "socialism." That is tried and tested American abuse. "Fascism" will merely baffle Americans -- and rightly so.
Copyright 2008, The Washington Post. All Rights Reserved.
Product Description
“Fascists,” “Brownshirts,” “jackbooted stormtroopers”—such are the insults typically hurled at conservatives by their liberal opponents. Calling someone a fascist is the fastest way to shut them up, defining their views as beyond the political pale. But who are the real fascists in our midst?
Liberal Fascism offers a startling new perspective on the theories and practices that define fascist politics. Replacing conveniently manufactured myths with surprising and enlightening research, Jonah Goldberg reminds us that the original fascists were really on the left, and that liberals from Woodrow Wilson to FDR to Hillary Clinton have advocated policies and principles remarkably similar to those of Hitler's National Socialism and Mussolini's Fascism.
Contrary to what most people think, the Nazis were ardent socialists (hence the term “National socialism”). They believed in free health care and guaranteed jobs. They confiscated inherited wealth and spent vast sums on public education. They purged the church from public policy, promoted a new form of pagan spirituality, and inserted the authority of the state into every nook and cranny of daily life. The Nazis declared war on smoking, supported abortion, euthanasia, and gun control. They loathed the free market, provided generous pensions for the elderly, and maintained a strict racial quota system in their universities—where campus speech codes were all the rage. The Nazis led the world in organic farming and alternative medicine. Hitler was a strict vegetarian, and Himmler was an animal rights activist.
Do these striking parallels mean that today’s liberals are genocidal maniacs, intent on conquering the world and imposing a new racial order? Not at all. Yet it is hard to deny that modern progressivism and classical fascism shared the same intellectual roots. We often forget, for example, that Mussolini and Hitler had many admirers in the United States. W.E.B. Du Bois was inspired by Hitler's Germany, and Irving Berlin praised Mussolini in song. Many fascist tenets were espoused by American progressives like John Dewey and Woodrow Wilson, and FDR incorporated fascist policies in the New Deal.
Fascism was an international movement that appeared in different forms in different countries, depending on the vagaries of national culture and temperament. In Germany, fascism appeared as genocidal racist nationalism. In America, it took a “friendlier,” more liberal form. The modern heirs of this “friendly fascist” tradition include the New York Times, the Democratic Party, the Ivy League professoriate, and the liberals of Hollywood. The quintessential Liberal Fascist isn't an SS storm trooper; it is a female grade school teacher with an education degree from Brown or Swarthmore.
These assertions may sound strange to modern ears, but that is because we have forgotten what fascism is. In this angry, funny, smart, contentious book, Jonah Goldberg turns our preconceptions inside out and shows us the true meaning of Liberal Fascism.
About the Author
JONAH GOLDBERG is a columnist for the Los Angeles Times and contributing editor to National Review. A USA Today contributor and former columnist for the Times of London, he has also written for The New Yorker, Commentary, the Wall Street Journal, and many other publications. He lives in Washington, D.C.
Excerpt. © Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved.
* 1 *
Mussolini:
The Father of Fascism
You’re the top!
You’re the Great Houdini!
You’re the top!
You are Mussolini!
—An early version of the Cole Porter song “You’re the Top” (1)
IF YOU WENT solely by what you read in the New York Times or the New York Review of Books, or what you learned from Hollywood, you could be forgiven for thinking that Benito Mussolini came to power around the same time as Adolf Hitler—or even a little bit later—and that Italian Fascism was merely a tardy, watered–down version of Nazism. Germany passed its hateful race policies—the Nuremberg Laws—in 1935, and Mussolini’s Italy followed suit in 1938. German Jews were rounded up in 1942, and Jews in Italy were rounded up in 1943. A few writers will casually mention, in parenthetical asides, that until Italy passed its race laws there were actually Jews serving in the Italian government and the Fascist Party. And on occasion you’ll notice a nod to historical accuracy indicating that the Jews were rounded up only after the Nazis had invaded northern Italy and created a puppet government in Salo. But such inconvenient facts are usually skipped over as quickly as possible. More likely, your understanding of these issues comes from such sources as the Oscar–winning film Life Is Beautiful, (2) which can be summarized as follows: Fascism arrived in Italy and, a few months later, so did the Nazis, who carted off the Jews. As for Mussolini, he was a bombastic, goofy–looking, but highly effective dictator who made the trains run on time.
All of this amounts to playing the movie backward. By the time Italy reluctantly passed its shameful race laws—which it never enforced with even a fraction of the barbarity shown by the Nazis—over 75 percent of Italian Fascism’s reign had already transpired. A full sixteen years elapsed between the March on Rome and the passage of Italy's race laws. To start with the Jews when talking about Mussolini is like starting with FDR’s internment of the Japanese: it leaves a lot of the story on the cutting room floor. Throughout the 1920s and well into the 1930s, fascism meant something very different from Auschwitz and Nuremberg. Before Hitler, in fact, it never occurred to anyone that fascism had anything to do with anti–Semitism. Indeed, Mussolini was supported not only by the chief rabbi of Rome but by a substantial portion of the Italian Jewish community (and the world Jewish community). Moreover, Jews were overrepresented in the Italian Fascist movement from its founding in 1919 until they were kicked out in 1938.
Race did help turn the tables of American public opinion on Fascism. But it had nothing to do with the Jews. When Mussolini invaded Ethiopia, Americans finally started to turn on him. In 1934 the hit Cole Porter song “You’re the Top” engendered nary a word of controversy over the line “You are Mussolini!” When Mussolini invaded that poor but noble African kingdom the following year, it irrevocably marred his image, and Americans decided they had had enough of his act. It was the first war of conquest by a Western European nation in over a decade, and Americans were distinctly unamused, particularly liberals and blacks. Still, it was a slow process. The Chicago Tribune initially supported the invasion, as did reporters like Herbert Matthews. Others claimed it would be hypocritical to condemn it. The New Republic—then in the thick of its pro–Soviet phase—believed it would be “naive” to blame Mussolini when the real culprit was international capitalism. And more than a few prominent Americans continued to support him, although quietly. The poet Wallace Stevens, for example, stayed pro–Fascist. “I am pro–Mussolini, personally,” he wrote to a friend. “The Italians,” he explained, “have as much right to take Ethiopia from the coons as the coons had to take it from the boa–constrictors.” (3) But over time, largely due to his subsequent alliance with Hitler, Mussolini’s image never recovered.
That's not to say he didn't have a good ride.
In 1923 the journalist Isaac F. Marcosson wrote admiringly in the New York Times that “Mussolini is a Latin [Teddy] Roosevelt who first acts and then inquires if it is legal. He has been of great service to Italy at home.” (4) The American Legion, which has been for nearly its entire history a great and generous American institution, was founded the same year as Mussolini’s takeover and, in its early years, drew inspiration from the Italian Fascist movement. “Do not forget,” the legion’s national commander declared that same year, “that the Fascisti are to Italy what the American Legion is to the United States.” (5)
In 1926 the American humorist Will Rogers visited Italy and interviewed Mussolini. He told the New York Times that Mussolini was “some Wop.” “I’m pretty high on that bird.” Rogers, whom the National Press Club had informally dubbed “Ambassador–at–Large of the United States,” wrote up the interview for the Saturday Evening Post. He concluded, “Dictator form of government is the greatest form of government: that is if you have the right Dictator.” (6) In 1927 the Literary Digest conducted an editorial survey asking the question: “Is there a dearth of great men?” The person named most often to refute the charge was Benito Mussolini—followed by Lenin, Edison, Marconi, and Orville Wright, with Henry Ford and George Bernard Shaw tying for sixth place. In 1928 the Saturday Evening Post glorified Mussolini even further, running an eight–part autobiography written by Il Duce himself. The series was gussied up into a book that gained one of the biggest advances ever given by an American publisher.
And why shouldn’t the average American think Mussolini was anything but a great man? Winston Churchill had dubbed him the world’s greatest living lawgiver. Sigmund Freud sent Mussolini a copy of a book he co–wrote with Albert Einstein, inscribed, “To Benito Mussolini, from an old man who greets in the Ruler, the Hero of Culture.” The opera titans Giacomo Puccini and Arturo Toscanini were both pioneering Fascist acolytes of Mussolini. Toscanini was an early member of the Milan circle of Fascists, which conferred an aura of seniority not unlike being a member of the Nazi Party in the days of the Beer Hall Putsch. Toscanini ran for the Italian parliament on a Fascist ticket in 1919 and didn’t repudiate Fascism until twelve years later. (7)
Mussolini was a particular hero to the muckrakers—those progressive liberal journalists who famously looked out for the little guy. When Ida Tarbell, the famed reporter whose work helped break up Standard Oil, was sent to Italy in 1926 by McCall’s to write a series on the Fascist nation, the U.S. State Department feared that this “pretty red radical” would write nothing but “violent anti–Mussolini articles.” Their fears were misplaced. Tarbell was wooed by the man she called “a despot with a dimple,” praising his progressive attitude toward labor. Similarly smitten was Lincoln Steffens, another famous muckraker, who is today perhaps dimly remembered for being the man who returned from the Soviet Union declaring, “I have been over into the future, and it works.” Shortly after that declaration, he made another about Mussolini: God had “formed Mussolini out of the rib of Italy.” As we’ll see, Steffens saw no contradiction between his fondness for Fascism and his admiration of the Soviet Union. Even Samuel McClure, the founder of McClure’s Magazine, the home of so much famous muckraking, championed Fascism after visiting Italy. He hailed it as “a great step forward and the first new ideal in government since the founding of the American Republic.” (8)
Meanwhile, almost all of Italy’s most famous and admired young intellectuals and artists were Fascists or Fascist sympathizers (the most notable exception was the literary critic Benedetto Croce). Giovanni Papini, the “magical pragmatist” so admired by William James, was deeply involved in the various intellectual movements that created Fascism. Papini’s Life of Christ—a turbulent, almost hysterical tour de force chronicling his acceptance of Christianity—caused a sensation in the United States in the early 1920s. Giuseppe Prezzolini, a frequent contributor to the New Republic who would one day become a respected professor at Columbia University, was one of Fascism’s earliest literary and ideological architects. F. T. Marinetti, the founder of the Futurist movement—which in America was seen as an artistic companion to Cubism and Expressionism—was instrumental in making Italian Fascism the world's first successful “youth movement.” America's education establishment was keenly interested in Italy’s “breakthroughs” under the famed “schoolmaster” Benito Mussolini, who, after all, had once been a teacher.
Perhaps no elite institution in America was more accommodating to Fascism than Columbia University. In 1926 it established Casa Italiana, a center for the study of Italian culture and a lecture venue for prominent Italian scholars. It was Fascism’s “veritable home in America” and a “schoolhouse for budding Fascist ideologues,” according to John Patrick Diggins. Mussolini himself had contributed some ornate Baroque furniture to Casa Italiana and had sent Columbia’s president, Nicholas Murray Butler, a signed photo thanking him for his “most valuable contribution” to the pro...
Sway: The Irresistible Pull of Irrational Behavior
From Publishers Weekly
Recently we have seen plenty of irrational behavior, whether in politics or the world of finance. What makes people act irrationally? In a timely but thin collection of anecdotes and empirical research, the Brafman brothers—Ari (The Starfish and the Spire), a business expert, and Rom, a psychologist—look at sway, the submerged mental drives that undermine rational action, from the desire to avoid loss to a failure to consider all the evidence or to perceive a person or situation beyond the initial impression and the reluctance to alter a plan that isn't working. To drive home their points, the authors use contemporary examples, such as the pivotal decisions of presidents Lyndon B. Johnson and George W. Bush, coach Steve Spurrier and his Gators football team, and a sudden apparent epidemic of bipolar disorder in children (which may be due more to flawed thinking by doctors making the diagnoses). The stories are revealing, but focused on a few common causes of irrational behavior, the book doesn't delve deeply into the psychological demons that can devastate a person's life and those around him. (June)
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Review
Praise for SWAY*
"A breathtaking book that will challenge your every thought, Sway hovers above the intersection of Blink and Freakonomics."--Tom Rath, coauthor of the New York Times #1 bestseller How Full Is Your Bucket?
“Now we know why no one ever coined the phrase ‘rational exuberance.’ Behind the surprising ways we all make choices, the Brafmans find biology, humanity, and the wisdom of our collective experience. As a longtime student of how financial decisions are made, I found their insights utterly fascinating. Once I started reading, I couldn’t stop—and I suspect the Brafmans could tell you exactly why!”
--Sallie Krawcheck, CEO, Citi Global Wealth Management
"Count me swayed--but in this instance by the pull of entirely rational forces. Ori and Rom Brafman have done a terrific job of illuminating deep-seated tendencies that skew our behavior in ways that can range from silly to deadly. We'd be fools not to learn what they have to teach us."--Robert B. Cialdini, author of New York Times bestseller Influence
“Brilliant.”
—Klaus Schwab, chairman of the World Economic Forum
"A page-turner of an investigation into how our minds work . . . and trick us. Think you behave rationally? Read this book first."--Timothy Ferriss, author of the New York Times #1 bestseller The 4-Hour Workweek
"Sway helped me recognize an aspect of irrational behavior in my experimental work in physics. Sometimes I have jumped into some research that didn't feel quite right . . . but some irrational lure, such as the hope of quick success, pulled me in."--Martin L. Perl, 1995 Nobel Laureate in Physics
*DISCLAIMER: If you decide to buy this book because of these endorsements, you just got swayed. One of the psychological forces you’ll read about in Sway is our tendency to place a higher value on opinions from people in positions of prominence, power, or authority.
(But you should still buy the book.)
"If you think you know how you think, you'd better think again! Take this insightful, delightful trip to the sweet spot where economics, psychology, and sociology converge, and you'll discover how our all-too-human minds actually work."--Alan M. Webber, founding editor of Fast Company magazine
The Four Agreements: A Practical Guide to Personal Freedom, A Toltec Wisdom Book
Amazon.com
Sit at the foot of a native elder and listen as great wisdom of days long past is passed down. In The Four Agreements shamanic teacher and healer Don Miguel Ruiz exposes self-limiting beliefs and presents a simple yet effective code of personal conduct learned from his Toltec ancestors. Full of grace and simple truth, this handsomely designed book makes a lovely gift for anyone making an elementary change in life, and it reads in a voice that you would expect from an indigenous shaman. The four agreements are these: Be impeccable with your word. Don't take anything personally. Don't make assumptions. Always do your best. It's the how and why one should do these things that make The Four Agreements worth reading and remembering. --P. Randall Cohan --This text refers to the Paperback edition.
From Publishers Weekly
Ruiz's explanations of Toltec-based cosmography got a major boost recently when publishing pooh-bah Oprah Winfrey mentioned his work on her TV show. Ruiz, whose workshop teachings are distilled here, was born into a Mexican family of traditional healers, became a surgeon in adulthood, then underwent a near-death experience that made him reexamine his life, his beliefs. Like the popular works of the late Carlos Castaneda, Ruiz's teachings focus on dreams and visions. "Dreaming," Ruiz argues, "is the main function of the mind." A series of four "agreements" are detailed, which make up a larger picture of unconditional human faith. Despite the New Age- sounding language, Ruiz is refreshingly clear in the presentation of his ideas. Reading aloud, actor Coyote sounds every bit the enthusiastic old hippie, genuinely excited by the concepts he is spinning. Based on the 1997 Amber-Allen edition.
Copyright 1999 Reed Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to the Audio Cassette edition.
From AudioFile
Peter Coyote gives a straightforward, even narration of this compact writing on the limitations we impose upon ourselves. The four agreements provide a different way of thinking about a life with fewer limitations and more opportunity for joy and wonder. At times Coyote has the tone of a teacher, at other times that of a stern parent, and at other times that of an understanding friend who wants only the best for you. He speaks with quiet authority, setting out this set of clear principles. Listen as Coyote advises you to set aside assumptions, open your mind, and prepare for your way of thinking to be transformed. J.E.M. © AudioFile 2006, Portland, Maine-- Copyright © AudioFile, Portland, Maine --This text refers to the Audio CD edition.
Book Description
Featured in the premiere issue of O: The Oprah Magazine and on Oprah's Favorite Things 2000 segment, The Four Agreements reveals the source of self-limiting beliefs that rob people of joy and create needless suffering. Based on ancient Toltec wisdom, the Four Agreements -- be impeccable with your word, don't take anything personally, don't make assumptions, always do your best -- offer a powerful code of conduct that can rapidly transform life into a new experience of freedom, love, and true happiness. This jacketed linen-bound hardcover gift edition features two-color printing and a silk ribbon marker.
Book Info
Gift Edition. Shamanic teacher and healer Don Miguel Ruiz exposes self-limiting beliefs and presents a simple yet effective code of personal conduct learned from his Toltec ancestors. Featured in The Oprah Magazine.
The God Delusion
From Publishers Weekly
The antireligion wars started by Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris will heat up even more with this salvo from celebrated Oxford biologist Dawkins. For a scientist who criticizes religion for its intolerance, Dawkins has written a surprisingly intolerant book, full of scorn for religion and those who believe. But Dawkins, who gave us the selfish gene, anticipates this criticism. He says it's the scientist and humanist in him that makes him hostile to religions—fundamentalist Christianity and Islam come in for the most opprobrium—that close people's minds to scientific truth, oppress women and abuse children psychologically with the notion of eternal damnation. While Dawkins can be witty, even confirmed atheists who agree with his advocacy of science and vigorous rationalism may have trouble stomaching some of the rhetoric: the biblical Yahweh is "psychotic," Aquinas's proofs of God's existence are "fatuous" and religion generally is "nonsense." The most effective chapters are those in which Dawkins calms down, for instance, drawing on evolution to disprove the ideas behind intelligent design. In other chapters, he attempts to construct a scientific scaffolding for atheism, such as using evolution again to rebut the notion that without God there can be no morality. He insists that religion is a divisive and oppressive force, but he is less convincing in arguing that the world would be better and more peaceful without it. (Oct. 18)
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.
From Scientific American
Richard Dawkins, in The God Delusion, tells of his exasperation with colleagues who try to play both sides of the street: looking to science for justification of their religious convictions while evading the most difficult implications—the existence of a prime mover sophisticated enough to create and run the universe, "to say nothing of mind reading millions of humans simultaneously." Such an entity, he argues, would have to be extremely complex, raising the question of how it came into existence, how it communicates —through spiritons!—and where it resides. Dawkins is frequently dismissed as a bully, but he is only putting theological doctrines to the same kind of scrutiny that any scientific theory must withstand. No one who has witnessed the merciless dissection of a new paper in physics would describe the atmosphere as overly polite.
George Johnson is author of Fire in the Mind: Science, Faith, and the Search for Order and six other books. He resides on the Web at talaya.net --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.
From Bookmarks Magazine
Richard Dawkins's latest book raises the question of style over substance. As in his well-known books The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker, and River Out of Eden, the renowned evolutionary biologist has done his homework, and argues with precision and a fair glaze of wit. But Dawkins can't restrain his vitriol for those that have put their faith in religion, to the point that he comes off as rabid as those believers whose eyes he yearns to open. This fatal flaw knocks his book down a rung or two for critics, many of whom seem inclined to believe in Dawkins, if only he weren't so preachy.
Copyright © 2004 Phillips & Nelson Media, Inc. --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.
From AudioFile
An evolutionary biologist, Richard Dawkins sees religion as a human construct that is the source of much of the evil in the world, closing people's minds to scientific truths, oppressing women, and threatening people with eternal damnation. As "Darwin's rottweiller," he sets out to annihilate faith. His book-length essay is a bestseller. Since he is human, though, his own understanding of the universe, though devilishly complex, must be based on a hypothesis, a hunch, on faith. Dawkins and his wife, the actress Lalla Ward, perform this book as melody and harmony in two voices. For example, Dawkins will set up a quotation from Einstein, and Ward will speak the lines. Since both have fine English voices, the performance would succeed as music even if it weren't an intellectual tour de force. B.H.C. Winner of AudioFile Earphones Award © AudioFile 2007, Portland, Maine-- Copyright © AudioFile, Portland, Maine --This text refers to the Audio CD edition.
Review
"In the roiling debate between science and religion, it would be hard to exaggerate the enormous influence of Richard Dawkins." (Salon )
"If I had to identify Dawkins's cardinal virtues, I would say that he is brilliant, articulate, impassioned, and impolite . . .The God Delusion is a fine and significant book." (The San Francisco Chronicle )
"A powerful argument for how to think about the place of religion in the modern world. It's going to be a classic." -- Seed Magazine
"A particularly comprehensive case against religion. Everyone should read it. Atheists will love Mr. Dawkins's incisive logic and rapier wit, and theists will find few better tests of the robustness of their faith." --Economist
Product Description
In his sensational international bestseller, the preeminent scientist and outspoken atheist Richard Dawkins delivers a hard-hitting, impassioned, but humorous rebuttal of religious belief. With rigor and wit, Dawkins eviscerates the arguments for religion and demonstrates the supreme improbability of the existence of a supreme being. He makes a compelling case that faith is not just irrational, but potentially deadly. In a preface written for the paperback edition, Dawkins responds to some of the controversies the book has incited. This brilliantly argued, provocative book challenges all of us to test our beliefs, no matter what beliefs we hold.
About the Author
Richard Dawkins taught zoology at the University of California at Berkeley and at Oxford University and is now the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford, a position he has held since 1995. Among his previous books are The Ancestor's Tale, The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker, Climbing Mount Improbable, Unweaving the Rainbow, and A Devil's Chaplain. Dawkins lives in Oxford with his wife, the actress and artist Lalla Ward.
Excerpt. © Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved.
1 A DEEPLY RELIGIOUS NON-BELIEVER
I don't try to imagine a personal God; it suffices to stand in awe at the
structure of the world, insofar as it allows our inadequate senses to
appreciate it.
—Albert Einstein
DESERVED RESPECT
The boy lay prone in the grass, his chin resting on his hands. He suddenly
found himself overwhelmed by a heightened awareness of the tangled stems
and roots, a forest in microcosm, a transfigured world of ants and beetles and
even – though he wouldn't have known the details at the time – of soil
bacteria by the billions, silently and invisibly shoring up the economy of the
micro-world. Suddenly the micro-forest of the turf seemed to swell and
become one with the universe, and with the rapt mind of the boy
contemplating it. He interpreted the experience in religious terms and it led
him eventually to the priesthood. He was ordained an Anglican priest and
became a chaplain at my school, a teacher of whom I was fond. It is thanks
to decent liberal clergymen like him that nobody could ever claim that I had
religion forced down my throat.*
In another time and place, that boy could have been me under the
stars, dazzled by Orion, Cassiopeia and Ursa Major, tearful with the unheard
music of the Milky Way, heady with the night scents of frangipani and
trumpet flowers in an African garden. Why the same emotion should have led
my chaplain in one direction and me in the other is not an easy question to
answer. A quasi-mystical response to nature and the universe is common
among scientists and rationalists. It has no connection with supernatural
belief. In his boyhood at least, my chaplain was presumably not aware (nor
was I) of the closing lines of The Origin of Species – the famous 'entangled
bank' passage, 'with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting
about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth'. Had he been, he
would certainly have identified with it and, instead of the priesthood, might
have been led to Darwin's view that all was 'produced by laws acting around
us':
Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object
which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher
animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several
powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that,
whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity,
from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful
have been, and are being, evolved.
Carl Sagan, in Pale Blue Dot, wrote:
How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and
concluded, 'This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than
our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant'? Instead they
say, 'No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.' A
religion, old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the Universe as
revealed by modern science might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence
and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths.
All Sagan's books touch the nerve-endings of transcendent wonder that
religion monopolized in past centuries. My own books have the same
aspiration. Consequently I hear myself often described as a deeply religious
man. An American student wrote to me that she had asked her professor
whether he had a view about me. 'Sure,' he replied. 'He's positive science is
incompatible with religion, but he waxes ecstatic about nature and the
universe. To me, that is religion!' But is 'religion' the right word? I don't think
so. The Nobel Prize-winning physicist (and atheist) Steven Weinberg made
the point as well as anybody, in Dreams of a Final Theory:
Some people have views of God that are so broad and flexible that it is
inevitable that they will find God wherever they look for him. One hears it said
that 'God is the ultimate' or 'God is our better nature' or 'God is the universe.'
Of course, like any other word, the word 'God' can be given any meaning we
like. If you want to say that 'God is energy,' then you can find God in a lump
of coal.
Weinberg is surely right that, if the word God is not to become completely
useless, it should be used in the way people have generally understood it: to
denote a supernatural creator that is 'appropriate for us to worship'.
Much unfortunate confusion is caused by failure to distinguish
what can be called Einsteinian religion from supernatural religion. Einstein
sometimes invoked the name of God (and he is not the only atheistic
scientist to do so), inviting misunderstanding by supernaturalists eager to
misunderstand and claim so illustrious a thinker as their own. The dramatic
(or was it mischievous?) ending of Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of
Time, 'For then we should know the mind of God', is notoriously
misconstrued. It has led people to believe, mistakenly of course, that
Hawking is a religious man. The cell biologist Ursula Goodenough, in The
Sacred Depths of Nature, sounds more religious than Hawking or Einstein.
She loves churches, mosques and temples, and numerous passages in her
book fairly beg to be taken out of context and used as ammunition for
supernatural religion. She goes so far as to call herself a 'Religious
Naturalist'. Yet a careful reading of her book shows that she is really as
staunch an atheist as I am.
'Naturalist' is an ambiguous word. For me it conjures my
childhood hero, Hugh Lofting's Doctor Dolittle (who, by the way, had more
than a touch of the 'philosopher' naturalist of HMS Beagle about him). In the
eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, naturalist meant what it still means for
most of us today: a student of the natural world. Naturalists in this sense,
from Gilbert White on, have often been clergymen. Darwin himself was
destined for the Church as a young man, hoping that the leisurely life of a
country parson would enable him to pursue his passion for beetles. But
philosophers use 'naturalist' in a very different sense, as the opposite of
supernaturalist. Julian Baggini explains in Atheism: A Very Short Introduction
the meaning of an atheist's commitment to naturalism: 'What most atheists
do believe is that although there is only one kind of stuff in the universe and it
is physical, out of this stuff come minds, beauty, emotions, moral values – in
short the full gamut of phenomena that gives richness to human life.'
Human thoughts and emotions emerge from exceedingly complex
interconnections of physical entities within the brain. An atheist in this sense
of philosophical naturalist is somebody who believes there is nothing beyond
the natural, physical world, no supernatural creative intelligence lurking
behind the observable universe, no soul that outlasts the body and no
miracles – except in the sense of natural phenomena that we don't yet
understand. If there is something that appears to lie beyond the natural world
as it is now imperfectly understood, we hope eventually to understand it and
embrace it within the natural. As ever when we unweave a rainbow, it will not
become less wonderful.
Great scientists of our time who sound religious usually turn out
not to be so when you examine their beliefs more deeply. This is certainly
true of Einstein and Hawking. The present Astronomer Royal and President
of the Royal Society, Martin Rees, told me that he goes to church as
an 'unbelieving Anglican . . . out of loyalty to the tribe'. He has no theistic
beliefs, but shares the poetic naturalism that the cosmos provokes in the
other scientists I have mentioned. In the course of a recently televised
conversation, I challenged my friend the obstetrician Robert Winston, a
respected pillar of British Jewry, to admit that his Judaism was of exactly this
character and that he didn't really believe in anything supernatural. He came
close to admitting it but shied at the last fence (to be fair, he was supposed
to be interviewing me, not the other way around).3 When I pressed him, he
said he found that Judaism provided a good discipline to help him structure
his life and lead a good one. Perhaps it does; but that, of course, has not the
smallest bearing on the truth value of any of its supernatural claims. There
are many intellectual atheists who proudly call themselves Jews and observe
Jewish rites, perhaps out of loyalty to an ancient tradition or to murdered
relatives, but also because of a confused and confusing willingness to label
as 'religion' the pantheistic reverence which many of us share with its most
distinguished exponent, Albert Einstein. They may not believe but, to borrow
Dan Dennett's phrase, they 'believe in belief'.4
One of Einstein's most eagerly quoted remarks is 'Science
without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.' But Einstein also
said,
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie
which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God
and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in
me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the
structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
Does it seem that Einstein contradicted himself? That his words
can be cherry-picked for quotes to support both sides of an argument? No.
By 'religion' Einstein meant something entirely differe...
The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable
Amazon.com
Bestselling author Nassim Nicholas Taleb continues his exploration of randomness in his fascinating new book, The Black Swan, in which he examines the influence of highly improbable and unpredictable events that have massive impact. Engaging and enlightening, The Black Swan is a book that may change the way you think about the world, a book that Chris Anderson calls, "a delightful romp through history, economics, and the frailties of human nature." See Anderson's entire guest review below.
Guest Reviewer: Chris Anderson
Chris Anderson is editor-in-chief of Wired magazine and the author of The Long Tail: Why the Future of Business Is Selling Less of More.
Four hundred years ago, Francis Bacon warned that our minds are wired to deceive us. "Beware the fallacies into which undisciplined thinkers most easily fall--they are the real distorting prisms of human nature." Chief among them: "Assuming more order than exists in chaotic nature." Now consider the typical stock market report: "Today investors bid shares down out of concern over Iranian oil production." Sigh. We're still doing it.
Our brains are wired for narrative, not statistical uncertainty. And so we tell ourselves simple stories to explain complex thing we don't--and, most importantly, can't--know. The truth is that we have no idea why stock markets go up or down on any given day, and whatever reason we give is sure to be grossly simplified, if not flat out wrong.
Nassim Nicholas Taleb first made this argument in Fooled by Randomness, an engaging look at the history and reasons for our predilection for self-deception when it comes to statistics. Now, in The Black Swan: the Impact of the Highly Improbable, he focuses on that most dismal of sciences, predicting the future. Forecasting is not just at the heart of Wall Street, but it’s something each of us does every time we make an insurance payment or strap on a seat belt.
The problem, Nassim explains, is that we place too much weight on the odds that past events will repeat (diligently trying to follow the path of the "millionaire next door," when unrepeatable chance is a better explanation). Instead, the really important events are rare and unpredictable. He calls them Black Swans, which is a reference to a 17th century philosophical thought experiment. In Europe all anyone had ever seen were white swans; indeed, "all swans are white" had long been used as the standard example of a scientific truth. So what was the chance of seeing a black one? Impossible to calculate, or at least they were until 1697, when explorers found Cygnus atratus in Australia.
Nassim argues that most of the really big events in our world are rare and unpredictable, and thus trying to extract generalizable stories to explain them may be emotionally satisfying, but it's practically useless. September 11th is one such example, and stock market crashes are another. Or, as he puts it, "History does not crawl, it jumps." Our assumptions grow out of the bell-curve predictability of what he calls "Mediocristan," while our world is really shaped by the wild powerlaw swings of "Extremistan."
In full disclosure, I'm a long admirer of Taleb's work and a few of my comments on drafts found their way into the book. I, too, look at the world through the powerlaw lens, and I too find that it reveals how many of our assumptions are wrong. But Taleb takes this to a new level with a delightful romp through history, economics, and the frailties of human nature. --Chris Anderson
Waiter Rant: Thanks for the Tip--Confessions of a Cynical Waiter
Product Description
According to The Waiter, eighty percent of customers are nice people just looking for something to eat. The remaining twenty percent, however, are socially maladjusted psychopaths. Waiter Rant offers the server's unique point of view, replete with tales of customer stupidity, arrogant misbehavior, and unseen bits of human grace transpiring in the most unlikely places. Through outrageous stories, The Waiter reveals the secrets to getting good service, proper tipping etiquette, and how to keep him from spitting in your food. The Waiter also shares his ongoing struggle, at age thirty-eight, to figure out if he can finally leave the first job at which he's truly thrived.
The Revolution: A Manifesto
From Publishers Weekly
Congressman, Republican Presidential candidate and author Paul (A Foreign Policy of Freedom) says "Let the revolution begin" with this libertarian plea for a return to "the principles of our Founding Fathers: liberty, self-government, the Constitution, and a noninterventionist foreign policy." Specific examples demonstrate how far U.S. law has strayed from this path, particularly over the past century, as well as Paul's firm grasp of history and dedication to meaningful debate: "it is revolutionary to ask whether we need troops in 130 countries... whether the accumulation of more and more power in Washington has been good for us...to ask fundamental questions about privacy, police-state measures, taxation, social policy." Though he can rant, Paul is informative and impassioned, giving readers of any political bent food for thought. With harsh words for both Democrats and Republicans, and especially George W. Bush, Paul's no-nonsense text questions the "imperialist" foreign policy that's led to the war in Iraq ("one of the most ill considered, poorly planned, and... unnecessary military conflicts in American history"), the economic situation and rampant federalism treading on states' rights and identities ("The Founding Fathers did not intend for every American neighborhood to be exactly the same"). Though his policy suggestions can seem extreme, Paul's book gives new life to old debates.
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Review
"The real truth about Liberty. This book takes a wrecking ball to the political establishment. Senator Goldwater would have loved it -- it's The Conscience of a Conservative for the 21st century." (Barry M. Goldwater, Jr., former member of Congress )
Product Description
This Much Is True: You Have Been Lied To.
* The government is expanding.
* Taxes are increasing.
* More senseless wars are being planned.
* Inflation is ballooning.
* Our basic freedoms are disappearing.
The Founding Fathers didn't want any of this. In fact, they said so quite clearly in the Constitution of the United States of America. Unfortunately, that beautiful, ingenious, and revolutionary document is being ignored more and more in Washington. If we are to enjoy peace, freedom, and prosperity once again, we absolutely must return to the principles upon which America was founded. But finally, there is hope . . .
In THE REVOLUTION,Texas congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul has exposed the core truths behind everything threatening America, from the real reasons behind the collapse of the dollar and the looming financial crisis, to terrorism and the loss of our precious civil liberties. In this book, Ron Paul provides answers to questions that few even dare to ask.
Despite a media blackout, this septuagenarian physician-turned-congressman sparked a movement that has attracted a legion of young, dedicated, enthusiastic supporters . . . a phenomenon that has amazed veteran political observers and made more than one political rival envious. Candidates across America are already running as "Ron Paul Republicans."
"Dr. Paul cured my apathy," says a popular campaign sign. THE REVOLUTION may cure yours as well.
About the Author
Ron Paul, a ten-term congressman from Texas, is the leading advocate of freedom in our nation's capital. He has devoted his political career to the defense of individual liberty, sound money, and a non-interventionist foreign policy. Judge Andrew Napolitano calls him "the Thomas Jefferson of our day."
After serving as a flight surgeon in the U.S. Air Force in the 1960s, Dr. Paul moved to Texas to begin a civilian medical practice, delivering over four thousand babies in his career as an obstetrician. He served in Congress from 1976 to 1984, and again from 1996 to the present. He and Carol Paul, his wife of fifty-one years, have five children, eighteen grandchildren, and one great-grandchild.
Ron Paul, the New York Post once wrote, is a politician who "cannot be bought by special interests."
"There are few people in public life who, through thick and thin, rain or shine, stick to their principles," added a congressional colleague. "Ron Paul is one of those few."
Just Who Will You Be?: Big Question. Little Book. Answer Within.
From Publishers Weekly
This slender inspirational book is a candid self-portrait of a woman in transition. A longtime NBC anchorwoman, Shriver was thrown into a tailspin when asked to resign after her husband, Arnold Schwarzenegger, was elected governor of California; she writes, My career was gone, and with it went the person I'd been for twenty-five years. With a combination of self-deprecation and chutzpah, Shriver describes herself as the consummate overachiever, a people-pleasing, legacy-carrying, perfection-seeking Good Girl, now realizing that asking ourselves not just what we want to be but who we want to be is important at every stage in our lives, not just when we're starting out in the world. That's because, in a way, we're starting out fresh in the world every single day. Reprinted in full in this book is the speech Shriver made at her nephew's high school graduation—a humorous meditation on fame, achievement and self-worth—that inspired the writing of this book. Shriver's earnest self-inquiry and her humility and readiness to regard herself as a 50-year-old work-in-progress make for a charming and genuinely inspiring read. (May)
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Book Description
"Maria Shriver is wise, funny and caring--and it all comes through in her winning guide to life, JUST WHO WILL YOU BE? We're lucky to have her show us the way."
-- Tom Brokaw
"Maria teaches all of us in the graduate program of life to seek meaning through the joy of following your heart. Just the kind of advice a heart surgeon cherishes."
--Mehmet Oz, M.D.
"Everything Maria Shriver does is a testament to how deeply she respects and cares about people; all people, all over the world. She really does. She is as charming and funny as she is brilliant and profoundly humane."
--Anne Lamott
"Maria Shriver is real, vulnerable, humble, honest (just like her book) and not afraid to say so. A lovely book by a lovely person."
--Danielle Steel
"This honest, straight-talking, profound little book is worth a lifetime of reflection. It calls readers of all ages to think again-and differently-about who they've been in the past and who they want to be now. This book is a life-stopper, a truly universal piece. It's a must for everyone-of any age."
--Sister Joan Chittister
"Every graduate (of anything) ought to be given a copy of this book along with their diploma. There's wisdom, compassion and truth between these covers. For anyone -- at any age."
--Linda Ellerbee, Executive Producer, "Nick News"
"I've learned that asking ourselves not just what we want to be, but who we want to be is important at every stage of our lives, not just when we're starting out in the world. That's because in a way, we're starting out fresh in the world every single day."
Just Who Will You Be? is a candid, heartfelt, and inspirational book for seekers of all ages. Inspired by a speech she gave, Maria Shriver's message is that what you do in your life isn't what matters. It's who you are. It's an important lesson that will appeal to anyone of any age looking for a life of meaning.
In her own life, Shriver always walked straight down her own distinctive path, achieving her childhood goal of becoming "award-winning network newswoman Maria Shriver". But when her husband was elected California's Governor and she suddenly had to leave her job at NBC News, Maria was thrown for a loop. Right about then, her nephew asked her to speak at his high school graduation. She resisted, wondering how she could possibly give advice to kids, when she was feeling so lost herself. But in the end she relented and decided to dig down and dig deep, and the result is this little jewel.
Just Who Will You Be? reminds us that the answer to many of life's question lie within -- and that we're all works in progress. That means it's never too late to become the person you want to be.
Now the question for you is this: Just who will you be?
About the Author
Maria Shriver is the author of five bestselling books. She lives, breathes, and writes in California.
Russell, Idealism, and the Emergence of Analytic Philosophy (Clarendon Paperbacks) by Peter Hylton
Product Description
This book deals with a crucial period in the formation of twentieth-century analytic philosophy. It discusses the tradition of British Idealism, and the rejection of that tradition by Bertrand Russell and G. E. Moore at the beginning of this century. It goes on to examine the very influential work of Russell in the period up to the First World War, and addresses the question of what we can learn about the nature of analytic philosophy through a close examination of its origins.
Product Details
Amazon Sales Rank: #1067490 in Books
Published on: 1993-02-11
Number of items: 1
Binding: Paperback
440 pages
Editorial Reviews
Review
`this important and exciting work breaks completely new ground ... a masterly examination of Russell's work up to 1913 ... Hylton provides a superb account of how Russell's responses to the difficulties of Platonic Atomism have shaped so much of analytic philosophy ' Heythrop Journal
`It presents clearly and defends cogently a number of detailed, scholarly and sensitive readings of Russell's earlier philosophical works.' Times Literary Supplement
`the overall conception and achievement is extraordinary. Hylton's book provides an exemplary contribution of scholarship, lucidity, and imagination. He sets a new standard for all subsequent discussions of Russell's philosophy' Journal of Philosophy
`When such an author, who also writes as clearly and lays out his arguments as straightforwardly as Hylton does, ... it is something from which I can benefit.' History and Philosophy of Logic
'this important and exciting work breaks completely new ground ... a masterly examination of Russell's work up to 1913 ... Hylton provides a superb account of how Russell's responses to the difficulties of Platonic Atomism have shaped so much of analytic philosophy' James Bradley, The Memorial University of Newfoundland, The Heythrop Journal, April 1993, Volume 34, Number 2
`This is a wonderful example of an emerging genre ... Helpfully, Hylton's treatment is both sympathetic enough to help us see how Russell could have been attracted to idealism and critical enough to make the later reaction against if plausible ... Hylton ... wisely focuses on those aspects that are most helpful to the intended audience - philosophers ... In this Hylton is plainly doing philosophy, and the entrenched distinction between doing philosophy and reporting it as history breaks down. There are many ways to do philosophy and many ways to convey its history. Here is one way to do them both - and to do them both well.' The Philosophical Review
About the Author
Peter Hylton, Associate Professor of Philosophy, University of California, Santa Barbara.
Customer Reviews
A Quality Piece of Scholarship
Peter Hylton's book is very impressive. It was awarded the Franklin J. Matchette Prize by the american Philosophical Association in 1993, and deservedly so. It is, as indicated in the title, an account of the origins of what is known as the analytic tradition in philosophy, with particular focus on the early work of Bertrand Russell. What is remarkable about this work is the dedication to historical analysis. The analytic tradition is notoriously dismissive of the value of historical analysis in regard to the possibility of philosophical understanding. What Hylton is engaged in here is a historical analysis of the analytic tradition itself, in order to try and better understand its origins and development. The main focus of Hylton's analysis concerns Russell's previous advocacy of idealism, inherited from Kant and Hegel by British philosophers such as Green, Bradley and McTaggart. Hylton makes extensive discussion of the general themes of British idealism and then characterises Russell's support but subsequent rejection of this trend. The subject matter could be difficult and obscure, but Hylton handles the ground comfortably, rarely forsaking depth, and acknowledging when he does. The only drawback might be that one will benefit much more from the book if one has at least a passing familiarity with the work of Kant and Hegel as background. Ultimately this is an valuable work for anyone with a strong interest in philosophy, whether it be the historian of philosophy investigating the development of the analytic tradition from the idealist one, or the analytic philosopher wishing to learn more about the origins of his field.
Lectures on the History of Moral Philosophy by John Rawls
Product Description
The premier political philosopher of his day, John Rawls, in three decades of teaching at Harvard, has had a profound influence on the way philosophical ethics is approached and understood today. This book brings together the lectures that inspired a generation of students--and a regeneration of moral philosophy. It invites readers to learn from the most noted exemplars of modern moral philosophy with the inspired guidance of one of contemporary philosophy's most noteworthy practitioners and teachers.
Central to Rawls's approach is the idea that respectful attention to the great texts of our tradition can lead to a fruitful exchange of ideas across the centuries. In this spirit, his book engages thinkers such as Leibniz, Hume, Kant, and Hegel as they struggle in brilliant and instructive ways to define the role of a moral conception in human life. The lectures delineate four basic types of moral reasoning: perfectionism, utilitarianism, intuitionism, and--the ultimate focus of Rawls's course--Kantian constructivism. Comprising a superb course on the history of moral philosophy, they also afford unique insight into how John Rawls has transformed our view of this history.
(20001015)
Product Details
Amazon Sales Rank: #335595 in Books
Published on: 2000-11-15
Number of items: 1
Binding: Paperback
414 pages
Editorial Reviews
From Booklist
Rawls\\rquote philosophical approach has had an impact, not simply through his classic works like \}\{\A Theory of Justice\}\{ (1971) but also through the generations of Harvard students who wrestled with classic works of philosophy with his assistance from 1962 to 1991. This volume draws together the final version of Rawls\\rquote lecture notes on the history of modern moral philosophy; it offers probing discussions of Hume, Leibniz, Kant, and Hegel and of the four basic types of moral reasoning--perfectionism, utilitarianism, intuitionism, and Kantian constructivism. Readers could hardly find a more enlightening (if sometimes challenging) companion in exploring key historical approaches to life\\rquote s most fundamental moral and philosophical questions.\plain\f0\fs17 Mary Carroll
Copyright © American Library Association. All rights reserved
Review
Library Journal : Rawls is, of course, one of the major moral and political philosophers of the 20th-century. These essays center on Kant's moral philosophy as influenced by Hume's and Leibniz's and as it influenced Hegel. Throughout, Rawls tries to understand the distinctive questions each philosopher posed to himself and the specific answers he gave...Rawls's deep, tightly argued, and lucidly presented analyses warrant close attention by students on the subject.
--Robert Hoffman
Kirkus Reviews : Rawls's 'Kant Lectures' have enjoyed a cult status so great that it has propelled dog-eared copies of his notes across campuses and generations. After being guided by Rawls's able hand through the rigors of such texts as Kant's Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals and Hume's Treatise on Human Nature, readers will appreciate how Rawls's generosity, both to students and subject, earned these Harvard lectures a place in legend.
Booklist : This volume draws together the final version of Rawls' lecture notes on the history of modern moral philosophy. It offers probing discussions of Hume, Leibniz, Kant, and Hegel and of the four basic types of moral reasoning--perfectionism, utilitarianism, intuitionism, and Kantian constructivism. Readers could hardly find a more enlightening (if sometimes challenging) companion in exploring key historical approaches to life's most fundamental moral and philosophical questions.
--Mary Carroll
New Republic : What names would we want to place next to Wittgenstein and Heidegger? No thinker, I believe, has a greater right to stand alongside them than John Rawls. Rawls's A Theory of Justice, which appeared in 1971, changed forever the landscape of moral and political philosophy. Like Wittgenstein and Heidegger, Rawls has shown a remarkable capacity for self-criticism. Like them, he has gone on to revise in significant ways the doctrines that first established his fame...The publication of the Lectures on the History of Moral Philosophy is thus a major event, since here we find the conception of modern ethics as a whole, the understanding of its characteristic themes and problems, that has inspired Rawls's political thought.
--Charles Larmore
Review
Howard Raiffa created the field of negotiation analysis, and this book is a great development of his ideas. It pushes negotiation analysis to a higher level and should be required reading for all serious students and practitioners of negotiation and alternative dispute resolution. The book is brilliant. It will help to make the world a better place.
--Max Bazerman, author of Judgment in Managerial Decision Making
Customer Reviews
a fascinating collection of lectures
One can see why John Rawls rejuvenated interest in moral philosophy -- this book is not only a beautifully written, but also a well organized collection of lectures on moral philosophy. Yes, all the big names are here -- Kant, Hegel, Leibnitz & Hume -- entire sections devoted to each. Utilitarianism, constructivism, intuitionism and perfectionism are all studied carefully as the various moral philosophies produced by these thinkers.
A warning, though: don't leap into this book as a "Moral Philosophy for Dummies" kind of guide. Although you don't have to be a guru, you need to have already read a bit on the subject in order to savour the delights of this book. I myself am taking my first (very wobbly) steps into a field which attempts, as the cover of the book says, to "define the role of a moral conception in human life."
Language, Proof and Logic by Jon Barwise
Product Description
This textbook/software package covers first-order language in a method appropriate for first and second courses in logic. The unique on-line grading services instantly grades solutions to hundred of computer exercises. It is specially devised to be used by philosophy instructors in a way that is useful to undergraduates of philosophy, computer science, mathematics, and linguistics.
The book is a completely rewritten and much improved version of The Language of First-order Logic. Introductory material is presented in a more systematic and accessible fashion. Advanced chapters include proofs of soundness and completeness for propositional and predicate logic, as well as an accessible sketch of Godel's first incompleteness theorem. The book is appropriate for a wide range of courses, from first logic courses for undergraduates (philosophy, mathematics, and computer science) to a first graduate logic course.
The package includes four pieces of software:
Tarski's World 5.0, a new version of the popular program that teaches the basic first-order language and its semantics; Fitch, a natural deduction proof environment for giving and checking first-order proofs;
Boole, a program that facilitates the construction and checking of truth tables and related notions (tautology, tautological consequence, etc.);
Submit, a program that allows students to submit exercises done with the above programs to the Grade Grinder, the automatic grading service.
Grade reports are returned to the student and, if requested, to the student's instructor, eliminating the need for tedious checking of homework. All programs will be available on both Windows and Macintosh OS. Instructors do not need to use the programs themselves in order to be able to take advantage of their pedagogical value.
The price of a new text/software package includes one Registration ID, which must be used each time work is submitted to the grading service. Once activated, the Registration ID is not transferable.
Product Details
Amazon Sales Rank: #27719 in Books
Published on: 2002-04-01
Number of items: 1
Binding: Paperback
598 pages
Customer Reviews
This book sucks
I would just like to say that this book is the worst text book I've ever had to go through. Not necessarily the writers fault, it's the subject. It has absolutely no purpose and I actually feel dumber after having read/studied it. If you have any choice at all, do not take logic. Stay far far away from it.
Good service
The service was great and the time from purchase to reciept was fantastic. The only reason I did not give this a five (would really be more like a 4 3/4) is that the box was open at both ends with a note that if the box is opened then a return is not possible, which made me a little nervous. It all worked out, though, because the book and CD work great with no returns needed.
Superb coverage & pacing
I used this book in a distance learning course, so my experience was halfway between classroom and self-learning. There were moments when the instructor's very helpful remarks made a big difference by placing the immediate subject in a larger context or by giving me a hint for an especially tough proof. But the book itself is so well-paced that I'm convinced one can work one's way through it alone and get most of the benefit. The software is the key, because (if you get the latest edition and buy it new!) you have unlimited access to the Grade Grinder servers. No one need know how many typos or missteps you make in your proofs! Every problem can be solved, sooner or later, if you interact with the automatic grader. The writing style, level of editing, and succinctness of explanations are superb. I found the book plus its software quite a painless way to learn first-order logic.
The Great Philosophers From Socrates to Turing by Ray Monk
Product Description
The twelve essays in this volume are not only introductions to some of the most influential thinkers in human history but are also invitations for the reader to participate in a living debate. "What is justice?" "What is truth?" These questions, first posed by Socrates two and a half millennia ago, have lost none of their power to baffle. And while many philosophers have claimed to answer them, ultimately the questions return, compelling us once again.
The authors of these essays are distinguished philosophers in their own right. They engage with philosophical ideas rather than merely relaying them. By choosing a specific aspect of their subject's work, they liberate the great philosophers from textbook clichés--revealing them in all their freshness and originality.
Product Details
Amazon Sales Rank: #900472 in Books
Published on: 2000-07
Number of items: 1
Binding: Hardcover
416 pages
Editorial Reviews
Financial Times
"Rarley have intellectual sophistication and complexity come so cheap."
Times Higher Educational Supplement
"If you want to acquire some first-hand experience of philosophy and democracy, [you] would do well to read this welcome series."
About the Author
Ray Monk is a lecturer in Philosophy at Southampton University and the acclaimed biographer of Russell and Wittgenstein. Frederic Raphael has a Philosophy degree from Cambridge University, and is the author of numerous novels, screenplays, and translations. He is a specialist in the philosophy of the ancient world.
Customer Reviews
the best kind of introductory philosophy
i love ray monk's chapter on russell, showing in crisp, simple prose the increditably complex journey that russell took in moving from his 'class' conception on the foundations of math. to his eventual 'no-class' theory.
up to now, only expert, technical books have dealt with this subject. now an expert philosopher has explained it in a very exciting way to laymen, one of the best & exciting intro. essay to philosophy of math. and analytic philosophy. Definitely a text to consider for use in undergraduate intro. classes in analytic philosophy.
i like some of the other essays as well, while a few i have yet to read. strange though, that a book on the great philosophers would omit aristotle, kant & frege. but monk said publication deadline was to blame.
Pacifism as Pathology: Reflections on the Role of Armed Struggle in North America by Ward Churchill
Product Description
Argues that while the ideology of nonviolent political action promises that the harsh realities of state power can be transcended through good feelings and purity of purpose, it is in fact a counter-revolutionary movement that defends and reinforces the same status-quo it claims to oppose. Churchill debunks the claims of historical pacifist victories, and proposes ways to diminish much of the delusion, aroma of racism, and sense of privilege which mark the covert self-defeatism of mainstream dissident politics. An important intervention, intended to generate badly-needed debate about the issue in the progressive community.
Product Details
Amazon Sales Rank: #404792 in Books
Published on: 1998-01-01
Number of items: 1
Binding: Paperback
176 pages
Customer Reviews
Almost impossible to refute
I came to the conclusion that armed struggle was necessary before reading this, but I find it hard to imagine any pacifist reading this and not being convinced of Churchill's argument.
A Review of Churchill's, "Pacifism and Pathology"
Over the last few years, I have published articles about issues of US Imperialism and the social struggle movement. I came upon Ward Churchill's book "Pacifism and Pathology," as almost last minute. I had never read or taking seriously Ward Churchill's view, though I have affiliated myself as a member of the anarcho-syndicalist movement. But after reading his book, I realized my deep personnel connections with Dr. Churchill's frustrations and agony with the American social struggle movement. For some time, I affiliated myself with a social struggle movement in the University I am attending, and after almost a month I left. My reasons for leaving, where the same reasons Dr. Churchill explained in his book as the growing disorganization of these movements, and also the misunderstanding that state and private tyrannies; which have amassed great ideological confusion towards vast social and economic control, cannot be countered with the basic techniques used by the social struggle movement in the past. Indeed, Dr. Churchill warns the reader that there has been a tremendous misunderstanding with how non-violent resistance was actually used in the past. That it was a actually a mixture of both the practice of violence and non-violence, for which, if the use of non-violence was so much more tantamount, then the rewards of almost a decade and a half of resistance could not have been achieved.
Though I can connect with the social struggle movement on this university campus, it is deeply polarizing. Such polarization; I felt, was the reasons why on a number occasions they were unsuccessful in reaching out to others, and at the same time, form a coherent bases of action and influence on this campus i.e., they're not taking very seriously.
The tactics used by leaders of the social struggle movement in the United States, and even around the world, vary. I agree with Churchill on the realization that non-violent resistance can only work on a marginal basis. Indeed other countries, which implement vast terror and intimidation towards their own population, cannot rely on peaceful means to take down and tear the authoritarian political and economic system, without resorting to actual self-defense through violent means.
As the world witnesses the tearing apart of the Palestinians states, and perhaps even the fall of Palestine itself in the coming months, it is important to realize that the Palestinians; who have long tolerated state and military terror by Israel and the IDF, cannot be heard by the world through the same methodology used by American peace activists. It just does not work, and to do so, would mean the quick destruction of the Palestinian state.
But what I have to say, in a slight disagreement with Dr. Churchill, is that though the methodology of resistance to state and private terror has to change. The US cannot be won by the means of violence. Our cultural and political system is far more advance and ready for change, without the use of arm resistance and violence. Though in the media it may depict the sense of polarization and a deep divide, consensus by national polls indicate quite strikingly that the vast majority of the population is far to the left than the political and intellectual establishment wants to believe.
The means for political and social change in the US--for which, I agree with Churchill, cannot be won by the same tactics that inhibit a pathological tolerance towards the abuses that private and state systems implement on other populations and even their own. Even the possibility that these groups may be motivated for other reasons besides social change; political power, vanguard social party, all these are plausible reasons as to why Americans are stigmatized by the social struggle movement (as is the rise of the Bolshevik Party in the Russian Revolution and the Chinese Communist Party in China).
The goal of the intellectual is the most profound insight that Churchill explains. It has been a realization among many left-wing intellectuals, that the intellectual must be motivated as the tool maker and as the teacher, for which, he could impart the capacity for others to defend themselves and to act accordingly in such self-defense. His leadership is marginal at best, but his capacity to impart to others the lessons of the past and the understanding of the rich knowledge of the praxis of social change; starting with Hegel, then Marx, and many others, can be seen as the best weapon to revitalize the movement in the US. Also to realize the essential need to understand that other nations; other struggling groups, must partake their own way of defending themselves, and thus earn their capacity for a revolutionary change towards freedom and liberty.
Thank you!
Small but indispensable book
One of the previous reviewers sums it up very well: In this book, and pulling no punches, Churchill lays out his case against white progressives-to be precise the liberal/social democratic complacent legions of mostly well-educated midlle and upper middle class activists-who are delusional not only in the ineffectual tactics and strategies they pursue (which the ruling elites are only too happy to accommodate as per a well-scripted minuet), but in the belief that they are actually performing revolutionary acts...So, like it or not, Churchill is correct in pointing out that these liberals will do everything except assume actual risk in opposing the system..and that, being mostly interested in practicing "comfort zone" politics, they will almost invariably indulge in essentially worthless "cathartic" posturizing instead of solid opposition. By the way, the same writer is NOT correct in saying that nonviolence has achieved huge transformations. The Iranian revolution (1979) was far from a nonviolent process: the Shah had been opposed for decades by above ground and underground groups, several of which practiced armed struggle and paid a horrific price for it, while the last month of his rule saw masses of people in most Iranian cities, but especially Tehran, literally storming strong points and tanks in the streets with their bare chests and being mowed down...until more and more soldiers simply gave up and melted away or switched sides. As for the collapse of the USSR (1991), that came about as a result of complex processes that did not involve invested CLASS PRIVILEGES, as we have here and in other corporate-dominated nations. As for South Africa, the end of apartheid did not issue from a nonviolent process. Decades-long protests against the fascist legislation escalated until 1958 when the tragedy of Sharpeville occurred. Soon thereafter the government tried to suppress opposition through the sledgehammer approach of bannings and systematic "targeted repression". The first to be hit were the ANC and the PAC, but such bannings merely caused the organisations to go underground and become even more militant. The "armed struggle" therefore began in earnest in 1958 and by 1970 was beginning to affect the South African economy as greater and greater manpower was required to maintain an ever increasing army. Thus, Mandela's organization, the ANC had both a civil and a military arm, even if the latter developed after all roads to a peaceful elimination of Apartheid had proved futile, and long after the beneficiaries of the status quo had demonstrated through their unrelenting savagery that only armed struggle would move history forward. As for the much revered Arundhati Roy I do not think for a minute that she got it right in her speech in New York, where she argued "that there is no way to defeat the Empire by force and that its component parts must be isolated and paralyzed one by one." Sounds terrific and we only wish it were true, but Ms. Roy is also, like her liberal counterparts, utterly delusional. Furthermore, all the acclamation in the chi-chi salons and media precincts she's accustomed to will not change that simple fact. How does she propose to paralyze these component parts of the most heavily armed, cynical, and ruthless class privilege system in history without some form of REAL confrontation? With 2-hour candlelight vigils and some symbolic arrests which, by the way, may or may not be reported by the corporate-owned media? If THAT was all that was required to get rid of an immoral, deeply rooted capitalist system, a Nazi terror regime, a vicious landowning oligarchy as in Salvador, and so on, humanity would have moved past these filthy horrors decades if not centuries ago. As Churchill points out in his book, Nazi Germany was defeated by the massive application of force; the racist American South was similarly juridically defeated in the 1860s by massive military force, by organized all-out violence, (I say juridically because in practice it took 100 more years of struggle that saw innumerable crimes before African Americans could begin to take their rightful place among their fellow citizens)...There is not a single case in history where a deeply entrenched system of class or racial exploitation was overthrown by moral suasion and symbolic protests...If real change came about it was because force was being applied somewhere else alongside the nonviolent tracks...That's the point that Churchill is making in this book. It's a discomfiting point, but I'm afraid it is a true fact. Social change does not come cheap. Well, I could go on, but if you're a liberal I'm sure that facts will matter far less than attachment to convenient fantasies.