The question serves as the starting point for Hollander’s book “What is it about the human mind that made the intellectual defense of tyranny possible in the twentieth century?” He states that, “There is considerable evidence indicating that many well-known twentieth-century intellectuals admired dictators of various ideological persuasions, as well as the political system they represented. Such admiration, often merging into hero worship, was an integral part of a substantial body of political misjudgments” (Hollander 2). According to Hollander, this question is more important than ever because “we do not expect intellectuals to sympathize with dictators, let alone admire them”; rather, “we expect them to possess sound political and moral judgment”( Hollander 10). He takes us through a century of what he calls “political hero worship” on the part of intellectuals, starting with the admiration some European and American intellectuals expressed for Italian fascism and ending with contemporary intellectuals support for various current or recent tyrannical regimes, in order to shed some light on this question as well as to illuminate broader questions about politics and intellectuals.
Hollander starts off by listing the intellectuals who supported Mussolini’s fascist authority both inside and outside of Italy. While deteriorating objective conditions significantly contribute to the propensity of intellectuals in such circumstances to defend or admire tyranny, in the end, modern political hero worship is nurtured by dormant religious impulses that surface in the virtual elevation of the dictators here discussed, the author concludes this chapter by offering a solution to his central question, one that he had also raised in the book’s preface. Hollander focuses on Heidegger and others’ misgivings about modernity in the chapter that follows on Hitler’s Germany.
The communism of the twentieth century as it was practiced in Stalin’s Soviet Union, Mao’s China, Rakosi’s Hungary, and Pol Pot’s Cambodia is the topic of Hollander’s next chapter. According to Hollander, many intellectuals backed these regimes for similar reasons that led them to declare support for Mussolini’s Italy and Hitler’s Germany. Some of these motivations are primarily influenced by an individual’s psychology, such as religious or secular-religious impulses, self-importance, and awareness to what Hollander calls the hospitality techniques or desire for purity, while others are more ideological in nature, such as the rejection of decadent modernity or inhumane capitalism, or dissatisfaction with the various leadership philosophies present in democratic regimes. According to Hollander’s account, the benefits of dictatorship on the left and right are very comparable.
Hollander then transports us to a revolutionary Cuba from there. We continue the theme of the appeal of lofty ideas, which led captivated intellectuals to delay critiques of restrictive political institutions, from the earlier chapters on twentieth-century communism. The concept of hero worship, or even obsession, continues into this chapter and finds its peak in the heartfelt poem offered to Fidel Castro and Che Guevara by their numerous followers.
He also calls our attention to the support that a number of more or less modern authoritarian governments have received from intellectuals. With a few significant exceptions, the governments and leaders examined in this chapter span the ideological spectrum, therefore there are less ideological affinities between intellectuals and regimes than in previous chapters. Many of the intellectuals examined also shared a dislike of the United States, which, according to Hollander, may have led some of them, regardless of their ideological leanings, to discover respect for America’s rivals.
Hollander summarizes the causes that, in his opinion, led intellectuals to suspend the exercise of their critical faculties and embrace autocratic leaders and regimes in his last chapter. Hollander does not intend to reduce intellectuals’ political concerns to reflections of their personal or emotional lives, nor does he intend to converge the two; rather, I believe he is trying to make the point that in order to fully understand the phenomenon that is the subject of his research intellectuals’ support for oppressive regimes and leaders both political or ideological factors and emotional or psychological factors must be taken into account. Both come to our attention in this article.
The psychological force that draws some men to tyranny is the same psychological force that draws other men to philosophy, so that the philosophic life, as exemplified by Socrates, is the most noble because it is supremely self-aware of and resists its own tyrannical implications. Hollander understood that intellectuals would always be tempted to try to actualize their ideas, so this point bears further discussion. In Hollander’s description, the figure of the tyrant or dictator as teacher, gardener, artist, molder, and shaper of souls recurs frequently. Many of Hollander’s intellectuals share a conception of human nature, or rather the implicit denial that there was such a thing, and as a result, they had great faith in governments and figures who were committed to the fundamental and coercive transformation of societies and human beings, on the theory that people are flexible and easily adaptable. The oppressive government committed to such a revolutionary project claims to bridge the gap between political ideas and political action, to give the ideas life, and to give them substance. For the intellectual, such a system presents the tempting potential that all barriers to advancement may be removed, and that the ideal may now be realized since these barriers, which are so persistent in free society, may be removed. While intellectuals and tyrants alike may consider themselves to be engineers of souls, they’re flirtations with dictatorship more frequently result in the saturation of ideas with blood than in the transformation of ideas into reality. The regrets of the twentieth century should serve as a helpful caution for the twenty-first, Hollander’s book reminds us.
Month: October 2022
Categories
Blog Post #10 week of 10/28
After reading the sections of Peter Wood’s book on the 1619 project, it made me think about our conversations of truths in class and also on the other readings that we have done. Woods shares the same upholding the truth idealogy that Saad’s book does and questions things that just are simply not correct (or supported by no evidence). Something that I found interesting (maybe that relates to what we talked in the beginning of the semester on Culture of Critical Discourse) was that the Times published the project even though a lot of the theories that were posed were questionable since they did not line up with historical facts. What is more prominent is that even when confronted on the issue, the New York Times simply said it was up to someone’s own interpretation and that history it is all a matter of interpretation.
Another thing that bugged me was that even when the Times brought in a second opinion to check Hannah-Jones’s assertion, they still ran with it. If the first fact checker wants to bring in outside help and that outside help (Leslie M. harris) completely discredits it, saying its false, then why not change it? The whole situation actually makes me angry because this news platform is supposed to provide reliable information and not false statements. This then makes me question what is actually true and what is not.
Wood says that when the Times says its all a matter of interpretation is a postmodern claim. I like that he goes into detail about postmodernism and what its role is in the 1619 project. Postmodernism, how I understood it from the reading is that it favors people who are oppressed.
An overall question I have is: does this mean that Postmodernism, those ideas and skepticism that its producing is shaping the whole 1619 project/movement?
Categories
Week 10 Blog
The reading for this week was on 1620, a book written in response to the 1619 project published by the New York Times. As stated in the 1619 project, it is an attempt to reconstruct American history. It claims that, instead of the currently recognized founding year of the united states, 1619 should be the actual founding date, as that was when slavery was first brought on America. As we understand it, the 1619 project is not merely presenting an alternate view on history, but rather actually trying to persuade people that America was founded in 1619 with slavery being its core foundation.
However, from our analysis of the intellectual social class and the rise of wokeism, we see that the 1619 project is yet another example of wokeism. It fits into what we have learned and defined as wokeism. The reading – 1620 – points out its problems, and we learn more about why wokeism is problematic.
The most crucial problem is that the 1619 project is filled with historic errors. Aside from the oversight in the fact checking process and ignoring professional historian advice before publishing, the 1619 project cited little actual material historic evidence in presenting their argument.
The author responded about the factual flaws with “history has many and changing interpretations.” However, this is also precisely a huge part of the problem here, and about wokeism. History should be based on fact. But if you are just trying to present another interpretation of history, then it shouldn’t be published in the New York Times with the attempt to reconstruct American history and to persuade people that America was founded on slavery.
Furthermore, the 1619 project falls into the postmodernist framework, which denies the existence of definitive truth and asserts that truth is provisional. This approach is problematic because it allows for multiple interpretations and privileges certain perspectives over others. It also has a Marxist edge, seeking to liberate the oppressed.
Another issue with the 1619 project is its use of the term dehumanization. The term emerged in the 20th and 21st centuries in the context of the civil rights movement. However, in the case of slavery, slave owners were not attempting to dehumanize their slaves, but rather to extract labor from them. In fact, slave owners often tried to convert slaves to Christianity and understood that they were human beings, not property.
- It has many historical errors
- The author’s response:.
- Fact checker for 1619: historian opinions were ignored on incorrect historical facts.
- This theory was not published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, but rather in media with prominent publicity and influence.
- In 1619, slavery was not what we later know it as.
- Slaves could own properties
- Slaves have holidays and only work 5 and half days every week
- Slave owners often go to court to settle problems
- White and black Americans had often married each other
- Slaves could buy for their own freedom
- Once enslaved people had owned slaves themselves too
- Main claim
- In 1619, settlers arrived at North America and brough slaves with them.
- The current historic understanding on the founding of the United States is wrong.
- The 1619 project tries to change that.
Postmodernism
- How it pertains to intellectuals (reliance on fact and truth)
- On truth
- Truth is provisional; there is no definitive truth.
- There can be multiple interpretations. Some are more “privileged.”
- One interpretation can be used by those in power to oppress others.
- Has Marxist edge – to liberate the oppressed.
Dehumanization
- The term emerged in the 20-21th century, in the civil rights movements.
- Slave owners had incentives to extract labor from slaves
- Using the term dehumanization is incorrect.
- Slave owners tried to convert slaves to christians.
- Slave owners understood that slaves were people, rather than property
- We should recognize that the problem is about how people are understanding and recognizing status differences or hierarchy in people. It is even worse, that these slave owners knew perfectly well that slaves were people, but still had chose to treat them in brutal ways.
Problem
- New York Times is a really popular magazine, and its reader base will take its writings seriously.
Categories
Blog 10
After our discussion with Peter Wood on his book, 1620: A Critical Response to the 1619 Project, I was really able to see the parallels between that of the 1619 Project and the Communist Revolution and the Cultural Revolution of the 60’s. As we discussed in class, the main parallel goal between these movements is the fact that their followers believe there is something inherently wrong with our society and world and it needs to be altered in some way. Marx’s point that the lower class in a society is being oppressed by the upper class is being altered in a way to fit the narrative of the 1619 Project. They claim that our whole society and the polity of the United States was built on the basis of slavery. That the two boats that arrived in Virginia carrying ~30 slaves is the base starting point of America making our society incredibly racist and ridden with white supremacist language and ideas. However, Wood attempts to clarify and disprove much of the already false arguments that Nikole Hannah-Jones makes in her statement.
We touched on two topics that I thought were especially crucial to the argument and salience of the 1619 Project. One being the idea of post-modernism and its ability to spread false truths to the public. Post-modernism in itself is when facts are constructed by people to fit their own narrative. They often provide provisional answers to questions but are made up. The idea of post-modernism allows not just intellectuals but all people to be able to interpret “fact” and “truth” in whatever way they see fit. People that ascribe to this type of interpretation deny the existence of over-arching or undeniable truth in the universe. This can be quite detrimental to the way society functions. One person’s truth could be the ultimate truth to them but could be a complete falsehood to another and vice versa. How can there be trust of information or integrity within an intellectual community if all ideas are relative? Who does one believe in such a situation?
Another crucial topic discussed was the idea of dehumanization of slaves. Peter Wood began by stating that slaves were not dehumanized. Yes, slavery is immoral we can all agree but dehumanizing is something of a different nature. He writes that slaveowners knew their slaves were humans and they never pretended they were not. That they did awful things to them such as overworking and abusing them, I will not discount is unethical and wrong. However, Wood gave an example of the Soviet’s working their workers in the labor camps to near death and starving them as a similar phenomenon. The Soviet’s did understand they were humans and they never pretended they were not. There is a misuse of language here. One may think that in order to do such depraved things to other human beings they must acknowledge they are not human first, because how could they possibly do such evil things to another human being? Being property also does not preclude you from being human, it too is another depraved idea but is not dehumanizing. I thought these ideas were especially important for our discussion especially as it relates to intellectuals.
Categories
Week 10
As I am writing the book review on this novel I wanted to keep my personal opinion and beliefs out of the review and use the blog as a place to voice those opinions so the review can be a way to flesh out the ideas, concepts, and quality of the writing. In our talk with peter wood about his novel 1620 and the response to the 1619 project, I asked him a question about the use of the word dehumanization in relation to slavery. Wood brings up that dehumanization can only go so far. This is a concept that I am confused by because I have always thought of slavery in the united states as a complete dehumanization of black enslaved people mainly because of how history has taught the concept and how slavery has manifested itself in other forms later in history. Wood points out what he says are contradictions in the 1619 project but I was more confused by his analysis and pushback of the project. While I have no problem with the critical analysis of the text some of the language and rhetoric behind what Wood is saying I do have problems with. Something that I struggled to understand is when he states that our constitution and laws should be colorblind. That is a very harmful viewpoint when it comes to race. The historical context of being color blind plays into race-neutral language with helps perpetuate the idea that if everyone is equal in the eyes of the law then there will be no race-related issues. The problem with this narrative is that based on the history of our country. People have been sorted and judgments have been passed based on race so having a colorblind way of looking at society would actually do more harm than good. Wood says that the reason he thinks being colorblind would be the most beneficial is because “our society should strive for the common good, which is best achieved by treating one another as individuals, not as representatives of identity groups.” This way of thinking in my opinion is not possible because when one’s entire existence has been based on that they are inferior to others because they are black then it is impossible to ask black people not to be representatives of an identity group because in our society that has been the majority of their identity. Wood does state that the concept of race will not disappear anytime soon so he does acknowledge that his idea of being colorblind is not easily achievable just based on how our society is structured. I do commend him for not wanting to have race be fundamental in terms of how people are treated in society the only thing is the concept of equality versus equity. Because we have not always treated people the same we can not start that now because of the systemic issues that have risen.
A few questions that I would like to pose are: Does Wood see any benefits from the project or solely critiques? In what ways is postmodernism effective and harmful in the 1619 project, if at all?
Peter Wood mentioned this in tonight’s presentation and it’s in the book as well. Here are two other intellectuals talking about it.
Categories
Week 9 Blog
I completely agree with his stance on social deviance as I believe that there are too many people in the world who simply let the higher powers dictate how they live their lives. When saying this I am not saying to not follow rules and to be a rebel in society. All I am saying is that people need to realize that the intentions of the people who are quote on quote in charge are not always what they make it out to be. I know many people who are close to me that allow the higher powers to dictate their actions and trains of thought to the point where they don’t know how to think for themselves and come up with their own ideas. I also know many people who live life the way they want to without letting anything or anyone else dictate that. I personally identify myself with those types of people. That does not mean I am out here breaking rules and causing problems in society. All it means is that I don’t listen to someone or something that comes from the higher powers without thinking about it myself and forming an opinion and my next actions based on that. A good example of this that I can use is when the corona virus first started and everything went into lock down. Since I am from Canada the mandates were a lot more strict than they were in the U.S. In Canada “authorities” said that you cannot leave your house unless it is for a reason you must like getting food, water, etc. Me being a basketball player getting ready to go into my first season in college, could not just sit at home without training. Because of people I knew who had private gyms I was able to get access to a gym to continue training. When I would go training I would take precaution by only going with my dad and making sure no one else would be there at the sametime. It was completely safe but, it was considered against the law based on what the “authorities” were telling us to do. My point is that there are the people who don’t listen to what the “authorities” say word for word and continue living life without harming others, and then there’s the people who would have literally stayed in their house for many months in a row because that’s what they were told to do. I believe that you have to find a fine line between doing your own thing as a person as well as following the rules. I just could not imagine living a life where I do what I am told for my whole life because most people conform to the norms of society. If everyone did the same thing as everyone else we would live in a pretty boring world so it is important to have your own thoughts and opinions. A lot of intellectuals could be mistaken for being rebels and non-conformist when all they are doing is something that most people don’t do.
Categories
Week 9 blog part 1
After reading Gad Saad’s “Parasitc Mind” and following our class discussion with him I more further intrigued about his discussion of the pursuit of freedom and defense of the truth. I think that in order to truly pursue the truth that some social deviance is typically necessary. For instance, Gad Saad talks about growing up resisting confromtiy and being socially deivant from a young age. In his adut years he emphasizes how political correctness is a direct limitation of freedom of speech. In the pursuit of the truth, he argues that we should not modify our language of the truth. He also further goes on to claim that we don’t need to be politically correct in scientific research. While keeping this in mind he clarifies that we should not be unecsarily rude or disrepectful in our presentation of the truth.
Today in society he claims that our pursuit of the truth is limited by what he calls idea pathogens. They alter our ability to think rationally and accept evidence based thinking. So how can we form an immunity against idea pathogens? Saad brings up the concept of homeostasis of victimology. This refers to the a mechanism in the human mind and body that tries to achieve an equilibrium state. Through reaching this equilibrium we are able to approach scientific data without biases or emotional influence. I think that Saad would claim that it is especially difficult to achieve this equilibrium status in today’s society due to the polarization of politics and strong influence that the media has.
Categories
Guest Speaker – Gad Saad
I found the speaker to be extremely interesting. Through the discussion of his book, the Parasitic Mind, he brought up some points that confused me. Specifically, in relation to the class idea of the intellectual class. In his book, there were some sections that focused on applying his ideas of the parasitic mind to modern far-left ideals. He touched on these ideals during the discussion. One that stood out to me, was when he mentioned that he doesn’t believe social situations impact our society in the way that certain intellectual groups believe they do. He explained that believing this has to do with the parasitic mind, since people are not choosing to focus on biological science. He believes that biological science trumps social science in this sense. He gave another example explaining that, “He would not want his children to see a transgender person twerking on TV when they are young,” explaining that it is not because of homophobia, but just because he believes young children should not be exposed to that at a young age. This was something that was hard for me to understand, because I do not really understand how this has anything to do with the intellectual class or the parasitic mind that his book is about. To me, this seemed like more focusing on left ideals and how he believes they are infiltrating society and intellectuals. Especially since he used many more examples in his book such as focusing on the election of Donald Trump and how the intellectual class reacted, as well as Brett Kavanaugh being confirmed for the supreme court. He focused on the reactions of the intellectual class when discussing these national events, explaining that he believed they were uncalled for and further proved his point of the parasitic mind. When I asked about this and expressed my confusion on what he was trying to prove, he said that I had misinterpreted the chapter. This was confusing to me, because when giving many examples of leftist ideas existing and being taken to an extreme level because of the parasitic mind, it would only make sense that the author is trying to express that when discussing the parasitic mind he believes it is applied more heavily in leftist ideals.
Categories
Review of “The Parasitic Mind”
Chapter one of “The Parasitic Mind” outlines the upbringing of Gad Saad which shaped his intellect. He was born and raised in Lebonan and was the youngest of his sibling. He was raised in the jewish community but was the only child his parents did not send to a jewish school. In this way, his mind could be free from those religious ideas. The war started in 1975, and soon after that, Gad fled the country with his parents to Canada.
Gad’s life ideals are two things: freedom and the truth. As a young boy, Gad says that being dragged to a synagogue was confining his freedom because of the specific and strict religious ideals that needed to be practiced.
Gad eventually would find his freedom in his professional career in academics. In his work, he notes that he can research many different “intellectual landscapes (10), because he has the freedom to do so.” His other ideal, finding and defending the truth, goes hand in hand with freedom. He does not like people who think they are right but do not have the scientific knowledge to back up their statements (especially when that person is wrong). As he went through college, he quickly realized that school is filled with “truths and anti truths. (13)” He recognized that when people spoke up about things they firmly believed in, they would get reprimanded or punished, and those who kept quiet and stayed within their own field were rewarded. Gad says parasitic pathogens of the human mind are “Cerebral parasites that manipulate the horsts behaviors in different ways. (17)” One of the mind viruses that he talks about in other chapters is Ostrich Parasitic Syndrome (OPS). This virus is a way of disordered thinking that causes individuals to reject fundamental realities and truths. He believes that the West is moving away from its “commitment to reason, science and the values of the enlightenment(20).” Individuals do not want to speak up because they are afraid of being ostracized by their own political or social group. This idea of being ostracized or feeling like outcasts relates to french intellectuals since they felt the need to align themselves with the working class.
In chapter two, Gad coined the term epistemological dischotomania which comes from a desire to formulate a simplistic and workable view of the world that is susceptible to scientific testing. This is also where he says we need to stop putting things into binary forms and that this comes from our thinking and feeling systems. Decision-making processes are a part of everyday life, and cognitive and emotional aspects play a role in this process. By providing plenty of examples, he shows that emotions can cloud someone’s judgment when making important decisions. Therefore emotions should be separate from the cognitive process. Emotions are put before truth and Gad provides examples of this of people in the public spotlight who speak their mind about religion for example and then get called out for hate speech.
Gad says two things that guide people’s behaviors are deontological and consequentialist ethics (page 29). In summary, Gad emphasizes that the pursuit of truth must come from facts and emotions should not be involved at all. He emphasizes that people who post their opinions anonymously go against taking a stand and speaking their mind on truth in the first place since they cannot own up to the fact that they said it. This is in part due to the scrutiny that would probably follow if they said who they were.
Chapter 3 titled “Non-Negotiable Elements of Free and Modern Society” outlines the features that a truly liberal and modern society must have that make up Western Civilization. Freedom of speech is outlined in the US constitution yet not many people really understand its concept. Social media companies choose what they want to show and what to withhold which is not freedom of speech. This relates to the propaganda used during the soviet union or other communist societies such as China, Cuba and North Vietnam, which is discussed in Hollander’s “Themes” chapter. Similar to how Gad Saad says that social media platforms control which content to show or not to show is related to how those communist countries, more specifically Russia and China, only show good aspects of their society in the public spotlight. By only showing visitors and tourists of those countries a friendly and hospitable society, the viewers have no reason to have any opposing thoughts towards the countries. More comparisons can be made in the many rules that must be followed in these communist countries and the many rules that must be followed on social media. A form of punishment is administered if one speaks out against the authority figures in the society or goes against its ideals. This example is similar to when one speaks one’s mind on social media (Gad provides some good examples of this). Those individuals will be punished by getting dropped from the company, removed from the platform or any other form of reprimand that the company deems appropriate. Gad notes that “Ideological Stalinism is the daily reality on North American college campuses (p44)” which speaks to our class’s content, specifically on Stalin, Marxism and the soviet union. A similar pattern of individuals not wanting to speak out because they fear losing their jobs comes up in this chapter and the previous one.
“The Ideological Conformity of Diversity, Inclusion and Equity (p60) Gad ends chapter three with a quote from Ronald Reagan: “But freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. The only way they can inherit the freedom we have known is if we fight for it, protect it, defend it, and then hand it to them with the well-taught lessons of how they in their lifetime must do the same.” – Gad says we must renew our commitment to freedom of speech and fight against those who oppose them. This relates back to the black student movement and how one generation (the younger generation) decided it was time for change.
Gad Saad’s fourth chapter focuses on the idea pathogens of Postmodernism, social constructivism, radical feminism, and Transgender activism. Gad states that these specific idea pathogens are not based on scientific knowledge and provides examples for each. One example he gives is of parents raising their children to become what they want them to be (doctor, lawyer, prof.. etc.), which rejects biological science altogether. In the next section under this chapter, “Postmodernism: Intellectual Terrorism Masquerading as Faux-Profundity” explains how extremely complicated things are supposed to make sense. Gad Saad quotes Foucault, who admits to having faux-profundity, by saying that “In France, you gotta have ten percent incomprehensible, otherwise people won’t think it’s deep—they won’t think you’re a profound thinker. (75)” Gad also has other sections focusing on the two other idea pathogens of transgender activism and radical feminism.
The chapter titled, Campus Lunacy: The Rise of the Social Justice Warrior” outlines the ideas of victimization, oppression, and any ideas that would get shut down in a progressive liberal institutional setting because they are deemed to go against their set standards. Under these circumstances, and to not violate “the safe space,” universities only invite speakers who agree with what they preach. Similarly, Gad connects this to social media platforms, such as Twitter, monitoring people’s speech and language. Gad states that universities care more about minimizing hurt feelings that pursuing new knowledge and the truth. This chapter also talks explicitly about “the homeostasis of victimology,” referring to cases where individuals create false victimhood narratives because they attempt to maintain a certain level of stimulus while sometimes engaging in perceptual distortions.
Along with the faux-victimhood mentality, Gad came up with a term that combines the two Munchausen syndromes called Collective Munchausen (106). He provides some examples; one was what happened when Trump became president and how individuals reacted with fake victimhood status. Other examples of faux-outrage come from cultural appropriation such as specific food cuisines or Halloween costumes. These are just some of many examples provided in this chapter, showing that those who take on a fake victimhood stance can reap the benefits (i.e.: Elizabeth Warren).
As mentioned in previous chapters, Gad Saad continues to reiterate in chapter six that science is about the pursuit of the truth and should not be influenced by emotions or personal beliefs, and political affiliations. Gad talks about the soviet union and their quest for communism have completely falsified the truth regarding the science behind hereditary mechanisms. Ostrich Parasitic Syndrome is when the person affected by the disorder rejects realities that are basically clear as day (or as clear as the existence of gravity). People with this disorder “succumb to a broad range of cognitive biases to protect them from reality. (124)” Everything in the world is interconnected and because of this, problems can happen when people create “networks of faux-causality” to explain something like a phenomenon such as climate change.
Immigration was also a topic in chapter six that touches upon the challenges of having open border policies. Adding immigrants to westernized countries does not mean that they will simply adhere to those religious, cultural or political rules that democracy has presented. According to Gad, the policy of multiculturalism, saying that all cultures are equal is untrue. Closing borders to Muslim countries for some time would help alleviate the “cultural baggage” and “illiberal values” resulting from immigration. Gad also includes a section on Islam and why that religion turns those that practice it into violent people such as terrorists.
In “How to Seek the Truth: Nomological Networks of Cumulative Evidence” discusses how individuals in a free society should do their civic duty to become informed of important matters. In this way, the truth is of importance. However, some people stick to their opinion even if it is factually incorrect. Gad says that people need intellectual courage and critical thinking skills and use all of that to comb through information and sources. Truth has become important in Gad’s work, however even when he proves his statements in his talks, specifically on the intersection of evolutionary psychology and consumer behavior (with evidence) at a visiting university, the more established and older professors completely shot down his proposal. In comparison, the younger professors and doctoral students were open to his ideas. There is a connection between older vs younger generations similar to what happened in the black student movement.
Gad also spends a great deal talking about the Nomological Networks of Cumulative Evidence and applies it to children’s toy preferences based on sex which would then determine would toy the child will likely prefer. No matter the country that this research is completed on toy preferences for children of different sexes, the result is the same. Gad applies the same concepts to sex differences in human mating and for Islam. In the section titled “Infectious Memeplexes, Historical Data, and the Plight of Religious Minorities, Gad posses that in understanding infectious diseases would help one understand the “spread of ideas, beliefs, urban legends and other packet of transmissible information such as religion (157).” He compares the two religions, Judaism and Islam. He notes that the most important difference between the two is that Judaism dot not promote converting, while Islam does. Another thing that Islam promotes is the hatred of Jews. Here there is a loose connect with Tony Judt” s chapter “America has Gone Mad, where” Anti Americanism was associated in the French mind with antisemitism. America was seen as a culture that had opened itself up free for immigration, especially for the jewish immigrants coming to America. This also relates to one of Gad’s other chapters, where he talks about immigration and the ideas of closed versus open borders.
In his last chapter, Gad sums up his main points, saying that in this battle of ideas we need not stand back and let nonsense get spewed with no evidence. Arguing that we should speak up for ourselves if we disagree with something in an academic setting. Social media can be used to our advantage to express our ideas and it is okay to judge others and also religious and cultural practices. It is natural for humans to judge others; it makes us human.